No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2023-01-03TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals January 3, 2023 via Hybrid Approved 4-11-23 1 Members Present: Janis Graham (Chair), Henry Slater, Ben Curtis Absent: 0 Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning, Joy Foster (Zoom) Recording Secretary, Residents: Martin & Nanette Farkas, Amanda Heidel, Connor Landenberger, Mary Guy-Sell, Diane Gair, Margaret Hamberg, Clark Cgee Zoom: Susan Sell, Katherine Cgee Meeting called to order at 6:00 PM Chair Graham motions to waive the reading of the public notice: Second: Curtis All in favor - Yes NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Connor Landenberger and Amanda Heidel for an area variance at 318 Yellow Barn Road, Tax Parcel ID 51.-1-20.13. This parcel is in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden requires a 15-foot side yard setback. Applicant requests 5.5 foot of relief to allow a dwelling to sit 9.5 feet from the side lot line. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday January 3, 2023 at 6:00 pm at Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. You can either attend the hearing in person or remotely. To attend remotely you connect to the hearing via internet or telephone. Details on how to connect will be posted January 2 to the Town website at: dryden.ny.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: planning@dryden.ny.us Individuals requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. 2 Written letters are verbatim, as submitted. Applicants: Connor Landenberger and Amanda Heidel reads their letter: We would like to start by thanking the zoning board for taking the time to review our application and for letting us speak our case. As of October 28th we are the new owners of 318 Yellow Barn Rd. Through a building permit application to convert the barn into a single family home, It was brought to our attention that our barn was built 5.5 feet too close to our neighbors property line. This prompted our request for a variance to obtain the permit and continue with the renovation. We want tc:i acknowledge that the building we purchased, unbeknownst to us, is not compliant with the 15 ft side yard set back required by the town of Dryden. This is an issue we hope to resolve with the town, and with our neighbors, the Sell's, in a way that works for all parties involved. We found 318 Yellow Barn Rd. in July. We spoke with the seller Melissa Guyette weekly between then and October. At no point in the process of purchasing the property did the seller disclose to us that the barn was too close to the property line. Also, we had no knowledge of an additional survey map which showed that the building was too close to the line, something the seller was surely aware of. When we called the town and spoke to Dave Sprout, we asked if converting the barn into a house was a viable option and he said yes. We were not informed of the formal objections raised by the Sell's or of their concerns voiced to the town in regards to the location of the garage. It was our understanding that since the barn existed, and has a certificate of occupancy that it was a variable structure to renovate into a home, which is the only reason we went forward with the purchase. We understand the Sell's request that we try to build the house elsewhere on the property. Unfortunately, our budget does not allow for building from the ground up on raw land. The costs involved with building from the ground up coupled with the in-accessibility of construction loans made this a non-option for us. The only reason we bought 318 is the garage and our ability to turn it into a home ourselves. Enough of the work was done on this property and garage that we just had to make it livable, which we could do with our skills and budget. We want to work with the Sells to restore the feeling of privacy they value with such solutions as a foliage buffer. We have reached out multiple times to try to come to some sort of arrangement, but received no constructive response until first thing this morning. While we fully respect their objections, If we cannot get the permit, and then the certificate of occupancy, then we cannot refinance the land and the house as one mortgage and this will leave us in a very problematic place financially. We feel for the Sells. It was careless on the part of the last owners when they placed the garage where they did. Unfortunately, this mistake has already happened, and the permit for the building was closed. The garage is there and no matter what form it takes, a structure will probably always be there. It is our hope that the transformation of the barn into a home will inevitably increase the value of the Sell's property and our property by it becoming a residential home instead of a commercial landscaping business. As the project moves forward we are committed to working with our new neighbors to find a solution that works for all parties. We thank the board for your time and we appreciate the opportunity to be heard. Warmly, 3 Coner & Amanda Audience Comments: Neighbor Diane Gail at 308 Yellow Barn Rd, feels allowing this will affect the sale of her house and her sister’s house that also is next door. Felt it was built too close from the start but was told by the Code Officer it was ok. Says its loud and no buffer and she just doesn’t want it there. Feels will affect the pending sale of her home because new buyers have commented on the garage and its use. In the past there have been lots of trucks in and out and it was very noisy. On the phone, Susan Sell, she reads her letter: My name is Susan Sell (my husband and I live at 334 Yellow Barn Rd). We received a letter from The Town of Dryden, postmarked Dec 15, letting us know about a request for a variance at 318 Yellow Barn Rd (adjacent to our 334 Yellow Barn property) and the Jan 3 public hearing. The purpose of our email is to object to the request for the variance. My husband and I purchased our (new construction) single family residence at 334 Yellow Barn Road in early 2016; for the past seven years we have enjoyed our rural property and have created many good memories (with visiting grandchildren, family and friends). We hope to create many more happy memories in our remaining years. Our home is very private. Yellow Barn State Forest is directly across the street from our rural property; the closest homes are each over 500 feet away from our home. In the evening, when the trees are leafed out, we are greeted by a symphony of fireflies and the night sky. Our 334 Yellow Barn home is the perfect setting for our golden years. I am retiring this year (after serving 40+ years as an educator). My husband is already retired. We pay our taxes, and we buy our supplies in Dryden, shop at the local market, get our gas at the local station, support the Dryden restaurants, and frequent the Dryden public library. We have family living in the immediate area. We also live just a few miles from a school friend and her family - someone I have known for 50+ years (her coworker and the coworker’s large extended family live on Yellow Barn Rd.) (Our rural property is also ideal for an adult sister of mine with special needs. My husband and I have been her caregivers for 20 years.) In 2018, the undeveloped 10-acre lot adjacent to our property (318 Yellow Barn; Parcel ID 51-1- 20.13) was sold. In 2019, despite our objections, the Town of Dryden allowed the owner to construct a 12x36 metal garage along the access road (at our property line). (The garage was used by the owners to store landscaping equipment and the owners lived with their two small children in an RV, which they parked behind the garage. They had a well installed at the top of the 10-acre property and pumped the water down the access road to their RV. They did not install septic.) 4 After the stakes for the garage floor were laid and before the garage was built, we visited the Town of Dryden planning office in person and expressed concern that the future garage would be too close to our property line (we even paid for a new survey). Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in our attempts to prevent the construction of the garage next to our property line. The 318 Yellow Barn property sold again in 2022 and now we’re being asked to allow a variance for a garage conversion. We feel strongly that this will reduce the value of our property and will negatively impact our quality of life. It’s our understanding that a pre-existing, non-conforming lot variance from an old subdivision plan back in 1998 would allow a structure, provided there were 15 ft on either side and septic approval. Hence the request by the new owners for 5.5 foot of relief to allow a dwelling to sit 9.5 feet from our property line. We have empathy for the new owners, but we don’t feel that we should be placed in this unfair position. The 318 Yellow Barn parcel has over 10 acres and was part of an old subdivision plan. The water well was installed at the top of the 10-acre property where there is space to build and where the structure would remain in compliance with code. Thank you for letting us voice our concerns. Regards, Susan Sell Susan says homes are centered on their lots and not so close to a property line. Homes are on average 500’ apart. She has archived other variances from the Town of Dryden, and they all refer to placement, shielding by trees, visual impact. Margaret Hamberg at 300 Yellow Barn Rd. has spent a lot of time and money developing the property and loves the rustic feel of the area. She is selling her home as well and feels will devalue the sale of her home. Sorry they didn’t do research when purchasing but feels she shouldn’t have to suffer by this error. Clark Cgee at 360 Yellow Barn Rd, he disagrees with what these neighbors have said about decreasing property values, another nice home will increase values. This building is there and will stay there, it is what it is. He has lived there over 23 years and never had any issues. Let them build a nice home. Property values have increased a lot. Katherine Cgee on Zoom, lives at 360 Yellow Barn Rd, and agrees that what’s done is done, building has been there. She believes what new owners plan to do will enhance the property value. She understands what Susan said, it’s a nice area and they all love to come home after a busy day and chill. Making this garage a home would be much better than a busy garage. Looks like they plan to make it a nice home and wish them well. Board to the R. Burger, how did this building get placed where it is being too close to the property line. 5 R. Burger, application was made in 2019 for a pole barn and it did receive inspections for the foundation and the completed structure. When the Code inspected the foundation, it appeared to be 15’ from the line, we don’t have survey equipment. So, it was not until this, as-built survey in 2022 that it was discovered that it was only 9.5’ from the line. Susan Sell states that she paid for a survey in 2019 and before garage was built when the foundation was there went over and talked to owner and told them it was too close. I was told by Code Officer that placement was ok. R. Burger said he requested this survey but was never given this survey and believes what Susan paid for was a marking of the line. She never brought in a survey. Being that the structure was 200’ from the nearest survey monument it appeared to the CEO to be 15’ from the sideline. Graham motions to close the public part of the meeting 6:32 PM. The Board will answer the 5 questions. Second: Curtis All in favor - yes Board discussion • The board is reluctant to grant a variance to remedy something that clearly should not have been allowed in the first place. Applicants should have been made aware of this. Doesn’t feel the function of the Zoning Board is to go back and fix this. • The applicants should go back to attorneys and ask them to resolve the matter. • If the Board makes a ruling to deny, then the applicants must meet a very high threshold in order to have this reheard. • Suggests that applicants withdraw their application and try to come up with another remedy. • If applicants can create a situation where a variance is not needed, then they are good to go. They mentioned cutting 4.5 feet off building or moving building or buying 5 feet from neighbor, which could make their building compliant. Applicants have decided to withdraw their application. Open next hearing 6:45 PM Chair Graham after confirming that those in attendance had received the legal notice, motions to waive the reading of the public notice: 6 Second: Curtis All in favor – Yes NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Martin Farkas for an area variance at 183 Sheldon Road, Tax Parcel 40.-1-1.23. This parcel is in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in the front yard. Applicant requests a variance to place a 1400 sq ft garage in the front yard. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday January 3, 2023 at 6:15 pm at Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main Street, Dryden, NY 13053 at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. You can either attend the hearing in person or remotely. To attend remotely you connect to the hearing via internet or telephone. Details on how to connect will be posted January 2 to the Town website at: dryden.ny.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: planning@dryden.ny.us Individuals requiring assistance should contact the Town of Dryden at 607-844-8888 x 216 at least 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Applicant is present and has no additional comments. With no additional comments, letters or concerns, the Board will move forward. 6:47 PM Graham moves to close the public part of the hearing, and the Board will now answer the 5 questions. Second: Curtis All in favor – yes A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The ZBA finds that the proposed structure is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Its design and placement are consistent with other homes and accessory buildings in the immediate vicinity. Motion made by: Graham - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor – Yes 7 B. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER METHOD, FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN AN AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The structure, which the applicant describes as a pole barn, could be placed elsewhere, but its proposed location is optimal given its function as storage and its accessibility to the existing driveway. There would be no apparent benefit to the community from placing it on another site; requiring it to be placed elsewhere would put an undue burden on the applicant. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Graham- Yes All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The pole barn will not be placed in the required front yard and is a considerable distance from the ROW and adjacent neighbor’s homes. Thus, the ZBA does not find the variance requested to be substantial. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: - Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: It’s a small accessory building and its construction will not adversely impact the environment. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Graham- Yes All in favor – Yes 8 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The difficulty is self-created, but the proposed location of the structure is logical, thoughtful, takes advantage of existing driveway and requires little or no removal of trees. Motion made by: Graham- Yes Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEQR Type II per 617.5c12 Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes Decision to Grant variance: Ben moves to approve variance. Second: Graham All in favor - yes Congratulations variance granted. Graham Motion to adjourn 7:05 PM Second: Slater – Yes All in favor – Yes 9