No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2023-06-06TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals June 6, 2023 via Hybrid Approved 7-12-23 1 Board Members (*absent) Janis Graham, Chairwoman Ben Curtis Henry Slater Others Attending Ray Burger, Director of Planning Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (zoom) Applicants & Public Attending Dave and Mary Witman, Applicants Matt Haney, 30 Scenic Way Chris Cave, 18 Scout Lane, (zoom) The Public Hearing was opened at 6:10 PM, (late due to technical difficulties) by Chairwoman Graham. It is noted that the Legal Notice was published in the Ithaca Journal on May 6, 2023, as follows: NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Mary Witman for an area variance at 6 Scout Lane, Tax Parcel ID 46.-1-94.4. This parcel is in the Neighborhood Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in front yards and requires a 50 foot front yard setback. Applicant requests 26 foot of relief to allow an accessory structure to sit 24 feet from the road and in her front yard. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 6, 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 June 5 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 Mary and Dave Witman, Applicants at 6 Scout Lane – Area Variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard. Chairwoman Graham recognized the applicants who are seeking an Area Variance to construct an accessory structure in the front yard and request 26-feet of relief from the 50-foot required front yard setback. Neighborhood Residential Zoning District Law, “an Accessory Structure shall not be permitted in the front yard of a Principal Use”. The Board had a discussion on placing the structure behind or in the side yard. Appears to be other places to site the shed. Applicants state that the side yard slopes, so fill would be needed, and they may need to take a mature tree or 2 down, and that their well and waterline is there. The back yard is where the septic is and it’s wet and swampy. The board says this would be the only structure in the whole neighborhood that would be out of conformance if placed in the front yard. At the conclusion of the Board’s discussion, Chairwoman Graham asked if there was anyone who wished to speak regarding this variance request; there were, as follows: Matt Haney, neighbor, made brief statement in opposition of the proposed project, saying that in their Subdivision there are Restrictive Covenants on how sheds are to be placed. Doesn’t feel the need to set a precedent for accessory structures in the front yard. If there was a need due to hardship, he may have felt differently. Applicants have a letter with 3 neighbors’ signatures who have no objections to the placement of the shed in the front yard. Lindsey & Brad Girodo – 29 Scenic Way Brenda Tyler – 22 Scenic Way Elodie & Ken Smith – 10 Scout Lane With everyone being heard who wished to be heard, Chairwoman Graham moved to close the Public Hearing at 6:45 pm Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes Discussion/Decision At the request of Chairwoman Graham, the Board proceeded with the required questions for an Area Variance; the responses given by the ZBA members, were as follows. . 3 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: There would potentially be a detrimental change to the neighborhood given that there are no other accessory structures in the required front yard and this variance request, if granted, could create a precedent. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes 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: Yes - the benefits can be achieved by some other method: Given the size of the property, there are many alternatives to the siting of the structure that do not require an area variance and would not place a disproportionate burden on the applicant to do so. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes - the ZBA finds it is substantial, given that the request is relief from more than half the required setback. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: - Curtis - Yes All in favor – Yes 4 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: The physical or environmental impact would likely be inconsequential given the size of the shed (12 X16). Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes – the ZBA finds the difficulty was self-created: The applicants knew the rules and have options and flexibility to relocate that adhere to these rules. Motion made by: Graham - Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes Motion made by: Slater to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action 617.5©(12) & (16) Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes A motion was made by Curtis to deny the Area Variance to allow an accessory structure in the front yard and provide 26’ of relief from the required front yard setback, based on the above findings. Second: Slater – Yes All in favor – Yes Curtis moves to approve the minutes from April 11, 2023 Second: Graham – Yes All in favor – Yes ADJOURNMENT Graham Motion to adjourn 7:00 PM Second: Slater – Yes All in favor – Yes