No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2023-10-03TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 10-3-23 via Hybrid Approved 1-2-24 Board Members (*absent) Janis Graham, Chairwoman Ben Curtis Henry Slater Mary Witman Others Attending Ray Burger, Director of Planning Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (zoom) Applicants & Public Attending Cynthia Rich & Joseph Redder, Applicants Justine Vanden Heuvel with her 2 children Toby & Katie, Applicants Dan Hazlitt, Applicant (zoom) The Public Hearing was opened at 6:04 PM, by Chairwoman Graham and the legal notice read. NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Daniel Hazlitt for an area variance at 311 Ellis Hollow Creek Rd Tax Parcel ID 66.-1-25.1. 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 area. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav October 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 October 2 to the Town website at: drvden.nv.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: plannina(cDdrvden.nv.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. 311 Ellis Hollow Creek Rd, Tax Parcel 66.4-25.1, Rural Residential Zoning District Relevant Code Town of Dryden Code Section 270-3.2 (Zoning Definitions — Use, Accessory) states- "Unless otherwise permitted in this Law, an Accessory Structure shall not be permitted in the front yard of a Principal Use." That prohibition is further demonstrated in Section 270-6.1 Area and Bulk Table, which does not specifically provide front yard setbacks for accessory structures. Summary The applicant, Daniel Hazlitt, requests relief from Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 to construct a 40-foot by 42-foot pole barn in the front yard area of the single-family residence. As proposed, the pole barn will be primarily located in the side yard area to the east of the residence, however a portion of the pole barn will extend into the front yard area by 2 feet. The area of proposed construction contains an existing portable garage canopy and is thus mostly cleared of tree and shrub vegetation and requires minimal site work to level the area. The portable garage will be removed, and the proposed pole barn will be built in the same area. The proposed pole barn is larger than the existing garage canopy and will thus extend outside the footprint of the garage canopy and into the front yard area. The pole barn will be located more than 350 feet from the road right of way and will be obscured by existing vegetation. Department Staff visited the site on 8/31/2023 to assess the proposed building area and yard setbacks. As proposed, all yard area setbacks found in Chapter 270, Section 6.1 will be met. SEAR, County review, Ag & Markets The construction, expansion, or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density are Type II exempt actions (SEAR - 617.5c12) This action is not subject to Regional GML-239 review pursuant to Inter -governmental Agreement Section II. E. Area variances are not subject to Article 25-AA of the Agriculture & Markets Law Department Comments/Recommendations It is impractical to construct the pole barn much further back from the road as that area contains a drainage swale and undeveloped ground which would result in avoidable soil disturbance and regrading. The proposed location of the pole barn is also connected to the existing driveway and thus provides car access and safe walking access as the pole barn can be reached by crossing the existing driveway. The visual impact of the pole barn is expected to be minimal given the distance between the proposed pole barn and Ellis Hollow Creek Road as well as the existing vegetation that will obscure the view of the pole barn from Ellis Hollow Creek Road. The Chair asks the applicant if he has anything further to add to his application. And asks for the sense of the Board. There are no further questions or comments. With that Chairwoman Graham moved to close the Public Hearing Second: M. Witman- 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. 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 the structure will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood given that it will not be visible (or barely visible possibly in winter) from the road or from neighboring property. The structure would be bigger than the existing temporary one currently in place at present, but will be better looking. Motion made by: J. Graham - Yes Second: B. Curtis - 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: It's feasible that the benefits could be achieved by some other method, but the burden of relocating the structure to another site on the property would far exceed the benefits to the community. The proposed structure takes advantage of an existing cleared area, is accessible via an existing driveway and is well -shielded from view. Motion made by: B. Curtis - Yes Second: J. Graham- Yes All in favor — Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Whether the variance is substantial or not is immaterial in that it is either in the front yard or it's not. However, it is insubstantial in impact. Although it is in front of the existing house, it is not in the required front yard, being over 300 feet away from the highway line. Motion made by: H. Slater - Yes Second: - M. Witman - 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: The ZBA finds that the proposed variance will have a negligible effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the district, given that the structure will be located on an extension of an existing cleared site and pad. Motion made by: H. Slater- Yes Second: J. Graham- Yes All in favor — Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, it was self-created, but the proposed structure's placement on the property is optimal, given the existing conditions and topographical limitations of the site. Motion made by: J. Graham - Yes Second: M. Witman - Yes All in favor — Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this as SEOR exempt tvne 11 action - 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(12). per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: J. Graham - Yes All in favor — Yes A motion was made by J. Graham to Grant the Area Variance as submitted with no conditions. Second: B. Curtis — Yes All in favor — Yes Congratulations your variance is approved. The Public Hearing was opened at 6:20 PM, by Chairwoman Graham and the legal notice read. NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Cynthia Pike Rich for an area variance at 594 Ringwood Rd Tax Parcel ID 59.-1-4. This parcel is in the Conservation zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in the front yard area and requires a 50-foot front yard setback. Applicant requests 10.5 feet of relief to allow an accessory structure to sit 39.5 feet from the road and in her front yard. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav October 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 October 2 to the Town website at: drvden.nv.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: plannina(@drvden.nv.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. After discussion with the Board, the applicants amended their variance request to remove the requested relief from the required 50' front yard setback since the proposed structure is located outside of the required front yard setback. The variance request will simply be to allow an accessory structure in the front yard. 594 Ringwood Rd, Tax Parcel 59.4-4, Conservation Zoning District Relevant Code Town of Dryden Code Section 270-3.2 (Zoning Definitions — Use, Accessory) states- "Unless otherwise permitted in this Law, an Accessory Structure shall not be permitted in the front yard of a Principal Use." That prohibition is further demonstrated in Section 270-6.1 Area and Bulk Table, which does not specifically provide front yard setbacks for accessory structures. Summary The applicant, Cynthia Pike Rich, requests relief from Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 to install a two-story 24-foot by 28-foot prebuilt gable style garage in the front yard area and requests 10.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot front yard setback. The area of the proposed garage is located on mostly level lawn area. Along the road frontage of the residence is an existing fence and vegetation (a few trees and shrubs). Department Staff visited the site on 9/1/2023 to assess the proposed building area and yard setbacks. As proposed, all rear yard and side yard area setbacks found in Chapter 270, Section 6.1 will be met. SEQR, County review, Ag & Markets • The construction, expansion, or placement of minor accessory/appurtenant residential structures, including garages, carports, patios, decks, swimming pools, tennis courts, satellite dishes, fences, barns, storage sheds or other buildings not changing land use or density are Type II exempt actions (SEQR - 617.5c12) • This action is subject to Regional GML-239 review as the project site abuts a County roadway and therefore does not meet the criteria of Inter -governmental Agreement Section II. E. In their review comments, dated September 14, 2023, the County determined that the proposed project will have no significant county -wide or inter -community impact. • Area variances are not subject to Article 25-AA of the Agriculture & Markets Law Department Comments/Recommendations The applicant proposes to place the garage in the front yard area as it is nearly level and cleared of vegetation whereas other areas at the project site are undeveloped and steep (see attached map). Therefore, by installing the garage in the front yard area, the amount of vegetation removal and soil disturbance required to prepare the site and install the garage is minimized. The proposed location of the garage is also in close proximity to the existing driveway and thus provides car access and safe walking access as the garage can be reached by crossing the existing driveway and developed lawn area. The visual impact of the proposed garage will be obscured by the existing fence and vegetation along the road frontage. The Chair asks the applicant if she has anything further to add to her application. And asks for the sense of the Board. There are no further questions or comments. With that Chairwoman J. Graham moved to close the Public Hearing Second: B. Curtis - Yes All in favor — Yes ADD 239 NEXT 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. 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 very much in keeping with the character of nearby homes. It is very common for accessory buildings on Ringwood Road to be in the front yard, due to the topography of the area. Motion made by: B. Curtis - Yes Second: J. Graham - 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: It may be feasible, but placement of the structure in conformance with zoning regulations would require substantial alternation of terrain features at what would probably be considerable cost to the applicant, disproportionate to any benefit to the community. Motion made by: H. Slater - Yes Second: B. Curtis - Yes All in favor — Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Whether the variance is substantial or not is immaterial in that it is either in the front yard or it's not. However, it is insubstantial in impact. Although it is in front of the existing house, it is not in the required front yard in that it is over 50 feet from the highway line. Motion made by: B. Curtis - Yes Second: - J. Graham - 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: Its visual impact will be positive and consistent with the neighborhood. Motion made by: H. Slater - Yes Second: B. Curtis - Yes All in favor — Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, but the applicant is dealing with constraints inherent in the topography of the lot, plus the shed will be an improvement on the existing temporary structure currently used as a car port. Motion made by: H. Slater - Yes Second: J. Graham - Yes All in favor — Yes Motion made by: B. Curtis to classify this as SEOR exempt tvpe II action 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(12). per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: H. Slater- Yes All in favor — Yes A motion was made by J. Graham to approve the Area Variance as amended to allow an accessory structure in the front yard, with one condition. • The condition that no part of the proposed structure will project into the required front yard of the principal building. Second: B. Curtis— Yes All in favor — Yes Congratulations your variance is approved. J. Graham moves to approve the minutes from July 12, 2023 Second: H. Slater — Yes All in favor — Yes ADJOURNMENT J. Graham Motions to adjourn 6:50 PM Second: M. Witman — Yes All in favor — Yes 1 ()