The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA 2024-01-02APPROVED 3-5-24 TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 1-2-24 via Hybrid 1 Board Members Janis Graham, Chairwoman Ben Curtis Mary Witman Mike Gill Others Attending Ray Burger, Director of Planning Dillon Shults, Planner Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (zoom) Applicants & Public Attending Matt Haney, Agent for Applicant at 444 Lake Road Mahlon Perkins Jodi Korich & Kevin Cummings Henry Slater Megan Depolo Anthony Sudnikovich 444 Lake Road Public Hearing Chair, Janis Graham opened the meeting at 6:00 PM, and after confirming that all in attendance have received or read the legal notice, reading the notice was waived. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: B. 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 Rohn Brown for an area variance at 444 Lake Rd Tax Parcel ID 49.-1-30.25. 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. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday January 2, 2024 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 by January 1 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. 2 444 Lake Rd, Tax Parcel 49.-1-30.25, 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, Rohn Brown, requests relief from the Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 to construct a 24-foot by 32-foot garage within the front yard area of a proposed single-family residence. The existing project site is undeveloped; the applicant is seeking relief prior to constructing the proposed garage and residence. The lot has a conservation easement located along the road frontage as identified in the application materials and the survey included in the prepared packet. As proposed, the garage will be located 280 feet from the highway line on Lake Rd and all front yard and side yard setbacks found in Chapter 270, Section 6.1 will be met. Matt Haney, agent for the applicant, takes questions from the Board. • Is the proposed garage entirely outside of the Conservation easement? YES • Is there another shed down closer to the road, it’s hard to tell which parcel the shed is on? Matt is not aware of any shed. Any comments from the audience: Mahlon Perkins at 477 Lake Road, stated “first I’m confused as to what this appeal is for, looking at the Zoning Law definitions, this is an Area Variance for Accessory Structure in the front yard.” There ensued a discussion with the Board and Planner Shults on these definitions. Perkins continued "there is no principal building so how is this an accessory structure. This lot is the second largest lot in the development with 8.3 acres; there is at least 500’ between the Conservation Easement setback on the front and the nearest pond. Seems applicant wants his view and wants the Zoning Law to bend so that we the neighbors must look at his garage. I believe that is a self-created hardship. There are a lot of buildable areas where the house and garage could be built and stay within the required setback. I would take issue with the applicant’s statement that this accessory structure would not be unusual or out of character for the neighborhood. I did a ride by along all of Lake Rd, W Lake Rds. and there is only 1 that has an accessory structure in the front and that is the old golf cart storage shed that was with this previous golf course parcel before it was subdivided, it’s been there for many many years and predates this Zoning Law. To place this garage/barn in the front is not consistent with what the neighborhood looks like. And to sum this up, you can’t have an accessory structure without a main building. I believe the house needs to be built first.” Perkins, Haney, and the Board looked at pictures for placement and location of the proposed garage. 3 Kevin Cummings and Jodi Korich from 418 Lake Road stated “these guidelines have been determined and put in place for a reason and to ask for an exemption would be because of a hardship of some kind. There appears to be plenty of areas to build. We built just down the road and had no problems with just following the guidelines. There needs to be a clear extenuating circumstance to justify why this is needed. We want to preserve the aesthetics of the home.” Megan Depolo from 457 Lake Road wanted to make sure the Conservation Easement is not violated and noted there was a past incident where this easement was overlooked and built in. And noted further that there is plenty of land to build, there should be no exemptions. Haney stated that the timeframe to build the house would be within 6 months of the garage on separate permits. The applicants are aware of the Conservation Easement location and there are no intentions to encroach on that. They are also aware of the concern for view-shed so the owner thought it would be better to split these 2 structures apart so there wasn’t one large mass. They are seeking the appeal for the garage to be North of the house and some distance apart. They could just build the project as one mass and be well within the boundaries and not need any variance. The Board discussed the Zoning Law with Shults, noting it is not an easy well written law. There ensued discussion of this law and the definitions where it can be understood several different ways. The Boards issues are Accessory Structure in the front yard without a principal structure. But then there is another definition that says a workshop/garage normally considered an accessory use that is permitted without a principal structure. Anthony Sudnikovich from 457 Lake Road wanted to know if this garage is a workshop garage or just a garage. Haney stated that it is a private garage, workshop for personal use, not in any way a commercial garage. With no further comments from the audience, Graham moved to close the public part of the hearing. J. Graham moved to close the Public Hearing at 6:30pm. Second: M. Witman All in favor: Yes Sense of the Board is that they are stuck on the definitions of the Zoning Law for an accessory building without a principal building and feel a second variance may be needed, one to place it in the front yard and another to build an accessory building without a principal use. It’s a technical issue that the Planning Department should determine. If it is not called an accessory building and instead a garage/workshop it is a permitted use, and he can do that without a variance The Board was split on that determination. The applicant wants to build the garage/workshop first to be able to store building supplies/equipment while building the house many builders do this. The Zoning Law is so poorly written, without a principal building the garage is clearly not an accessory building. The point has been raised, a technical point, and the Board is not sure how to get past that it’s not an accessory building. The problem is with the law. The applicants’ intent is to build the garage then build the house. The Board suggests that the applicant might put 4 together a site plan for the house and garage, apply for building permits for house and garage and come back here for a variance to build an accessory structure in the front yard. B. Curtis moves to table this variance until the next meeting and the Planning Department has resolved this issue with the applicant. 6:53 PM Second: M. Witman All in Favor: Yes Approval of 10-3-23 minutes J. Graham moves to approve. Second: B. Curtis M. Gill - Abstains All in favor - Yes Approval of 12-5-23 minutes M. Gill moves to approve. Second: M. Witman J. Graham - Abstains All in favor - Yes ADJOURNMENT J. Graham Motions to adjourn 6:56 PM Second: M. Gill All in favor - Yes Respectfully submitted, Joy Foster Recording Secretary