Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-01 TOWN OF DRYDEN ^ Zoning Board of Appeals February 1, 2022 Zoom /Mins. Approved 4-28-22 Members Present via Zoom: Janis Graham (Chair),Ben Curtis,Henry Slater,Karl Kolesnikoff Absent: Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning. Joy Foster Recording Secretary,Applicants Corey Brown, and Tom McCarthy Audience: Colleen Cowan,Bruce Stark,Eric Liner,Ellen Phillips Meeting called to order at 6:07 PM 478 Thomas Road,Area Variance Applicant: Corey Brown Chair Graham reads the public notice: NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Corey Brown for a variance to allow construction of a barn within 34 feet of the road, at 478 Thomas Road, Tax Parcel ID 75.-1-16. The Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits structures within 50 feet of the road. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday February 1,2022,at 6:00 pm at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. This meeting will be held electronically via webinar instead of a public meeting open for the public to attend in person.Members of the public may join the Board meeting by connecting via internet or phone. See details posted January 31 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. Graham: asks applicant if they anything further to add about their variance? Applicant:Not much to add different from the paperwork that we submitted, only that the current dwelling where we live is closer to the road then the accessory building, we would like to build. The steep terrain limits where to build. We have excavated the flat area where we would like to build that �* was done so in the future, we can add an addition onto the house, and we needed to excavate to be able to access the property. Graham: asks the Board if they have any questions? 1 Slater:states this neighborhood is a unique neighborhood. Its like there was a side of a hill and someone decided to cut in a road across the middle and you either got to live above the road level or below the road level.All the houses in that immediate neighborhood are all out of conformance in one way or another and all the homes are a victim of where they are. With no more questions or comments from the board or the public Curtis 6:15 pm motion to close the public part of the hearing and as a board will answer the 5 questions. Second: Kolesnikoff All in favor—yes Board will now answer the 5 questions. 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: No, granting of this variance would be consistent with the neighbors and keeping with character of the neighborhood and with other setbacks to that road. Motion made by: Slater-Yes Second: 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: Yes, the benefits might be achieved by digging back into the steep bank behind the proposed site or house, but that could potentially have adverse environmental consequences,plus would place an undue burden on the applicant. Motion made by: Curtis-Yes Second: Graham -Yes All in favor—Yes 2 s"o - C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: It is right on the edge of being substantial, but this is immaterial given the issue of the steep bank mentioned, above. The topography of the property allows for very little latitude in the siting of the structure. 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: No, the environmental impact of alternative sites would be greater than that which is being proposed. Motion made by: Curtis-Yes Second: 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, but this is mitigated because the topography is beyond the control of the applicant. Motion made by: Curtis-Yes Second: Slater-Yes All in favor-Yes Motion made by: Curtis to.classify this as SEQR exempt type II action 6CRR-NY 617.5®(16) Second: Graham -Yes All in favor-Yes Decision to Grant Variance: Motion made by: Curtis to Grant this Variance as requested with no conditions. Second: Slater-Yes All in favor—Yes 3 Finished 6:26 PM Meeting continued to next case 6:27 PM Chair reads legal NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Thomas McCarthy for a variance to permit an accessory structure within 8 feet of the rear property line, at 20 Eagleshead Road,Tax Parcel ID 75.-1-43.39. The Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits structures within 25 feet of the rear lot line. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday February 1,2022 at 6:15 pm at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. This meeting will be held electronically via webinar instead of a public meeting open for the public to attend in person. Members of the public may join the Board meeting by connecting via internet or phone. See details posted January 31 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. Board discussion: • Board: With applications extensive building background, did you talk with the Building Dept. before building? Applicant:spoke with a friend retired from the Planning Board in Cayuga Heights and he felt the permit requirement for a structure is around 200'sq ft.As for the setback its between 8 and 11 feet. The property markers were there when I started laying out the strings and post and I made sure to be within the boundary markers. Eric the neighbor came over and said he wanted to check because it looked close. 2- 3 weeks later new flags appeared, I assumed Eric had it surveyed. I didn't know the true setbacks and that's an oversight on me. • Board: What is the height of the building? Applicant: Its 8ft. on the South side and it's a shed roof that goes up to H'2" Chair:Are there any comments from the audience? Colleen Cowan:I just want to put in a good word, I'm the Realtor for the applicant we are about to close on this property, and we just want to get this settled. Eric Liner: adjoining neighbor. There are some misremembering, as the property was never surveyed. Also, the structure is upon piers, so it sits higher than the 11-foot mentioned. He reads his statement that he mailed to the Planning Dept. ATTACH Erics Statement: 4 Feb 1, 2021 Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals, Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to submit a comment. We are the neighbors mentioned in the applicant's request. The structure abuts our property. It's worth noting that there are some false statements in the application.We were never approached to discuss and/or approve where the structure would be sited in respect to the boundary and therefore never agreed to its location. We only learned how close the unit was to the corner pin when we approached the applicant several days after he began clearing the site and started construction. We were concerned that he may have been removing trees from our property(which it turns out,he was). It was during that encounter that we asked him if he was aware of the location of the property boundary. He indicated he wasn't and during the conversation my wife stumbled upon the corner pin while searching the area. It was then that we began to develop suspicions that the structure was likely being built too close to the boundary. It's also not true that we elected to survey the property to satisfy his interest in building. We hired a surveyor to conduct an informal survey of the property boundary several years after the structure was built and put in use, and it only served to informally confirm our suspicions. All of that said,we weren't opposed in spirit to the applicant building what we were told then would be a"she-shed" or meditative space for the applicant's wife. However,had we had an informed perspective of the intended or applied use at that time,we probably would have felt differently-- specifically that the space would be used as a dwelling, an airbnb, a guest cottage,etc. The realities of having inhabitants (at times total strangers) at the back of the property establishes a different scenario from what we were led to believe and we are concerned about how that may negatively impact our property values and how we experience our backyard. Without getting into too many details or examples,these experiences include lights on at night, social events/gatherings,having an airbnb guest's car getting stuck in our side drive while attempting to access the cabin. So, at the end of the day, it's not the physical structure or it's distance to the boundary that concerns us,it's how it's been used and may continue to be used,and how that use impacts both our property values and how we experience our property. And if possible,we'd like to understand how a variance may impact the sale of our property or how it may be perceived by a future buyer if there is a common perspective on such things. Thank you for your time and consideration, Eric Liner 18 Eagleshead Road r-1-22 • Board: asks applicant about its use and could he explain? Applicant: the summer after we completed it, they thought let's experiment with the ideal to do a Air B&B to maybe make a little extra money. We had 7 guests that's all, we didn't like it, it wasn't working out and we could tell that Eric and his wife (neighbors) were upset about it and so we never did it again. Never rented it out, its closed 6 months out of the year. His sons did have a couple ofparties with some friends.After the 7 guests we never rented again so for 4 years it's been an accessory structure for just the family and a few friends. • Board: Would you continued with the Air B&B if it was successful? Applicant:No because it was getting very messy it's a wetland, swamp area, cabin is on a little rise. People were leaving it very messy. We had to truck in 22 truckloads in order to fill in swampy area to make a yard for kids to play on. Neighbor,Eric:states that he cant tell if its being used as a B&B but there have been people staying there. The structure itselfdoesn't bother us, it's how its being used that concerns us. Being its so close to us if it were a true shed it wouldn't have people living in it. We bought our house with no one living in the back, we have a pool and at night there are people living in back with lights that was not there when we purchased the home. Was not aware that this could happen. Board has discussion with Ray Burger to clarify the Air B&B/Short Term Rental Law. • Board: asks if there is electric and water and sewer in shed? Applicant: It has a composting toilet, (we mix with Peat Moss and use in our Landscaping. There is a 2- burner Coleman camp stove, and electric Iran an extension cord. There is a 12"washtub that's fed by a reservoir that I fill with the garden hose. Applicant:for the record I'd like to add that not once in 5 years has there been any complaints. This really baffles me because more than half of them didn't even realize the cabin existed. Its not even visible most of the year. Insert all letters from public... 5 Date: January 27, 2022 1 J: Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals From: Ellis Highlands Covenants Board Re: 20 Eagleshead Road, Tax Parcel ID 75.-1-43.39 Variance Request The request for a rear setback variance for the accessory structure at 20 Eagleshead Road was already reviewed earlier this month by the Ellis Highlands Covenants Board (EHCB). In anticipation of selling the property, the owner (who no longer lives in the neighborhood) requested a retroactive approval of the structure. Our neighborhood setback regulation (part of our neighborhood Covenant which is a legally binding part of the deeds for all house in the neighborhood) is more restrictive than the Town. We require fifty feet on the rear property line and twenty-five feet on the side. Based on our measurement of seven feet at the rear property line, EHCB declined to offer a retroactive approval. The structure was originally built without the knowledge of EHCB. Now that EHCB has seen the structure, we're also concerned that the size and outfitting of the structure suggests that it could be classified as an Accessory "'welling Unit, necessitating code compliance for electrical and wastewater services. For these isons, we urge that you do not grant the requested variance. Nelson Burdick, representing the Ellis Highlands Covenants Board 1 Deer Run Road, Ithaca Dear Zoning Board, I am writing in support of our request for a variance for the small structure on our property. Our neighborhood is a mile long,figure eight,cul-de-sac. Each home,of which there are roughly 40, is situated on an acre or more and largely surrounded by mature trees.Our property is one acre surrounded mainly by woods. Our backyard abuts a swamp and is sheltered on one side by a berm and further back by a swath of densely wooded acreage that is used occasionally for hunting.Tucked in the furthest corner of our property is a private, peaceful,wild,spot that I enjoyed escaping to.I loved sitting and listening to the peepers and bullfrogs,watching the cardinals and woodpeckers,spotting fox following coyote while feeling a million miles away. It was in this spot that Tom became inspired to build a small structure. It was a creative urge that he became passionate about,building by hand,slowly, meticulously and thoughtfully.Now there is a work of art that is a beautiful space to sit,reflect and be with nature.We looked forward to many years of enjoying it.Unfortunately,life has had other plans. In the years since its creation not one neighbour has indicated any opposition to the structure,if they even knew it was there at all.The usual response from friends and neighbors who have been to our house is,"A cabin?Where?"It can barely be seen in the winter and not at all the rest of the year,even from our large back deck which sits above and overlooking the yard,swamp and woods.It is not visible and that was the appeal. It was not built carelessly or with any intended disregard of the Town's requirements. When Tom and I purchased the property 22 years ago we were unaware of the neighborhood covenants and its committee and remained unaware for years.We could not have told you,until this interaction,who was actually on the committee,save for one individual.We didn't know if they met regularly,what they discussed or whether or not they engaged at all with the neighbourhood.The only known activity from them was last year in regard to a new building going up. it recently became necessary to sell our house,and in the process we learned that we were supposed to have sought approval for the cabin from our neighborhood committee.I reached out to the one person I knew who was on it to ask that he bring to the committee our request for a retroactive approval. (it was while meeting with him that he expressed his vexation with Tom having built the cabin without having come to the committee first.He shared that he was struggling with zoning issues on his own building project on our same street.Our having built the cabin without the committee's approval appeared to make him angry.) Fortunately,we learned that under applicable New York State law,the covenants for approval of this structure have lapsed and are no longer enforceable. In closing,I would ask that you consider the relevant facts when making your decision.The cabin is small, unobtrusive and well hidden,if not virtually invisible to neighbors or the public. It took three years to build . and was completed 5 years ago.In those 8 years there have been no complaints from anyone. It is aesthetically appealing.We regret not having followed the proper channels with the Town, but we did not intentionally do so.I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter and hope that you are able to grant what seems to be a simple request for the variance. Sincerely and Appreciatively, Ellie Biddle 1-31-22 Dryden Zoning Committee, I am writing to you today in regards to the request for a variance by Tom McCarthy and Ellie Biddle for the small structure they built on their property at 20 Eagleshead Road, Ithaca.As a 30 year resident of the same neighborhood, I would like to express my full support for their petition. I have no concerns over its existence,and to be honest am baffled that it has become an issue. It is a very small structure, well built,well maintained and nestled in the woods. It cannot be seen from the road,and most people in the neighborhood probably don't even know it exists. It is my understanding that Nelson Burdick was unaware of it until he was told it was there by Ellie and Tom.At this point it should be allowed to remain. It is a lovely addition to the property and does not detract from the neighborhood in any way. Thank you for your time. Elizabeth Wood 5 Woodland Road Ithaca, NY 14850 1-31-22 1 Dryden Zoning Committee: It has come to my attention that a house owned by Ellie Biddle and Torn McCarthy at 20 Eagleshead Rd failed to transfer ownership due to a but in the woods that was built on the property.The but was originally built small enough that no code was violated. My understanding is that the but is well-built and has been well-tended,but because of a minor extension is now subject to code. It cannot be seen from the road, and when the trees are in leaf, it can barely be seen from the back of their house. It was obviously built to enjoy the woods—with a focus of peace and quiet away from the road—and is apparently a SELLLING POINT for the potential buyers,i.e., IT ADDS VALUE TO THE PROPERTY. Now Nelson Burdick,our covenant"protector,who apparently never knew the but existed in the x years it has been on the property,is now fuming about the structure. Maybe he is just embarrassed that he did not know it existed.The covenant in our deeds was put there to prevent someone from abusing their property or turning it into a trailer park, not to prevent improvements in the standard of living. The problem is not with the Biddle/McCarthy property, but with Nelson Burdick,who marches around like McArthur.The neighborhood is not supposed to be in"his image." Of course, Burdick is building his own monstrous house in the neighborhood, but I got nothing in my mailbox or email informing me of it. He has the right to use his property,but so do Biddle/McCarthy,and a simple little but with a small (but apparently non-zoned deck)deck THAT YOU CANNOT SEE,is likely to be less of an eyesore than Burdick's new palace.Once again,the but appears to ADD value to the neighborhood This is relatively simple matter of common sense to me;something that our neighborhood "protector" has clearly lost. Prof.Peter T.Wolczanski Dept.Chemistry&Chemical Biology Baker Laboratory Cornell University Ithaca,NY 94R;R i[CD 1-31-22 From:Ellen Phillips Date:Tue, Feb 1,2022 at 11:07 AM Subject:Variance Request support To:<info@drvden-nv.org> Hello, I am writing to you in support of a Variance request submitted by Eleanor Biddle, 20 Eagles Head Rd. Ellis Highlands. I have lived in Ellis Highland for 20 years. I walk my dogs around the neighborhood. I did not know a structure existed at this address. Respectfully, Ellen Phillips Ellen Phillips Graham moves to close the public part of the hearing Second: Curtis-Yes All in favor—Yes Sense of the board: • Not visible from the road • Not easy to find • Feels like a treehouse • BUT it absolutely is visible to the neighbor(Erics)house Board has discussion on how to define this, how a building and a structure is defined. Does the addition of the porch change the requirements? Covered porch is included in the sq.footage of the footprint but not an open deck. This is an open deck, and this has triggered the ideal that we have exceeded the sq. footage of an accessory building. They discuss Town Law. The concerns addressed by the neighbors have nothing to do with the deck. So, if deck was not there the building would be in compliance. If a permit was requested in the first place this building could have been placed 1-foot from the property line. The adding of the deck didn't create the use issues. What would need to be done now to remedy this situation? Getting a building permit and a certificate of compliance? 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: �- Compliant use of the structure as sited does not cause any detriment. The fact that the structure is 8 feet from the property line is not detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Motion made by: Graham -Yes Second: 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: Yes, but the building was placed where it was best suited to be especially given the swampy basin- like topography of the backyard. Motion made by: Graham-Yes Second: Curtis-Yes All in favor—Yes 6 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: We keep facing the same issue at this hearing: We can't be sure whether the Area and Bulk Regulations require]-foot or 25 feet of clearance from the rear yard setback, since it is unclear if the addition of an uncovered deck to the structure add to its total square footage. But if the 25- foot requirement is generated by the construction of a deck it diminishes the substantiality of the area variance requested. Motion made by: Graham-Yes Second: -Kolesnikoff-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: All evidence suggests that the siting of the building was done with consideration of the existing environmental conditions. 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: The applicant didn't apply for a building permit as was required so clearly this difficulty was- self-created. Motion made by: Slater-Yes Second: Kolesnikoff-Yes All in favor-Yes Motion made by: Graham to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action 6CRR-NY 617.5(c)(16) based on the recommendation of the Planning Department. Second: Curtis-Yes All in favor-Yes 7 Decision to Grant Variance: Motion made by: Graham to Grant this Variance with 2 conditions 1. That all appropriate building permits and certificates of compliance/occupancy be applied for and granted. 2. That the building is not used for any commercial purposes. Second: Slater- Yes All in favor—Yes Graham Motions to adjourn 8:00 PM Second: Slater-Yes All in favor—Yes 8