Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2024-06-04DRAFT TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 6-4-24 APPROVED 7-9-24 via Hybrid 1 Board Members Present Janis Graham, Chairwoman Ben Curtis Mary Witman Mike Gill, (zoom) Board Members Absent Andrew Henry Henry Slater - Alternant Others Attending David Sprout, CEO & Zoning Officer Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (zoom) Applicants & Public Attending John Hill Cheryl & Prince Brotherton Tammy Aiken, (zoom) Summary of Transcript used for minutes Chairwoman Graham opens meeting at 6:00PM After determining that everyone present has read the legal notice, motions to waive the reading of the notice. Motion: B. Curtis Second: M. Witman 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 Tammy Bredt Aiken for an area variance at 3 Sunny Slope Terrace, Tax Parcel ID 57.-1-34.12. This parcel is in the Neighborhood Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits encroachment within the 50-foot front yard setback. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 4, 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. 2 Details on how to connect will be posted to one day prior to the hearing on 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. Application materials are available for review at the Office of the Dryden Town Clerk at Town Hall and on the Town’s website at www.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, any questions, or comments from the audience on this application. 0 Any questions or comments from the Board. 0 Graham, I move to close the public part of this hearing and the Board will now go over the questions. Motion: Graham Second: Curtis All in favor – Yes Curtis, I think this was advertised as requesting relief from the front yard setback requirement and 50 feet from the right of way line. I don’t think that’s the issue because I think that there's currently a non-conforming structure which is the footbridge. Which as far as I can tell extends to the front property line. We're not asking for greater front yard setback relief than they're already at 50 feet of relief. As far as I can tell, we’re looking to enlarge the area of the non- conforming structure. In doing that, I would recommend that 50 square feet be the amount of enlargement we permit. And that we could stipulate that the enlarged area not extend to within some distance of the front property line. Reducing what was there now, I would suggest that you could reduce it by maybe 11 feet. Graham, so to clarify, her plan was for a 40 square feet enlargement she’s going to come out 10 feet this way, 4 feet that way. The enlargement will be 22.3 feet from the front property line. Curtis, we might stipulate that the enlargement of the non-conformity would not extend any closer than 22 feet to the front property line. I would recommend saying that, leaving them a little leeway in case of saw slips. 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 change to the neighborhood would be virtually imperceptible and there would be no detriment to nearby properties. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Gill All in favor – Yes 3 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: Given how the house is sited and accessed via a bridge, there appears no other option feasible for the applicant to pursue. Motion made by: Witman Second: Graham All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The variance is not substantial in any meaningful sense of the term—it is 40 square feet and will be barely if at all noticeable. Motion made by: Witman Second: - Curtis 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 is hard to imagine how it will have any impact whatsoever. Motion made by: Gill Second: Curtis All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The difficulty was self-created only in that the applicant desires this change, but the variance sought is a reasonable request for which there is no alternative. Motion made by: Graham Second: Gill All in favor - Yes 4 Motion made by: Curtis to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action 6CRR-NY 617.5(C)(12) as per the Planning Department Second: Graham All in favor - Yes Decision on Variance: The ZBA grants a variance to enlarge a nonconforming structure called a footbridge with the conditions that 1) the enlargement does not exceed 50 square feet and 2) no part of the enlargement is to be closer to the front property line than 21 feet. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Graham All in favor Chairwoman Graham opens the hearing for 116 Ringwood Road After determining that everyone present has read the legal notice, motions to waive the reading of the notice. Motion: Graham Second: Witman 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 John Hill for an area variance at 116 Ringwood Road, Tax Parcel ID 46.-1-35. This parcel is in the Rural Agricultural zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits accessory structures in the front yard and encroachment within the 50-foot front yard setback. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday June 4, 2024 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 to one day prior to the hearing on 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. Application materials are available for review at the Office of the Dryden Town Clerk at Town Hall and on the Town’s website at www.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. 5 Graham, any questions, or comments from the audience on this application. 0 Any questions or comments from the Board. 0 Graham, I move to close the public part of this hearing and the Board will now go over the questions. Motion: Graham Second: Witman 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: There would be some increased visibility because the carport would be closer to the road, but due to the removal of some existing aging sheds, the overall visual impact will be positive. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Witman 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 might be possible to site the shed in another area, although the property has a challenging topography. But locating it elsewhere would place a burden on the applicant that would be disproportionate to the benefit. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Graham All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The variance is substantial but the fact that the applicant is planning on eliminating existing storage sheds offsets the addition of this new one. Motion made by: Gill Second: - Curtis All in favor – Yes 6 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: As noted previously, although the applicant is adding a large structure that will be visible from the front of the house, he is also removing unattractive existing structures, so that the net result is positive. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Gill All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The geographical limitations of the site are extraordinary—the acreage is split by a stream and wetland—so that the applicant has scant other options, and his solution seems reasonable. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Graham All in favor – Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action 6CRR-NY 617.5(C)(12) as per the Planning Department Second: Gill All in favor – Yes Decision on Variance: The variance is granted with the condition that no part of the above-grade structure is closer than 49 feet from the center of Ringwood Road. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Graham All in favor Graham to Sprout, no one is here for Caswell Rd. Sprout, no, the applicant, Miss Thompson, showed up at the office the other day saying that she was going to withdraw her application. I asked her to put something in writing and she has not done that as far as I know. So, you can either table the project again until next month or because you've already looked at it, I think even though nobody's here, you could take action and it would only be about the area variance. It wouldn't be about the subdivision. And to satisfy the question about SEQR and the Planning Board, you could condition it on the Planning Board making the final decision. 7 There was some discussion about whether Town Law required the applicant to be present in order for the Board to act. D. Sprout was not sure. Graham, this was very confusing. We reached out to the Planning Board and their review was a recommendation that we grant the variance with the provision that they share a curb cut and a shared driveway. But if she withdraws this application and she's not here. It is not clear we can act. We can leave the hearing open in case she wants to come back. We do not have minutes from the previous meeting to review tonight so we will approve minutes at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT J. Graham Motions to adjourn 6:35PM Second: Witman All in favor - Yes Respectfully submitted, Joy Foster Recording Secretary