No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2024-09-03TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 9-3-24 via Hybrid Approved 1 Board Members (*absent) Janis Graham, Chairwoman Ben Curtis Mary Witman (*) Andrew Henry (*) Mike Gill (Zoom) Henry Slater, (Alternate), activated for the hearing Others Attending Dave Sprout, Zoning Officer Gina Cassidy, Planner Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (Zoom) Applicants & Public Attending Bill & Carolyn Burkhard, (Applicants) Mahlon Perkins, (Neighbor) The Public Hearing was opened at 6:02PM, with the reading of the public notice by Chairwoman Graham. NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of William & Carolyn Burkhard for an area variance at 473 Lake Rd, Tax Parcel ID 49.-1-30.26. 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 September 3, 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 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. 2 The Board noted there were 2 different addresses listed 473 and 476, It was determined by the Zoning Officer that the address of Burkhard’s residence in question was not given an official address and was a clerical error. The parcel number is the main identifier. The address is 476 Lake Road. The applicants had nothing further to add and Chair J. Graham opened the hearing to the public for comments. Mahlon Perkins, neighbor across the road from the applicants. • Questioned how the front yard was measured, discussion with the Board and Zoning Officer on what a front yard is. • Mr. Perkins feels this is a Use Variance vs Area Variance, a discussion with the Board and the Zoning Officer determined this to be an Area Variance, because it is allowed use, with the problem being placement of the structure will be in the front yard. • Mr. Perkins said with these 12-acre deep lots people need to plan better so not to need to place structures in the front yard. J. Graham asked if there were any other response letters from residents. The Planning Dept. said there were none. With everyone being heard who wished to be heard, and no written comments J. Graham motioned to close the Public Hearing at 6:18pm Second: B. Curtis All in favor – Yes The Boards Discussion/Decision At the request of Chairwoman Graham, the Board answered 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 accessory structure would not have much impact on the character of the neighborhood, given its placement, which would be 500 feet back from the road. Of additional note is the fact that the structure will be more than twice the 200’ from the road required by the conservation easement in this subdivision’s covenants. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: J. Graham 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: Yes, there may be other places for the applicant to locate the accessory structure given the large size of the lot. However, the applicant has presented reasons why the chosen location is optimal. Among these reasons is the fact that other areas on the property are low lying and often very wet. The burden to the applicant relocating the structure would be disproportional to the benefits to the community. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Due to the structure’s distance from the road, its impact on the surrounding area would be minimal and therefore the request is considered not substantial. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: - J. Graham 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 accessory structure should not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood as its location avoids extending the driveway (it will be accessible via the existing driveway) and thus will minimize ground disturbance and the necessity for significant fill. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: M. Gill All in favor – Yes 4 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, the applicant could have chosen not to build or built in conformance with the code. But the building is 500 feet from the road and accessory structures are permitted in the district. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes Motion made by: B. Curtis to classify this as SEQR exempt type II action - 6 CRR- NY 617.5(c)(12), and also is 239 exempt from County Review, per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes A motion was made by B. Curtis to Grant the Area Variance as submitted with no conditions. Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes Congratulations, your variance is approved. Approve minutes from 8-6-24, B. Curtis made a change on page 11, eighth line up from the bottom, add in “even if”. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: M. Gill All in favor – Yes ADJOURNMENT J. Graham Motion to adjourn 6:40 PM Second: B. Curtis All in favor – Yes