Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2025-04-01TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 4-1-25 via Hybrid APPROVED 1 Board Members (*absent) Janis Graham, Chairwoman (*) Henry Slater (IP) Acting Chairperson Andrew Henry (IP) Mary Witman (IP) Mike Gill (Z) Others Attending Ray Burger, Director of Planning (IP) Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (Z) Applicants & Public Attending Medina Solak (Applicant) Hasan Lojic (Applicant) Caryl Funke Don Funke Matt Haney The Public Hearing was opened at 6:02PM We have one variance request item on our agenda this evening. It's an area variance that is a discrepancy in a physical requirement. After determining that all have read the legal notice, H. Slater moves to waive reading the notice of hearing. Motion made by: A. Henry 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 Hasan Lojic and Medina Solak for an area variance at 82 Brooklyn Road, Tax Parcel ID 28.-1-24.1. The requested variance is to allow a subdivision with a parcel to be created with only 245.93 feet of road frontage where 250 feet is required in Rural Residential districts by Town of Dryden Code. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday April 1, 2025, 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 2 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. H. Slater - What we're looking at here this evening is a request for the owners of 82 Brooklyn Road, a rural residential zoning district, to set aside the minimal requirement of 250 public road frontage street frontage which is a request for relief of Section 276.1 that is the bulk area requirements. And what we're what we're looking at here is a reduction from 250 feet of public road frontage to .9’3” so it's a reduction of 3 or 4 point of the 7’ feet that’s required. H. Slater – would the applicants like to in any way further support or amend their existing application? Matt Haney is the applicant’s agent with Carina Construction - This is a simple request, the Solaks, wants to build next to her parents and her father has a larger piece of land which is approximately 10 acres. And we're proposing a subdivision so that she could build next door with a single-family residence. Public comments – Is this just to build one house? H. Slater - Yes and I might add that the this is necessary in order for the division of that parent piece of property to go forward so that that additional home could be built on, the 7.3 2 acres. And that's why a variance is necessary, because they don't have enough road frontage to allow for the parent parcel to retain the necessary 250 feet of frontage. I would also point out that this further division of this property is not a subject that is before our authority here. We're simply considering the reduction of the road frontage. I believe the Dryden Town Planning Board has looked at this and made a recommendation at their March 20th meeting and if this goes forward with our approval, it would be known as a minor subdivision which would be actually with the recommendation from the planning board and our variance reviewed by the planning department share for a final approval. So, if there are no further comments from the public. I would like to ask if the Board has any questions. M. Witman – asks if the driveway that is there will that be the driveway they use? H. Slater - A recommendation from the Planning Board to reduce the potential for traffic hazards on Route 38, that the actual flag lot that is going to be created to address the second lot would, in fact, be on Route 38. So rather than have that to be a further traffic consideration. The Planning Board recommended that the existing driveway on Brooklyn Road be utilized to also access the back lot, and I assume that it will be through an easement that should be granted so that the properties ever change hands that access would still continue. We will be addressing that as a condition of approval if we choose to approve it later in the evening. 3 Mr. and Mrs. Funke look over the survey map while M. Haney shows them where the house and driveway will be. H. Slater – closes the public hearing 6:11pm, and the Board will deliberate the 5 questions and make their decision. 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: This is a neighborhood long created before the current 250 feet of frontage. Prior frontage of 125 feet. The reduced proposed frontage to 245.0 7 feet will be consistent with many, if not most, of the current nonconforming neighborhood frontages. Additionally, as the parent parcel and adjacent parcels are heavily wooded, it is highly unlikely that the diminished frontage would be noticed. Motion made by: M. Witman Second: A. Henry 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: Since each adjacent parcel is nonconforming at this time, they would require a variance to adjust the property to this parcel. So, in effect, there really is no other way to do it. Motion made by: A. Henry Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: The requested variance to the legal road frontage is small. We're looking at approximately 4 feet below the required 250 feet of road frontage that’s less than 2% of the requirement. It’s a minor area variance, certainly not substantial. Motion made by: A. Henry Second: - M. Witman All in favor – Yes 4 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 changes to the frontage are minor and I don't see where there would be any adverse effects, either physical or environmental. And there are no proposed changes to the parcel, the subject parcel. So, therefore it remains consistent with current physical and environmental conditions. Motion made by: M. Witman Second: H. Slater All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: There is no other way to accomplish this and other road frontages in the area are nonconforming. And as we discussed buying, .4 feet of frontage buying frontage from the other lots is not practical, because they're already nonconforming. So, yes, the difficulty was self- created. However, the lack of a practical alternative counts to offset the self-created difficulty and mitigation factor. Motion made by: A. Henry Second: H. Slater All in favor – Yes Motion made by: H. Slater, to classify this as Type II Action under State Environmental Quality Review 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(17) and also is 239 exempt from County Review, per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes A motion was made by M. Witman to Grant the Area Variance as requested with the condition that the access not be from the public road frontage, but from an easement on Brooklyn Road. Second: A. Henry All in favor – Yes Approval of minutes from 3-4-25 – Are there any edits or amendments to the minutes. H. Slater - Motion to approve the 3-4-25 minutes. Second: A. Henry All in favor – Yes 5 H. Slater – we have one more item to address. • The town of Dryden is in receipt of a site plan, review, special use permit, and an area variance application submitted by John Snyder, architect on behalf of Angie and William Chen, owners of Varna auto service for a 2,000 square foot addition/expansion and site work to the automotive repair garage at 933 Dryden Road tax map, in the Varma hamlet mixed use district. The existing parcel is .7 4 acres, or 32,234.4 square feet, and contains the existing 3,354 square foot, total repair shop and attached office building of 975 square feet. And an additional 975 square foot storage building, which was once the Varna Inn. And a 1,358 square foot, 2 story, 2 family dwelling. • The owners also own a plus or minus .47 acre, or 20,473.2 square foot parcel located directly across the road route 366 into the traditional district. So, it's a different district on the other side of the road and has been used as a gravel surface parking lot with a repair business. • Preliminary determination is that it is an unlisted action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act 6 NYCRR. Part 617 SEQR. In other words, it's not a type, one, not a type 2, it's not listed anywhere. So this is just an action that is, in addition to the type one or type 2. In an effort to coordinate review under SEQR. Your board or agency has been identified as having approval and authority. There would be a primary agency. And then anybody else that has any approval authority under the SEQR statutes is what's known as an involved agency. There's even actually a 3rd category, which is an interested agency, which is somebody who doesn't have any authority, approval, authority. But they might want to weigh in on the action, just like a recommendation or a criticism, combat or lack of support. Something like that. • Under the Dryden towns zoning law, these applications are received and decided by the driving town Planning Board. It is the intent of the Dryden town Planning Board to act as the lead agency in this review. There are some other things that go on beyond this, but I don't think it's necessary for us to consider that what the planning board is asking for is for our support and for them to be the lead agency in the environmental quality review aspect of this project. And then we only do this, as we did tonight consider the variance appeal on a lot size discrepancy. So, if somebody wants to assume that lead agency status, I think we should support that and just move forward as an involved agency in this and leave secret of the Planning Board. M. Gill Motion to approve the Planning Board to be lead agency. Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes ADJOURNMENT H. Slater Motion to adjourn 6:35 PM Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes