Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2025-05-06TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 5-6-25 via Hybrid Approved 6-3-25 1 Board Members (*absent) (IP-in person) (Z-Zoom) Janis Graham, Chairwoman (IP) Andrew Henry (IP) Mary Witman (IP) Mike Gill (Z) Henry Slater, (Alternate), (IP) Others Attending Ray Burger, Director of Planning (IP) Gina Cassidy, Planner (IP) Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (Z) Applicants & Public Attending Angie & William Chen (Applicants for 933 Dryden Rd.) (Z) John Snyder (Architect for Chen’s) (IP) Amy & William Hathaway (Applicants for 123 Upper Creek) (IP) Sarah Marchm (IP) Christopher Lowe (IP) The Public Hearing was opened at 6:05PM After determining that all have read the legal notice, J. Graham moves to waive reading the notice of hearing. Motion made by: J. Graham 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 William Hathaway for an area variance at 123 Upper Creek Road, Tax Parcel ID 40.-1-42 The requested variance is to allow an addition to the single-family residence that would have a 24-foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required in Rural Residential districts by Town of Dryden Code. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday May 6, 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 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. Applicants – Amy & William Hathaway, have additional materials for the Board, elevation sketches from their Architect, shared with the Board. They discussed which trees they will remove. With no further comments or discussion from the audience or the Board. J. Graham motions to close the public part of the hearing and move forward with the Board answering the 5 questions. Second: H. Slater 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: No. The proposed project for the expansion of an existing single-family home is an allowed use within the RR district. These RR districts are typically comprised of older homes and lots that do not meet current rules for setbacks. The proposal appears to be consistent with the conditions of the nearby neighborhood and general community. The home’s expansion and improvements, which are architecturally sensitive to its original style, may in fact represent a desirable change in the neighborhood. Additionally, it should be noted that the owners of the neighboring property, the single home that has a view of the applicant’s home —were present at the hearing to support this variance application. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: A. Henry 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: No, given the constraints of the property, the current placement of the existing home and the health department requirements for well and septic locations—there does not appear to be a feasible or practical alternative other than the requested variance. The burden to the applicant of any theoretical alternative would far outweigh any imaginable benefit to the community. Motion made by: H. Slater 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: No, the additional encroachment of the front yard setback is approximately 4.5 feet. This setback is consistent with the nonconforming setbacks of other single-family homes in the vicinity. Additionally, the home’s front yard is markedly elevated about road level and as such does not appear to hinder vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Motion made by: H. Slater 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: There would be little if any environmental or physical adverse effects or impacts. There will be two or three trees removed, but no neighbor’s viewscape will be impacted by this removal. In addition, the large, mature trees in question are so close to the current house as to present a safety concern. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes 4 E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELFCREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes. As in most cases, the choice to submit the request means in some ways the difficulty is self- created. But the zoning ordinance that currently applies came into effect well after the home was built, thus creating the existing non-conformance and the need for additional relief. This, combined with the fact that there does not appear to be a feasible means to conformance and that there are no negative impacts likely to result from the variance, makes it reasonable to approve the request. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: A. Henry All in favor – Yes Motion made by: H. Slater to classify this as Type II Action under State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(16) and also is 239 exempt from County Review, per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes Motion made by: A. Henry to grant variance as requested with no conditions. Second: M. Witman All in favor – Yes Next applicant, 933 Dryden Road 5 After determining that all have read the legal notice, J. Graham moves to waive reading the notice of hearing. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: - M. Witman All in favor – Yes PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a public hearing will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden on Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 6:05 pm to consider the application of Angie and William Chen for area variances for 933 Dryden Road, Tax Parcel #s 56.-5-5, located in the Varna Hamlet Mixed Use District (VHMUD) for an addition of two work bays, totaling 2,000 square feet, onto the existing automobile repair garage. VHMUD regulations require a minimum lot size of one acre for automotive repair garages, and this lot is +/- 0.74 acres. VHMUD regulations require 40% green space. The proposed action would reduce the existing nonconforming green space further to a total of approximately 22.5%. Therefore, area variances for minimum lot size and minimum green space are being requested by the applicant. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. You can either attend the hearing in person or remotely via internet or telephone. Details on how to connect remotely will be posted several days prior to the hearing on the Town website at: www.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. 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. Applicants Angie & William Chen are on Zoom and their Architect John Snyder is present – a site plan is shared. Mr. Snyder discussed with the Board where new plantings, or any tree removal would be. He mentioned that the current bus stop will stay in place where it is and that hopefully the DOT and the Town will work on having a crosswalk in place to help cross safely from lot A to lot B. Gina Cassidy reads into record the 239 County Review letter April 7, 2025 Gina Cassidy, Planner, Zoning Officer 6 Town of Dryden 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Special Use Permit and Sketch Site Plan for proposed Varna Auto Addition located at 933 Dryden Road, Tax Parcels #56.-5-5 (Lot A) and 56.-3-2.3 (Lot B), Angie Chen, Owner; Angie Chen and John Snyder, Applicants. Dear Ms. Cassidy: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. We do, however, have the following comments on the proposed action: •As part of our review, we conducted an initial consultation with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) on the proposed sketch plan on State Route 366. NYSDOT staff expressed some concerns about defined bus space on the shoulder as well as definition of access and entrance points. NYSDOT has noted that they will conduct a close review of these items once a permit application has been submitted. We suggest that the Town encourage the applicant to work closely with NYSDOT to ensure that the proposal provides safe points of ingress and egress and that there is appropriate space for continued bus service. •As part of our review, we conducted an initial consultation with Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT) on the proposed bus stop relocation. TCAT staff expressed some concerns about the proposed bus stop location, ADA accessibility, and how the relocation will be funded. We suggest that the Town encourage the applicant to work closely with TCAT to ensure that the proposal will not negatively impact current and continued bus service. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability With no further questions from the Board, J. Graham motioned to close the public part of the hearing and move forward to answer the 5 questions. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: - M. Witman All in favor – Yes 7 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: Varna Auto is a long-established auto repair business within the Varna Community. The proposed expansion of the existing business is consistent with other existing uses in the UVMUD district and will result in little to no undesirable change in the neighborhood. In fact, some of the landscaping improvements to the site are likely to result in a desirable change. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: J. Graham 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: Given that the surrounding properties are fully developed, and the existing 933 property is limited in area, there doesn’t appear any other means that is feasible or that wouldn’t cause an undue burden on applicants with little to no benefit to the community. Indeed, the only alternative to this expansion might be to relocate the business, which potentially could have an adverse impact on the area. Motion made by: M. Gill Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes 8 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, this would be substantial as the existing acreage of the current shop (on Lot A) is already nonconforming (.74 acre when 1 acre is required in VHMUD). This non-conformance would be further reduced to .51 acres by the expansion. However, the applicants own Lot B across the street, which is .47 acres, which, when combined in a restrictive deed as proposed, is a mitigating factor in the substantiality of this request. The request for a 13.4% reduction (overall, when the two lots are considered together) in the VHMUD requirement of 40% green space is also substantial, but this is mitigated by the increase in quality of green space that will occur (the addition of 9 new trees, many shrubs and extensive landscaping) versus the existing quantity, which is brush and lawn. Motion made by: H. Slater 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: No, there should little to no adverse impacts as the use is conforming and is an expansion of a conforming use. Additionally, applicants have applied for and received both SUP and Site Plan Review approval to proceed with this project. The ZBA concurs with both reviews, which determined that sufficient mitigation had been provided to recommend approving the variance requests. Motion made by: A. Henry Second: - J. Graham All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELFCREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, by the proposal of this project, the difficulty is self-created. But for all the reasons cited above, the mitigation measures to be taken by the applicant appear more than sufficient for granting approval. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: A. Henry All in favor – Yes 9 SEQR: The Dryden Town Planning Board was declared Lead Agency and provided a negative SEQR declaration at their 4-30-25 meeting. Approved with the condition that the applicant conforms with the prior Site Plan and SUP approvals as well as conforms with all provisions/recommendations made by any other involved/interested agencies. M. Witman made a motion to Grant the Area Variance as submitted with the following condition: that the applicant conforms with the prior Site Plan and Special Use Plan approvals as well as conforms with all provisions/recommendations made by any other involved/interested agencies. Second: J. Graham All in favor – Yes We need to vote on the application for Snyder Hill Road from the Planning Board. J. Graham moves to accept the Planning Boards application for Snyder Hill Road. Motion made by: J. Graham Second: - H. Slater All in favor – Yes Approval of minutes from 4-1-25 Motion made by: A. Henry Second: - M. Gill All in favor – Yes 3 with 2 abstain, J. Graham and M. Witman ADJOURNMENT J. Graham Motion to adjourn Second: M. Gill All in favor – Yes