Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2024-06-25TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Tuesday, June 25, 2024, at 6:00pm 215N. T�ioga St. Denied - ZBAA-24-10 Appeal. David. and .Dome, Wexle, Owners of 209 Roa,t St., Ithaca NY 14850-P are seeking relief from a condition that was established on a previously approved area variance, which allowed for a reduced side yard setback for a garage. The previously approved area variance condition requires, the garage be moved in the event,the Tow�n, of Ithaca widens Blackstone A:ve. (in, the direct jon, of'the garage) and, the garage Interferes, with the widening ot to roadway, where the applicants are requesting to remove or awe the condition.. The Property �s located in the Medium. Density Residential zone, Tax Parcel 71.-5- 1. Adjourned - Z'BAA-24-1 I. Appeal of Matthew'Bollinger and Ann. Weber, owners of 232 Troy Road, Ithaca, NY, 1.4850; are seeking relief from Town, of Ithaca Code section 270-56C (Pen-nitted accessory buildings and uses) to allow for a, maximum aggregate 'footprint of all accessory buildings to exceed 600 .ft., due to helot only being 1, .9 acres,., The Property is located'in the Low -Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel, 45.-2-11 Granted - ZBAA-24-13, Appeal of Roger and Susan Eslinger, owners of 2013ove DrIthaca, NY, 14850# 1 are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270- ., 7 1 E(2)(Yar�d regulations) to allow for an accessory building to be placed in the side yard, wheran accessorybuildingi,s only aliowed to occupy a rear yard., The current property is located in the Med�tum-Den&l'ty Re&ldentia], Zone, Tax'Parcel No. 61.-1-8.42 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 25, 2024 M 6, inutes Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair,- Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, Connor Terry, and Kim Ritter Absent: Matthew Mmnig 01 Marty Moseley,.Director of Codes; Paulette.Rosa., Town Clerk; and Susatin. Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr., Squires opened,. the meeting at 6.-00 p.m. ZBAA-24-10 Appeal Owners David & Donna Wexter,209 R. St., TP 71..5.1 MDR.1 seeking relief from a condition. on an existing area variance which allowed for a reduced side yard setback for a garage, with the condition that the garage be moved in the event the Town of ,Ithaca widened Blackstone.Ave. (In the directlon of the garage), and, the request is to remove or amend, the condit,ion. Kopko, Counsel for the A pp licants, gave anssue- . overview of his view of the isaying that there is a paper trail. showing a, building pennit was issued and they were erroneously told they needed an area variance which was not infact true and having obtained the permit, he could have simplybuilt the gar age,but they were told they needed, a variance, WhIch they did not, and-it,was granted with, a condition that is ... Now they want to pass on the property to their children, but in. the tnfini.te&tmal chance that the town. wishes to widen the road, they would have to remove the garage. The immediate relief is to ask that this, board Mr.Kopko said he is asking the Board, to correct the mistake that occurredback in 198 1. There 1, that in 1981 the Wex' 01 a lers were granted a per tor their garage and, is anindlisputable paper tram 1, they could have proceeded to build the garage because under well-establi.shed law, the issuance of the permit gave them aProperty right that they could take advantage. They didn't need to get a variance, but someone told them that they needed a variance, and because they're conscientious good, citizens, they came in and they obtained the variance that we're complaining about tonight. That variance restricts true property because it creates the jeopardy that if the road, is ever widened, they would have to remove the garage. That 1 , s the hardship that we're complaining about. He went on to say that he is respectfully explaining to you that he thinks it was an error of the prevlous Board and, having of taro the permit, the Wexlers could have i ust built the garage, and nothing further needed to be done. Back in 1981, the Wexters did not realize the hardship that this was and what a hardship this would create as they aged through their lives and want to pass on the property to their children I* ition, i and the jeopardy that connected tothe variance, and its conaition, n the infinitesimal chance that the town would, want to widen this road in thefuture and they woul d. .have 'to move the garage., ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 1 Mr., Kopko stated that he did some research, and, he could not, find, in any law or ordinance where a mininium width of the road, 'is established. Thatis a very s'l , gnin cant quest'lon. When did the town itnplement, a 30" foot rIght-of-way. If the Town knows of th.1s es,tabtlshmeat of measurement, he would like to have it. Nevertheless, the immediate relief the applicants are asking for is the removal of the condition requiring the garagebe moved, in the event''the two wishes to maiden the road. MnKopkOreiterated his stance that a legal building permit was issued and there was no need for a variance to build the garage as permitted. Mr.Wexler added that this impacts his, 1"amlly and he rfrom his statement to the Zoning ,Bord of Appeals bask in 1981 "Mr. Wexler stated that he just wanted it to be k�nown. that he has a clear conscience in this, matter. He stated that lie would want his family to be comfortable, also that his grandchildren would not have to tear down the garage down.,"' Now,' 43 years later,, my concerns are coming to fruition. Re said some friends of hts Just went through something similar when selling their mother's house and there was a small utility building her husband bad built many years ago. It happened to be discovered that it was over the property line onto the Cortland High Scho�ol lot. Three days before the closing, a lawyer noticed the discrepancy and, th,ebuyers, who'had taken, early possessov -ion, wanted, to rne out of theou hose d1 or get areduct ion in the price to compensate t"or any ftItUre costs to deal, with the small building. They had to reduce the selling price by $ 1. OK. He said this has been is mind a lot since then. . He said he is now 75 years old and when he looks back on. what occur�red, he is frankly offendedby how he crud leis wife were treated,. �rW'exler sa,�id there are three things that are falsehoods that were not understood by the time .. . I by the town. L The record states that I did not have a permit; I did. 2. The building inspector said that he screwed up and, didn't measure properly and, stake out the site. The foundation was going in, 15 0 cinder blocks and poured concrete and he says I have to come into the Town and get a variance. 3., Then, they, state in the meeting that there is a 50' foot right-ol"-way, for Blackstone Ave. The asphalt back, then, was 1.9 feet wide at, the dead, rid going into the Country, Club. Mr. Wexler said he spent 8+ hours researching zoning ordinances and he could not find any references, that set specifi.cationson, a right-of-way, although. he did find an attorney brought up the confusion regarding what a, right-of-way is for new construction of roads,, where it was ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 2 sometimes, 0' feet but at that time and meeting, a resolution was ass ed talking about it in p 50" feet, but nothing about,what it was, at, hme Of accepting a road or on existing roads. d He said that means the comment about Blackstone Ave having a, 50' foot ight-of-way us a, complete he, and it was misconstrued and misunderstood by the officials at the time. 'hey, state that I started constructi Mr., Wexler stated that the public hearing notice at the time", t ion without, a �perm� t and, that, I d"dn't, meet the s'rudesetbac' k, s, but itis a, comer lot,ana, the Inspector told I was fine with the Placement. Mr. Wexler concluded, saying that he just wanted the Board to understand that the house was built in '1932, pre -World War Ilwith '100' foot lots that would not meet the setbacks when they were established'; 15' feet off each lot line wou,ld,. leave you a 70' footbuildable area and a garage would, beimpossible. My house i's 24' feet fronn, the house to my property Itne and ifyou, add the 1. 5' feet s,etba,ck, it will leave a 9' foot garage so the whole thing was a completely misunderstood and misguided approach. by the Inspector. There is no way a 2-car garage could have been built to Code. . He added that 5 homes in the area, have a 2-car garage and they are either 1 ui.1t within the house or under the house or they are also out of Code compliance., There is a housebuilt in 1824 that "'Is 6' feet away from the road. .He said he just wants to fix, this hardship so he can pass, this on. to his, kids without a choke hold on the property, Mr.Squires opened, the pUblichearing; there was no one wis'hing to speak, and, the hearing was closed. Mr. Wexter said that there were three letters sent to the Town; one from Mr. Slater that basically says no one can touch my roads, because we don."t now the future; another one from Mickey Roof who lives across the street and she wants to put a, singlebay garage, fronting.13lackstone and she can't do that and w,111. n,eed, a variance but is in favor of my requestl- and the one from, another ne�ighbor in favor of my request. DISCUSS]"on Ms., Brock spoke a I bout the assertions that were mad by the Applicant and Agent"; The letter from Superintendent Slater that Blackstone Ave is a town road and what that means is that the Town owns, the road and Ms. Rosa found the resolution. where the Town accepted the road and that is for all purposes, notjust the paved areas-, you have shoulders, stormwater., ditches street signs etc. When someone sa, s the road, i's 19' feet wide 'Y that is the pavement,, not the entire road,, there is the other road, uses. Also, the legalissue, and what fir. Kopko stated is incorrect. The law is extremely clear that when. the town makes a mistake and issues a building permit when it should not, even if there is construction that has started", the town is not stopped or precluded from enforcing the law. In ,fact, the town must enforce its law,. Code Ot te"als' mistaken issuance of abttilding permit, ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 3 cannot override the town's law and the law must be followed. There are a not of cases on this start n 1, I g w th New York'1s highest court, the Court of Appeals, and there are many, many, cases on this. Ms. Brock stated that she wanted tine .Board to .now thatPrior to beginning discussions,. There is, no right to continue building, and in fact the town, at the time, could have required removal of everything that was on the townis property. Mr. Squires began., say�i , ng that the Town Attorney is saying our task, is not to use the balanc�tng test of an Area variance, but rather,, do we agree that we have the authority to allow someone else's property to be on, town property. Mr.Brock spoke up,, saying that it is not a question of authority, the question in firont ofyou is their request that, you modify, the condition the PrevIOUS, L'BA, but on the variances. They want you to change it or remove it. Your choice is, to either grant or deny the request and then back that up witu . your rationale supported by supported by substantial evidence in the record for your decision. Ms. Jung asked, for clarffication, sayi 1, jig wouldn"t that mean the Zoning Board, would, be giving away the rights of the town. The other part of the request is monetary rel , mbursement, and do we have that authority Ms. Brock responded that the, Board does not have the authority to spend money and you can either remove the condition or state that it needs to remain, in, place,. You can remove the condition, and there would be consequences to that.; it will affect the Town,"s 'iboube ability to, widen the road in. that location., and you have to think,,L t that, but that may not 44giving up the town's rights", but it will be a consequence, and will affect the ability of thetown. to widen the road in that of .Mr. Squires asked if it would remove the Town's right if the condition was removed because it would be an encroachment. Ms. Brock said Awas, unclear to her how much of an encroachment exists into the Town's 50' V feet ItIs', but regardless of'what Itis, it is allowed, to sit there at this point nt under this variance and, its condftion. Mr. Terry said it boils down to whether the Town would be allowed to make the move the garage in. the event they needed their property. If we remove the condition, then the Town could not make them move the garage. There is the o „s qu rn that the Town would not be able to use this variance to make them move the garage. But, this is a dead-end road up, to a country club that may be expandin.g and it is reasonable to assume that there may be changes to the road in the future. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 4 Mr. Moseley stated that there is a development proposal submitted, but that is on hold at this point and, not, withdrawn. .Mr. Squires polled the room. to see whi*ch way the board was teau ing, saying that he is leaa ing to denying the request as there is little to no chance of this coming into play and there are many houses that are sold with easements in place, and they are asking us to indemnify them and we do not have that authority. Discusslon followed on pri , ous board actions where a, buiUing was mostly or partially in, place where they did not have the variance to do that and a,lthough. the is, none 'exactly like this, there was one prQject where the building permit was issued and almost up and they didn't have the proper setback from the ro'ad.... Mr. Moseley stated that they did have a variance to encroach into the setback, but then mistakes were made by the contractor and the encroachment increased and they came back for a further increase. Ms. Brock noted that this is diffiererut. That one a private road, and the encroachment was still, on the applicants' property,, not the Towns. This structUreiS, on the town's property not theirs and, just closer than allowed by the Code. They had a perma and started building and then, it was discovered that the permit was incorrect and should not have been issued. Mr. Terry spoke, saying this is, different in that the Building department told him he was compliant, 'based, -upon, the permitlie was iven andhe moved forward, and, started, the project 9 and invested those funds. Hewasn"t doing something that wasn't allowed. Then the Town comes along and says "oh, we shouldn't have let you do this' and if he had been told that upfront, he probably would have made changes prior to beginning and then at that point it was more practical to get the variance and he hasto live with this through no fdult of his own. He said, he is not sure the Town deserves that type of protectiom the town. issued, the permit and then made a mistake that they don't, have to take responsi,bi,tity f'or., He said he is in favor of granting this request because the road is, a regular road and will most likely never be widened and there are other options if that even. came about, and he felt the town or the eventual developer shouldbear the cost of any moving or value of the garage; a monetary exchange for the town's mistake. The cost torectify this ho ul d, 'be 'borne 'by the Town,,. Mr. Terry said the mistake wasn't in telling him to get a variance, the mistake was in issuing the building perm.it. Discusslon followed on the probabifi,ty of the need to widen, the road and, the stage of t bulhe *0 4 ' I d,Ing of tli,e garage and what, I'lardsh'i , p the garage ,represents to botli, the town and, the applicant. Ms,. Ritter commented that although her heart agrees with Mr, Terry that it is probably never # 98 ion and going to, be widened, at thetime in I I, they had the choice to remove the foundat' rectify the mistake and they chose to do the variance and, they made their c'ho-ice. The Town ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 5 shouldn't have to pay the compounding interest of what a garage cost back they to what it costs now, 'when, they made the choice to go this route. .Mr. Terry asked Mr. Wexler how much of the bu, ildtng was one when he became aware of the mistake. Mr., Wexler responded that, it is, in the documentation of the variance appearance-, the footers were 4 or 5 feet, below the road, level, and the cinder blocks placed, all the way up. He lookedJor the documentation and quoted that his response was "there were 1.5 yards of concrete,, footers poured, and over 500 blocks were laid. The area is approximately 16," inches below the road and the blocks had to be brought up by three feet down." It was below the frost line and back then the cost was about $1 OK and, today, I got an estimate 4 and excluding taking down the exjst'i�ng garage, anew one i , s about $35K. M.T. Kopko spoke, saying that he thought Mr. Terry has the right analysis, on this and Ms. Brock and he may disagree on the law, but what lie is asking is for the hoard to do the right thing here. It is easy for the Town to say we made a mistake and that's too bad, and we are not going to do anything to rectify that. But Mr. Wexler,in good faith,, did everythinghe was supposed to do and through no fault of his, own . he finds himself in the posaion where this, vartance restricts, the value of his property. Mr. Terry came up with a very good, point that addresses the concern of Mr. Slater and that is that in the almost nonexistent chance that the 'town, would,. 'widen this road, the town has the power of eminent domaln and could, come in f6r this section. He added that he has litigated these types of issues many time and you get an appraisal, and the other person gets an appraisal, and the Supreme Court usually splits, the middle and that is the value. There is no harm to the town as the first contingency that would,have to happen is that the town, would, want to widen the road, and, evrahsees ody ses to agree that wild. neverhappen . Once you get over that rational analysis, of this just is not going to happen, then by some fluke it does, the town still has the power to take that little sliver and pay the owner anequitable! price! for A. because the town caused the problem. Mr. Kopka, again stated that hi , s asking th,e'B,oa:rd to do what �i , s right and think about what the public perception is. "Yeah, we made a mistake and drop dead, we're not doing anything about it." Or "Yeah we made a mistake, and we are going to work with you to make it right and we are sorry for the trouble."' He said it is a matter of respect for human betn9 s. and a matter of courtesy and, fbr what, type of town you want to run here, so please: const,der those aspects of.1t. Mr. Wexler added that he, spent time looking around the northeast neighborhood and there are very few sidewalks, and it is improbable that Boat St wouldbe used as a connector in future development. There aren't even rules on how you, widen an, exisfingroad,", 'and, 2 years ago, there ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 6 was, a case of a person selling a house on Forest home Drive, Pearl S Miller Estate vs the Town, and, Forest Home Dr., is so tight,... the Town, concluded, par aphrasing here, that the house existed, it 1 IN g, noi a 1 s not 'intended goat t lus rat lease shall, convey, to the lessee a permanent title to that, portion offorest Home Drive which may be occupied by or may Ile under the buflAing or shall. this resolution, or the grant of the lease to the lessees be deemed to be abandonment by the town of such title as it may now have in such portion of that said highway,, but it is intended that the lease shall'be perpetual for as long as the present building stands." So the town created a, ,P er etual, teas for -the land underneath an out of'cod,e compliance. That lease probably ststillp exists and has been passed down through numerous owners. He said it is interesting that the Town was not taking a good approach. back then. because they created this lease for this case and then they told me I had to move my garage for the next case 'that was two, years later. And, this was the same inspector and so forth on both cases. 4- Mr. Wester said this is, a financial risk that I now have to hand down. to my grandchildren and it is not a good situation to have to deal with.. Mr.Terry commented fior the record, that he worked, for the Town as an engineer and through capital projects they did have to use emtnent domain or more commonly, easement negotiations... Ms,. Brock. broke in to say that she is not aware of any eminent domain occurrences,,, but, with. an easement, that is a negotiation for access,to private property ann d this, 'is the town" pro erty, ad I P those capital, projects werefor tnfrastructure. ThISWOUld not be w1dening onto private property,,,@ I't is the to wn's Property, and he doesn't ownthat, he owns the structure on it. Mr. Terry said he rescinds what he said because it doesn't apply. Mr.Squires asked for a, sense of the Board. It was determined that, reluctantly insome cases, there is a small, possibility of,1t, happening and, there are other avenues to rectory thi,s. Some discussion followed on whether to offer the applicant the opportunity to withdraw his, appeal. or aqjourn the appeal, but it was determined that although they could withdraw, that is, III their option,, the Town Board, is the board that has, authority over dealing with this, not the Zoning Board, and, it would,.fie better to have the decision on the record,. Ms,. Brock noted that SE.QR is not required as this is Type 2, placement of a minor accesso-ry reidential structure. si I ZBA des oluti.on. ZBAA-24-10 Exi sti.ng Area Variance Modification. Request 209.Roat St., TP 71--54 MDR ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 7 Resolved that this, Board denies the appeal of David & Donna Wexler, owners, 209 Roat St., seeking relief from a condition on an, existing area variance which, all owedfor a reduced side yard setback for, a garage,,with , the condition that the garage be moved, in the event the Town, of Ithaca widened Blackstone.Ave. (tn the direawn of the garage) and the request was to remove or amend the condition. The rationale of this decision is based upon the information on the record that the original mi'stake was uncovered, "in 198 1 at, that ti'me options were, resented to rectifying the situation'by & p e�ither niovmg, wha:t had been. done so far in the process, of building the garage to the correct shot or going for a variance. The applicant chose to get a variance. Now,, at this point in time, there is no pressing or impending real situation,, 'there is just Conjecture or imaginary situations of,what could happen in the 1"uture. Therefore, there is no solid tnfomnat�ion necessitattng inoving forward with any action., Moved-. David Squires Seconded-. Kim Ritter Vote: ayes —Squires.,, lr,7 dun Priea,n,,.Ritte,r and Jung nays — Terry ZBAA-24-1 1APPeal of Matthew Bollinger & inn 'Webe�r, owners, 232 Troy'Rd, TP 45t.2. 1.11 LDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) to allow for a, maximum aggregate footprint of all accessory buildings to exceed 600 sqft. Mr. Boltinger gave a Presentat'i"on with depictions of the proposed buildIng done by his w1fe, who is a landscape architect and urban planner. He swd that he is a, professional artist of large paintings and animated films and they have designed the building to complement the exisfing buildings on the lot and in the neighborhood and it is set directly behind his house and well clear of the seasonal creek near the property. The property has a 155 sqft shed on it and the Property Is just under acres and so the Proposed building, the variance is for approximately 555 sqft over what is permitted. Mr. Friedman asked if this wouldbe for his personal use only and Mr. Bollinger responded that 4, i t would, be. Ms. Ritter asked about the loft area in the drawings, saying that AirBNB requests come through quite often and asked if there was any intent to transform this into housing in. the future. Mr., Bollinger responded, "absolutely not" and, this is justfior art, and, workIng with his daughter on art. Mr. Terry asked about the proposed utilities i.n the building. Mr., Bollinger responded that there world be electric,, ahest pump and water forbrushes hooked into , n,to the sewer system. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 8 Mr., Squires opened, the publ1c hearing. Jack Little spoke, saying that lies the! owner of the properties on three sides of Mr. BoltInger's property, and it is heavily wooded, and he would not see the new pole barn. He has no objections to the project and felt that if he didn't object, he couldn't see why anybody else would. Mr. Squires closed the pubtic hearing. D 0 - ISCUISSon Mr., Squires said the application did not say anything about being an artist, but Just a generic pole barn, and our dusty is to grant the m,in'Imum variance necessary., 'He added that the reference to other out bufl.dings in the area dtdn't seem accurate from. his site visit and the &ize of the lot.is, not the sarne as those in. the areas. Mr.Moseley shared, his screen depicting the County's GIS, map(s) and some Live Earth sbots of the area and, the pertinent lot., Mr. Bollinger stated that he currently rents space in downtown Ithaca and it has been his dream to build this, studio. He shared pictures of the type of large-scale art he does to exemplify why the space is needed. In answer to some quest�ions, he quoted that there would not be any additional curb cut requests, or driveway, nor would he be paving the exisfing driveway. Lengthy discussion followed with the Board talking through possible smaller structures and conditions to ensure the structure did root become housing 'in the future., As the discussion moved, through,,it, became apparent, that Staff and, Board members were not aware ofthe intended use, wb�lcb. would qualify as a home occupation,. with. size limitations associ.ated wit h that use and therefore additional variances would be needed and another appearance and associated public hearing to be held. D'iffererut options mere briefly discussed and, Mr. Bolfinger asked, for an, adjou,mmet of this appeal to be able to meet its Staff again and go through optwns and return with, aWitional and/or revised plans and request(s). Motion. made by Mr. Squires, seconded by Ms. Jung to adjourn the appeal for up to 90 days, to give the applicant,the opportunity to revise his applicati,on; unannnous. 0 ZBAA-24-1.3 Appeal of Roger & Susan Esfinger, owners of 20.Dove Dr.,TP 61.-1-8.42, .P I." J MDR; seeking relief fturn Town of Ithaca Code section 270-7 1 E(2)(Yard regulations) tallow for an accessory building to'be placed in the side yard, where they are only pemaitted in the rear yard. ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/18) Pg. 9 'Mis.'.El'slinger gave a, SUmmary, saying that thie shed has been there &incie 2003 and was fOUnd to be in violation during a pre -roofing inspection,. She stated that there have been, numerous permi.ts and inections over the years, but this time she was told she needed a variance. She added, that, her neighborhood, has a list sery ar many people have stated the ir sup, ort on granting the variance. Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speakl, and the hearing was closed. I ems. Jung stated that she did a site visit, and what makes this, different from other requests is that it doesn't look like a, shed. It has windows and it looks like it is part of the house with matching h i of plantings around it. She said she thoug' t * h paint, and t' ere *s a, lot I h it was attached to t' e house. It blends in very, well, and, there is a little pond in the backyard, now. Mr. Squires said he agreed. 1 4 Ms. Ritter said that looking atthe appiwa,tion, it looks like it would be difficult to place in the 'backyard, with, the slope,,, trees and, pond, ZB,A Resolution Z AA.-24-13, Area Variance 20 Dove Dr., TP 61,-1-8,4211 MDR Resolved that, th.is Board, grants the appeal, of Roger & Susan Eslinger, seeking rel,ieffronl. Town. of Ithaca Code section 270-71E (2) (Yard regulahons) to perm.1t an. exi , sti.ng shed to remain. in the side yard where not penn.itted, with the following F 0 indings That the benefit to the applwant, outweighs any detrii-nent to the health, safety, and wel,fare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means, feasible given the slope of the rear yard and the mature trees and ornamental, pond in, the rear yard, and 2. That thzre will. not be any undesirable change in nghborhood character or to nearby properties given that the shed has been. there for 20 years and is surrounded by mature landscaping and aesthetically looks like an addition of the residence in color, angles, windows and size, and ZBA 2024-06-25 (Filed 7/2) Pg. 10 3. That there will not be any adverse sisal or environmental effects as evidenced by no SEQR. ) em9 required, a r 4. m That the iequest, is substantial in that sheds are not permitted in the side yard, and fi 5. 'That the hardship 'i's self-createdn that, the shed was placed without checking with zoning code requirements. Moved-, David. Squires Seconded: Stewart Friedman Vote. ayes Squires, n* edman, 'Ritter Jung and Terry r, Other Business Mr . Mos 1� went � meet" g agenda which prompted a d*scussionon sheds. Members rs would like the Tom Board to revise ffie requirements around sheds and consider Possible amendments to the Code to Plermitthem n, side yards at least, because so many. -come V, through for s. Brie` discussion followed on other aspects of shed placement, Size etc. . but the,Board, statedthey would trust the nittee to hook at the topicwhotistically and set any parameters or requirements. ZBA Resolution,:- Requesting,the Town, Board refer the question eittin certain sheds in the side yard and the a� r ►fir t� �r �ters for that change t the appropriate �tt. �, y Moved.- Connor Terry Seconded: Stuart Friedman Vote nan sous R II Y ro 'fhe meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second, unanimous. sitt 0 Pa ow let e Rosa, Town Clerk w a f ZBA 22-625 (Filed 7/18) 11 g.