Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-07TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals June 7, 2016 Members Present: Nelson Hogg (Chair), Ben Curtis, Jeff Fearn, Henry Slater Absent: Gene German Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning, Joy Foster, Recording Secretary, ZBA Agenda: Area variance, 811 Snyder Hill Road Area variance, 181 Lake Road Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM 811 Snvder Hill Road, Area Variance Applicant: Raymond P. Glahn Town Residents: Dannielle Carr, 810 Snyder Hill Road Chair Hogg reads the public notice: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Ravmond Glahn who is requesting relief from the front yard setback requirement as set forth in Town of Drvden Zoning Law Article VI. Section 600 - Area & Bulk Table. Mr. Glahn is seeking an area variance to place a 288 sq. ft. storage shed 30 feet from the highwav line, where 50 feet is required. Property is located at 811 Snvder Hill Road. SAID HEARING will be held on Tue. June 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and 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. Motion to begin the public hearing: Slater Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Hogg to applicant: do you have anything further to add? Applicant: Mr. Glahn not at this time Slater to Glahn: The question I have, is the structure already there or is there another one to be placed because I see there is already a structure in place? And you placed the structure without checking with the town? Glahn: I actually had to take delivery of the shed, and it could be moved if need be, I was not aware of the setback, I completed the pad last fall, after having talked to Kevin Ezell from the Dryden Planning Department, who said it was ok to begin work on the pad and the placement of the shed. Slater: did the town have a plan or application from you. Glahn: no not at that time, I was going by the other homes in the area and was in line with them. Slater: the other houses in the area are pre -dated zoning, zoning came in 1968. Hogg: another factor is when I built my barn it was measured from the center -line at 70 feet now it's 50 feet from the right -of way. Board: talks about center -lines, and right -of way just talking numbers to each other. Glahn: I also have looked at the setback requirements and I find them confusing. They don't say right -away or center line. Curtis: well I believe it does, I agree it doesn't just jump out and grab you by the throat, but I do find it under lot depth. Hogg: the written document I have here says the highway right of way is 3 rods. Curtis: as you know I have some experience with reading zoning laws and I find it not very clear the information is there but not entirely clear, there is no mention of 3 rods. Curtis: for the record I'd like to add once again, that if the law is confusing like this people do not seem to understand where the center of the road is and that may be worth considering. And I. have suggested to the Planning Board to maybe re -view this as we have the same variance requests with same confusion. Hogg to Curtis: before you came on the committee it was 70 feet from the center line but somehow it got changed.s Burger and board: talk to each about the lines and setback requirements. Glahn: asks when did zoning change? Hogg: in the last several years from center of the road to edge of the road. Hogg: I have a second issue, you appear to asking for 2 variances? Glahn: well I have a earth structure and in the future I would like to build a 2nd similar one, so I was trying to save board some time. Slater: what would be the purpose of the 2nd structure? Glahn: would like it fon a rental property Slater: I don't believe that area is zoned for rentals. Burger speaks to board and Glahn: about accessory buildings and how area is zoned, and what would be allowed. Just asking each other questions. Curtis:, well we are not here to talk about 2nd future house we are only to address the applied for and advertised variance request. Hogg: I agree we are here to view the requested variance tonight, moving along. Fearn: where is the septic, is that the mound we see in pix or what is that? Glahn: shows board what items are on the pictures, where septic is, drive -way, lot size, etc Hogg: to board are we ready to answer the questions? Board: has no more questions. Dannielle Carr: from 810 Snyder Hill Rd, speaks to say she is for the variance, we find the shed to be pleasing to the eye and are ok with this change we would like the board to consider having the propane tanks relocated on property as they stand out as you can see on the pictures, would like to have them relocated or screened in some way. Glahn: I have no problem moving them, they have been there since 2008 when I got my first building permit, I have to have them in a practical place, where they can be assessable especially in bad weather. Curtis: this being a concern for visual impact we as a board can grant variance with conditions and relocating the tanks and or a vegetated screening to lessen the impact. Even the shed could screen the tanks. Hogg: we will close the public part of the hearing and as a board will answer the 5 questions. Motion made by: Curtis to close at 7:30 PM Second: Fern- Yes All in favor - Yes Hogg: are there any letters or from County Burger: no 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: Yes there is adverse visual impact as it's the only accessory building in a front yard in the neighborhood but these negative effects are offset with colors to blend in with the surroundings also behind a berm we would like to see the now very visible propane tanks screened or relocated and the applicant agrees. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Hogg- Yes 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: Yes, there are 39 acres that offer plenty of area for a conforming placement of this structure, applicant showed numerous disadvantages for alternate locations. (Applicant again states he spoke to Kevin Ezell who gave him incorrect information about where to place the pad, so this will be an added expense) I Motion made by: Fern - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is given that the footage requirements isn't substantial but the fact that it sits in a required front yard makes it substantial. Just on the Scale of the requirement that is 50 feet and this is closer to 30feet its almost halfso it's a substantial variance. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Fearn - Yes 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 is a visual impact but the applicant has put the structure behind the berm and blended the color with its surroundings to minimize its impact and also has agreed to move the tanks and make a year-round vegetated screening in front of the shed. Motion made by: Hogg - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes Motion made by: Hogg- Yes Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Hogg: this area variance is SEAR exempt tvpe H action Dart 617.5c-12 and exempt from regional planning review. (General Municipal Law. Article 12-B, Section 239 M3vii) Motion made by: Curtis Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Grant variance with the 2 conditions 1) Propane tanks be relocated (behind the shed (south -side) out of view from the road) 2) A year-round vegetated screen be planted in front of accessory structure, on the road- side (regulated by the Town Planning Department, Ray Burger) Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance with conditions Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Hogg- Yes Nay -Slater 8:00 PM - Congratulations you have your approval, please follow up with the Planning Department. Hogg 8:01 PM reads the next hearing: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Avveals of the Town of Dryden will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Carina Construction who is requesting relief from the front vard setback requirement as set forth in Town of Drvden Zoning Law Article VI. Section 600 - Area & Bulk Table. Carina Construction is seeking an area, variance to Mace a single-family home 40 feet from the highwav line, where 50 feet is required. Property is located at the corner of Lake and Watros Road., SAID HEARING will be held on Tue. June 7, 2016 at 7:15 pm prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and 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. Hogg: who is here to represent? Matthew Haney, Carina Construction builder, the lot is a unusual one, in that it has a 22 foot change in grade from one corner to the other and our attempt with the site plan is to put the house on the higher side of the lot so that we could have good foundation drainage. Putting the house 40 feet back from the property line because, 1) by placing the house where we are showing it we are able to keep the top of the wall elevation foundation around 1200 feet which is roughly the same as the road is in that area, for us to move it back 10 feet , it is possible and we could build it that way but we'd have to lower the wall elevation about 3 feet which would give us an unsightly V shape to the front yard for drainage, 2) it's a corner lot, this property has 2 front yards so we are only really asking for relief from the front yard on the Lake Road side additionally by moving the house toward the Lake Road we can maximize the amount of space in the back yard , which given the elevation of area in that typically that's where the children would play and we could maximize that area, 3) this lot is only about an acre in size and we are limited as to where the septic could be placed, we've done our perk test and have been approved, so the further we can be toward Lake Road would give us more room to place the septic and keep proper distance from the other wells. Haney hands out aerial view pictures and shows the board the neighborhood houses and how and where this house is going. Board: looks at pictures of neighborhood. Hogg: is there a garage and is it under here (pointing to picture)? Haney, the structure has 2 -parts, we are constructing a modular house on the southern side and on the northern section we are building a garage with space above and owner in future may use this space for a in-law apartment. Haney: I'd like to add that we are seeking 40 feet from the property line, the distinct from the property line to the edge of the existing payment is about 10 feet so our distinct from the edge of the payment to the front of the structure is ? (pointing to survey to board, lots of talking at once) TINS OUNTY LETTER HERFJ Edward C. Marx, AICD Commissioner of Planning David Sprout, Zoning Officer Town of Dryden 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 May 13, 2016 Telephone (607) 274-5560 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 —1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area Variance for single family residence located on Latae Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel #48,-1-88, Nicholas Brenner, Owners/Appellants; Carina Construction, Agent. Dear Mr. Sprout: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239'—], -m and —n of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter -community, or county -wide impacts. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning Infusion through Diversity Hogg: finally I'm curious why house wasn't sited on Watros Road where there is nice flat land? Haney: well we looked at that, in -fact owner very much wanted house on Watros Road, on the Northeast corner but there is no good place for foundation drainage and you would be building 20 feet below Lake Road and any surface water would run off directly at your house and that part of the Town does not have curbs or storm sewers so floods and drainage would be a big issue. We encouraged them to build on the high side for good drainage. Slater: guess I'm confused as to why house couldn't be moved back 10 feet? Haney: well we could move the house back and conform with the Zoning requirement but it would cause us to lower the elevation of the house by about 3 feet then we would be 3-4 feet below the elevation of the road. Slater: why would you lower it? Haney: because I want to be able to place the foundation and the slab on virgin ground, it's a Superior Wall System and we are using 9 foot as it is now. This is the best and most economical way to build. House and garage will be on Superior Wall. Haney: with a structure this size we are moving a lot of earth, when we cut the test holes we found a lot of gravel so we will be using this for driveway and no dirt will be taken off of site. Slater: so you will have a long driveway? Haney: oh about 130 feet, not too bad. Hogg: are there any other questions from the Board, any letters or comments? Burger, No letters or comments. Hogg: I will now close the public part of this hearing and the Board will answer the S questions. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Fearn- Yes 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: This would produce a Minor change in the neighborhood but is keeping in the general character of the neighborhood. Motion made by: Hogg - Yes Second: Fearn- Yes 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: Yes house could be moved to conform to zoning, but the financial burden to the applicant would be disproportional to the gain Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Considering the neighborhood not very substantial, or noticeable. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Hogg - Yes 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's not that building the house would have an adverse environmental impact on the area, its that moving it 10 feet closer to the road is actually better motivated for environmental concerns. Motion made by: Hogg - Yes Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, however it minimizes the environmental impact and minimizes the effect on the neighborhood. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: Hogg- Yes All in favor - Yes Hogg: this area variance is SEOR exempt tvne H action part 619.5c-12 Motion made by: Curtis Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes This is 239-m(3)(b) of the New York State General Municipal Law. Tompkins County Department of Planning finds , it has no negative inter -community, or county -wide impacts. Motion made by: Slater Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance based on finding above Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Congratulations you have your variance 8:35 PM NOTE: Matthew Haney - Carina Construction, "as a taxpayer and builder in Dryden, I'd just like to complement the Planning Department Staff. I have worked with 30-40 different towns and I have always found them to be very professional. They are excellent communicators, they are certainly not push-over's when they want to enforce the law they communicate beautifully. They are not difficult to work with they are responsible with appointments and when on site courteous to the people there and the work that is going on. It's just always been a pleasure to work with them and it's not always the case in other building departments. The department just seems to take pride in their work. " Hogg: we now have the Inter -Governmental Agreement that Ray Burger would like to talk to the Board about. Burger: what this is, is there are a lot of minor site plan reviews, variances, that came for County Review and they are basically agreeing, this is kind of an efficiency to government move to pre -approve and to say we don't need to review these. Just a way to expedite and this contract has been signed by the Town Supervisor, Planning Board Chair and now the ZBA, Chair. This has come up a few months ago, but he ZBA hasn't met in a year so you are hearing about this now. We still may ask the County to weigh in on a case if we feel the need to do so. Board and Ray read document and talks with each other. Motion made by: Curtis moves to agree and for Nelson Hogg to sign document Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Hogg to adjourn Second: Slater- Yes All in favor - Yes Meeting adjourned, 8:45 pm Respectfully submitted, Joy Foster, Recording Secretary 6-14-15 Inter -governmental Agreement Tompkins County Review of Local Zoning and Planning Actions Under New York State General Municipal Law I. This agreement is made this day of , 2016 between the Tompkins County Planning Department and the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals. A. Authority and Purpose of State Law The authority for county planning agency review of certain local planning and zoning actions is provided in Article 12-B, Section 239 (1, m & n) of New York State General Municipal Law (GML). The purpose as stated in law is "to bring pertinent inter -community and county -wide planning, zoning, site plan and subdivision considerations to the attention of neighboring municipalities and agencies having jurisdiction." B. Current Practice in Tompkins County The Tompkins County Charter gives responsibility for the implementation of this county review to the Commissioner of Planning. All matters identified in GML Section 239 (m & n) are currently subject to review. C. Authority for Inter -governmental Agreement GML Section 239 (m) specifically authorizes the county planning agency to "enter into an agreement with the referring body or other duly authorized body of a city, town or village to provide that certain proposed actions set forth in this subdivision are of local, rather than inter -community or county -wide concern, and are not subject to referral under this section." GML Section 239 (n) authorizes the same agreement with respect to subdivision plats. II. Items to be Excluded from Review Pursuant to the authority cited herein the parties to this agreement do hereby agree that the following items are of local, rather than inter -community or county -wide, concern and are not subject to referral to the Tompkins County Planning Department under New York State General Municipal Law Article 12-B Section 239 (1, m & n): A. Lot frontage, width or depth variances for residential uses; B. Lot area variances for additions to residential uses on existing non -conforming lots; C. Special Permits or Site Plan Reviews for permitted accessory uses and home occupations on residential lots; D. Residential subdivisions of fewer. than 5 lots all of which comply with local zoning standards and Tompkins County Sanitary Code requirements, and do not involve new local roads or streets directly accessing a State or county road; E. Yard setback variances not abutting County or State property, a State or County road right of way, or a municipal boundary; F. Site Plan Reviews or Special Permits for change of commercial use in an existing building not involving any change in building footprint and with no change in vehicular access on a State or County highway; G. Sign variances exceeding local standards by 20% or less. III. Execution, Termination and Modification LO A. The undersigned parties attest that they have the authority to enter into this agreement. This agreement shall become effective upon execution by both parties. B. The agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by 60 days advance written notice by either party. Such notice shall be by certified mail to the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning or the authorized local municipal official, as appropriate. C. The agreement may be modified by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning Date Zoning Board of Appeals Chair Date Town of Dryden Planning Department 93 East Main Street Dryden, New York 13053 607-844-8888 ext. 216 Fax: 607-844-8008 This is to certify that a Zoning Permit has been issued to Nicholas Brenner/Carina Construction for (1) area variances one to build a single-familif home (with ZBA approval) at 181 Lake Road (within the Town of Dryden), tax parcel 48.-1-88. This permit has been issued because the proposed activity is an allowed use in a Neighbor Residential zone and complies with all applicable Town of Dryden Zoning requirements. Granted relief by Zoning Board of Appeals, June 7, 2016 to build home 40 feet from highway line. Be advised, this certificate shall expire 12 months from the date of issue. This is not a Permit for construction or occupancy. DATE OF ISSUE: 6-7-16 BY: Zoning # 06-2016ZBA t//Zoning Officer NOTICE OF DECISION June 7, 2016 Re: 06-2016 ZBA - Area Variance 811 Snyder Hill Road Parcel 74.4-8.6 Distribution: Raymond Glahn Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, PB Chair, ZBA Chair Edward C Marx, Commissioner of Planning Planning Department 93 East Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 T 607 844-8888 Ext. 216 F 607 844-8008 joy@dryden.ny.us www.drvden.nv.us A hearing was conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday June 7, 2016, regarding one area variance. DECISION: Approved CONDITIONS: 1) Propane tanks be relocated (behind the shed (south -side) out of view from the road) 2) A year-round vegetated screen be planted in front of accessory structure, on the road -side (regulated by the Town Planning Department, Ray Burger) DECISION: Grant variance with the 2 conditions NOTICE OF DECISION AREA VARIANCE APPLICANT: Raymond Glahn June 7, 2016 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zonine Board of Anneals of the Town of Dryden will hold a Public Hearing to consider the application of Ravmond Glahn who is reauestine relief from the front vard setback reauirement as. set forth in Town of Drvden Zonine Law Article VI. Section 600 - Area & Bulk Table. Mr. Glahn is seekine an area variance to place a 288 so. ft. storaee shed 30 feet from the hiehwav line, where 50 feet is reauired. Property is located at 811 Snvder Hill Road. SAID HEARING will be held on Tue. June 7, 2016 at 7:00 pm prevailing time at the Dryden Town Hall, 93 East Main St. Dryden NY, at which time all interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. Individuals with visual, hearing or manual impairments and 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. 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: Yes there is adverse visual impact as it's the only accessory building in a front yard in the neighborhood but these negative effects are offset with colors to blend in with the surroundings also behind a berm we would like to see the now very visible propane tanks screened or relocated and the applicant agrees. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Hogg- Yes 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: Yes, there are 39 acres that offer plenty of area for a conforming placement of this structure, applicant showed numerous disadvantages for alternate locations. (Applicant again states he spoke to Kevin Ezell who gave him incorrect information about where to place the pad, so this will be an added expense) Motion made by: Fern - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes it is given that the footage requirements isn't substantial but the fact that it sits in a required front yard makes it substantial. Just on the Scale of the requirement that is S0 feet and this is closer to 30 feet its almost half so it's a substantial variance. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Fearn - Yes 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 is a visual impact but the applicant has put the structure behind the berm and blended the color with its surroundings to minimize its impact and also has agreed to move the tanks and make a year-round vegetated screening in front of the shed. Motion made by: Hogg - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes Motion made by: Hogg- Yes Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Hogg: this area variance is SEAR exempt type II action part 617.5c-12 and exempt from reeional. planning review, (General Municipal Law, Article 12-13. Section 239 M3vii) Motion made by: Curtis Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Yes Grant variance with the 2 conditions 1) Propane tanks be relocated (behind the shed (south -side) out of view from the road) 2) A year-round vegetated screen be planted in front of accessory structure, on the road -side (regulated by the Town Planning Department, Ray Burger) Motion made by: Curtis to Grant Variance with conditions Second: Fearn- Yes All in favor - Hogg- Yes Nay -Slater 8:00 PM - Congratulations you have your approval, please follow up with the Planning Department. CERTIFICATION I, Nelson Hogg, (Chairperson) of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board, that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on: Dryden, New York Dated: 157 -1-516 Nelson Hogg, Chair