The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-04-02TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals April 2, 2019 Members Present: Jeff Fearn (Chair), Ben Curtis, Henry Slater, Janis Graham, Mike Ward Absent: Joy Foster Recording Secretary Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning, Residents: 0 Meeting called to order at 6:05 PM Habitat for Humanity — Minor Subdivision Chair Fearn reads the public notice NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Habitat for Humanity to subdivide property at 1932 Slaterville Road, known as Tax map # 73.-2-9 and located in a Neighborhood Residential (NR) Zoning District. The application is for Lot Frontage Relief for the purpose of subdivision. Applicant seeks to create one conforming lot and two lots with 100 and 106 feet of frontage whereas 150 feet is required in the NR district. SAID HEARING will be held on April 2, 2019 at 6:00 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. Fearn to applicant do you have anything you would like to add? Shannon MacCarrick Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins and Cortland Counties and Dana Christofferson he is our Board President. We would like to offer our revised application from the 1-8-19 meeting which addresses the concerns that came up at that meeting. The position of the houses and how far back they were, the flag lot and the driveway length, the runoff pattern and the way we are accessing the lots from the road. So, we bought the property with the hopes of putting 3 houses there. 3 houses are better than 2, and there are a lot of families in our community that are looking for affordable housing, this is a desirable spot with it being close to Ithaca. We have done one acre lots with 1 house before but when we came upon this 3 - acre lot, was a real opportunity to do a larger project than what we usually do. The vacant house that's been deteriorating for a while now would be revitalized and have a family move in and also be able to put 2 other new houses there. That would be 3 new tax paying families in the Dryden Community. Some neighbors had concerns about the drainage. The direct neighbors are the Dollaways and we have met several times with them to talk about the drainage and how this project would or wouldn't affect them. A drainage grate between the properties is clogged and we have cleaned it out with a rake and shovel, our concern is that this grate is State owned and not sure we can legally clean it. But since we will be in communication with the State for the driveway we can certainly address the needs and attention that this grate lacks. The 2 new houses that we would be building we have shifted them, so the runoff will be going down the western border not the eastern side of the property. So, we shouldn't be adding to the waterflow in that area that is already an issue. As for changes with intensity and the use of the land and the character of the neighborhood and the quality of Slaterville Rd. I think that driving up and down that stretch, you will see a lot of different housing there, across from where we are there is a 6 - unit apartment, 1933 which is also visible is deteriorating and falling down and I think as you drive up and down Slaterville Rd. you see different types of housing, some that are close to the road some are setback some are owner occupied some are not. I'd like to think that the addition of a couple new owners with simple occupied homes would be a boost to the neighborhood. We were pleased to see back in Feb. that the Town board adopted the Resolution for the NYS Property Tax Law, regarding sale price exception for the sale of houses on housing trust land. We would like to add this property to our housing trust to keep taxes affordable for these families. I'd like to include a letter that we have from the Town Supervisor supporting the 3 homes on Slaterville Rd. Board asked about how the land trust works. Applicant: Habitat retains ownership of the land with a 99 year -renewable lease in place for the occupant, where occupant is paying us a small fee to have their house on our land with use of the property and can use property as if they were owners. It does restrict the resale where it's an income -based restriction to keep the housing affordable. Board: it was alleged that this would be cost prohibitive to develop just the 2 lots, I gather that's not the case and you could do this with 2 lots? Applicant: For this property, at $55,000, and we want to rehab the house that is there. So, in the past we used to be able to find property in the $5,000 range or property where someone has donated a piece of land for us to use. This was really rural, and we are finding that people are wanting to be in cities/towns closer to work, schools, stores etc.... So our budget used to be $0 - $5,000 for land. So, we are already looking at $20,000 just to get started. We could build 2 but 3 would really help with keeping costs down. Board: Have you applied for septic with the County yet? And you will own the land but lease it for 99 years to a person that will own the home that you are going to build? What is the average living space that you are going to build? How does a person qualify for one of these homes? And what is your experience to date, have you already built homes and sold them. Applicant: these are all good questions, first for the septic we have not applied yet, we have met with Dept. of Health and looked at our possibilities, we have an Engineer Gary Bush designing our septics, once his designs are complete we will meet with Dept. of Health to get approvals. And you are correct on how the 99 -year lease works. The 2 homes are just over 1,000 sq. ft. We build just basic homes, no garage or basements, a small shed and front porch. Very simple. To qualify we have a lengthy application, income is 30 — 60% County Median, applicant must work at least 350 hours on their home, there are financial and ownership classes. And the next step is the financial, we used to finance but we are not allowed now. We use Sallie Mae, USDA or CFCU so applicant must qualify thru them. Our experience is we are in our 32 year in Tompkins and Cortland Counties. We have 23 homes, in City of Ithaca, Trumansburg, Lansing and Groton so we are around, we have one in Dryden. We have only had one difficult foreclosure. Most families are staying as their forever homes, some have paid their 30 -year mortgage off. So, we have a success rate of about 96%. Board to Ray: do you have any letters or other input about this project? Ray: Nothing from the neighbors. The County has given Habitat a grant for this project. A letter of endorsement from our Town Board. The Planning Board supports, and I have the mins. from that meeting to include. There was a full mail out to the neighbors and to the ones that signed in to the Jan. meeting. ADD LETTERS NEXT.......... Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Katherine Borgella, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability January 2, 2019 David Sprout, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Subdivision and Area Variance for proposed residences located at 1932 Slaterville Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel #73.-2-9, Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins/Cortland County, Owner/Appellant. Dear Mr. Sprout: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability pursuant to §239 —1, -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, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Cc: Keith Van Gorder and Eric Buck, NYSDOT, Region 3 Inclusion through (Diversity 3A Office of the Supervisor 93 E Main Street Dryden, NY 13053 October 1, 2018 Ms. Megan McDonald Deputy Commissioner Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability 121 East Court Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Ms. McDonald: Jason Leifer 607/844-8888 supervisor@dryden.ny.us It is with great enthusiasm that I write this letter of support for Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins and Cortland Counties (TCHFH), in their quest for funding through the Community Housing Development Fund's 2018 open funding round: As the Supervisor for the Town of Dryden, I support Habitat's mission to build decent, affordable housing in our community. Habitat has previously built in our community, at 6 Wellsley Drive in the Village of Dryden, and that effort was met with an enthusiastic volunteer turnout and donor support. The Couch family has owned their home on Wellsley Drive for 7 years and they've taken great pride in maintaining it and in becoming a part of the Dryden community. Habitat fills an unmet need in or area by providing quality, safe, affordable housing for qualified low-income families. We would welcome and support the development of 3 Habitat homes — one of which would revitalize a currently vacant and deteriorating structure - on Slaterville Road. I fully support this organization and know they will exceed any benchmarks and outcomes set forth. I highly recommend funding TCHFH and their building projects, and look forward to hearing about their continued success. Sincerely, Jason M Leifer, Esq. Supervisor Town of Dryden Planning Board February 28, 2019 keep people from trying to build in wet areas — put designated building envelopes on the lots. Moving that building envelope would need approval from Planning Board to move. • Any thought to protecting existing vegetation? Wasn't a lot of mature growth, seems to be a lot of honeysuckle taking over. • Seasonal road — in migration to becoming a year-round road. The Highway Supervisor is deciding as to whether he is going to pull the seasonal signs. May need engineer evaluation. • Who would pay to have the road brought up to specs? R. Burger stated that would be part of this process. • Lot lines may change depending on soil tests. • C. Anderson — Inquired about the Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) — any answer on that one? R. Burger— No, we need to sort that out. It's a gray area with DEC. No SWPPP required if only housing envelopes are shown on maps. • Next steps are to do soils tests on each lot to determine if the soils are suitable for residential construction based on site hydrology of each proposed site. Need to demonstrate the County will allow sanitary sewers and potable water wells. Need to show that building envelope areas are not in flood plane. 2141 Dryden Road — Doctor Office Introduction. Will be located on fill lot between the Medical Pain Consultants and Scottie's Garage. They are looking to go in there with a professional office with a medical/dermatology practice for the upstairs, and hope to get a second medical office for the space downstairs. J. Skaley- Why are people choosing to be in the country instead of in a denser area? You are losing the whole idea of a rural landscape. R. Burger - It is a mixed use commercial zone large enough to have the two practices and sufficient parking. There are already two other businesses next door. • Suggestion was made that a multiple access road might be advantageous for safety reasons. • Audience members stated it is a very hazardous location and there have been traffic fatalities in the past. • C. Anderson issues: Design calls for parking in the front -a couple of handicapped spots in front would be allowable however Commercial Design Guidelines call for parking to be in the back. Sign does not comply with our sign laws — want low profile, monument signs in this district No dumpsters out front Suggested they comply with the design guidelines and come back D. Weinstein stated we need incentives that make it more attractive for these kinds of offices to site in the village instead of on Route 13. Board needs to discuss this concept at some point. J. Kiefer — We need to hear from DOT regarding the roadcut before we do anything else. J. Wilson- We should seriously pursue the multiple access road. 1932 Slaterville Road Will be going back to the ZBA again for a variance. Page 3 of 9 :3C Planning Board February 28, 2019 Habitat for Humanity is attempting to develop a 3 -acre parcel that has an existing historic home that will be remodeled, and they want to put up 2 other affordable homes on two one -acre lots. First proposal was for a flag lot, which was denied by the ZBA. The second proposal asking for a variance to line up the three lots. One would be the 150' frontage conforming.lot and the adjacent two would be 100', so they are asking for 50' of frontage relief on two lots. This aligns the homes and makes the driveway shorter. D. Weinstein- Would like to recommend the ZBA approve this subdivision based on the fact that the ZBA concerns were addressed in schematic, and applicant has demonstrated that 50% of houses in the area have same frontages. RESOLUTION #2 (2019) —1932 SLATERVILLE ROAD — RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO ZBA D. Weinstein offered the following resolution and asked for its approval: RESOLVED that the Dryden Town Planning Board hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant this subdivision as the ZBA main concerns were addressed in schematic and the applicant has demonstrated that 50% of the houses in the area have similar road frontage as being proposed on these two lots. 2"d J Wilson - all in favor Approval of minutes — February 7, 2019 C. Anderson suggested the table be changed where it states, "Section 8" to read either "low-income" or "affordable housing". J. Skaley — the point of that remark in the SEAR amendment refers to the fact that the current affordable/moderate income level houses were being demolished as part of the project. As part of the SEQR that is one of the questions to be addressed. J. Wilson — In the minutes there was a comment to the effect that there were no significant changes in SEQR. I emailed today specific language that I am suggesting be amended in there, because I do not believe the comment is accurate. Therefore, I suggested the following language: Because of changes to this the SEQR Regulations that took effect January 1, 2019, changes have been made to the SEAF and the FEAF forms that we are to use, changes to the applicable workbooks, changes to the environmental impact statement procedures, and a new SEQR handbook the 4th Edition draft have been published. This will not delete the previous statement; only put on our record that we realize changes have been made and we have new documents/guidance/regulations to follow. Discussion ensued regarding the Environmental Impact Statement, the one or two sentence summaries given for the Town Board for each item that was determined had a potential for positive environmental impact. These are areas in which the Town Board should pay some special attention to as the discussion continues at the Town level. Page 4 of 9 Graham makes a motion to close this part of the public hearing, 6:27 PM Second: Curtis All in favor - Yes Curtis: would like it on record that he feels that the Town of Dryden Subdivision Law is in conflict with NYS Town Law Section 276 in that subdivision approval can only be delegated to the Planning Board, not the Planning Department as has been done in the Town of Dryden Subdivision Law. Board with Ray has big discussion on setbacks, zoning and subdivision 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: While it would increase the number of houses that could be built by 1 the impact would be offset by the willingness of the applicant to accept a restriction to limit any improvements beyond 160' from front property line, other than well and septic. Motion made by: Curtis Second: 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: Yes, no other way to develop into 3 -lots and current proposal minimizes the impact on the neighborhood and steep slopes. Motion made by: Ward Second: Graham All in favor — Yes 4 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: It's substantial 50' and 46' but offset to some extent, meets in some aspects exceeds other requirement, like bulk area. Motion made by: Graham Second: Fearn 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 applicant willingness to forgo development no further than 160' from the front property line will offset some adverse impacts and minimize stormwater runoff. Motion made by: Fearn Second: Ward All in favor - Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes / see A, B, C & D above. Motion made by: Slater Second: Ward All in favor - Yes Fearn: this area variance is Non -Exempt unlisted action and the Planning Commissioner will be the Lead Agent and action is pending. Motion made by: Fearn Second: Ward All in favor — Yes INSERT SEQR NEXT W Instructions for Completine 617.20 Appendix B Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part I based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Pail 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information Name of Action or Project: Proposed Subdivision, Property at 1932 Slaterville Road Project Location (describe, and attach a location map): 1932 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No. 73.-2-9 Brief Description of Proposed Action: Subdivison of a 3.04 -acre parcel locate at 1932 Slaterville Road, a.k.a. Tax Parcel No. 73.2-9, containing an existing dwelling, into three (3) lots. The existing dwelling on proposed Lot # i will be rehabilitated as a Habitat for Humanity project, and 2 new Habitat homes will be built on Lots 42 and 03. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: I Telephone: 607 844-3529 Habitat for Humanity of Tompkins & Cortland Counties, I E -Mail: shannon@tehabitat.com attn: Shannon MacCarrick. Executive Director Address: P.O. Box 4683 City/PO: State: Zip Code: Ithaca NY 14852 1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that X may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval: Town of Dryden Zoning Board; Tompkins County Health Dept. (wells & septic); NYSDoT (driveway) 3.a.Total otal acreage of the site of the proposed action? 3.04—acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned _0.35 +/--acres or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? _ _3.04 _acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action. o Urban IX Rural (non -agriculture) 30 Industrial ❑ Commercial iX Residential (suburban) X Forest ❑ Agriculture o Aquatic ❑ Other (specify): ❑ Parkland Page 1 of 4 NO YES 5. Is the proposed action, JNQI a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations? b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? _ _ 6, Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural YES X N/A YES landscape? �l X 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: - X 8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO IX YES b. Are public transportation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action? I I X c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? X 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: NO YES X 10. Vill the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO i YES [If Yes, does the existing system have capacity to provide service? ❑ NO ❑ YES] If No, describe method for providing potable water: _On -lot private hells X 11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES [If Yes, does the existing system have capacity to provide service? ❑ NO ❑ YES] If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: —On -lot septic systems X 12. a, Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? X I b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? X {) 13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain I NO YES 1 wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? X b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or �vaterbody? X If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: ❑ Shoreline N Forest ❑ Agricultural/grasslands Early mid -successional ❑ Wetland ❑ Urban N Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? X the project site located in the 100 year flood lain? I NO YES 1 16. Is p � Y P 17. Virill the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non -point sour? � NO YES � If Yes, a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? N 0 FS X b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff an storm drains)? If Yes, briefly describe: ❑ NON YES Storm -water runoff not retained on site will discharge into --existing /NrY`S�D'oT drainageway along Rte 79. _l �YT 1t ci t'T c,- fA�7 t�Yr� DD tV Page 2 of 4 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of water or other liquids (e,g. retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain purpose and size: 19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed solid waste management facility? if Yes, describe: 20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or completed). for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: NO YES I Ii NO I YES I I I I X I i NO YES X I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED Ai3OVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE MT OF MY KNOWLEDGE 4. Applicant/sponsor name: _George Frantz for }}i�abitat for Humanity-_ Date: 11/20/18 Signature: Part 2 - Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part I and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept "Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No, or Moderate Page 3 of 4 small to large impact impact may may 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning occur occur regulations? i 0 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? !� It,l � 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? S. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? ' 6. Will'the proposed action cause art increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate t` reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a, public/ private water supplies? b. public / private wastewater treatment utilities? 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? I 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources (e.g., wetlands, / waterbodies, groundwater, air quality, flora and fauna)? I V Page 3 of 4 ::.. . • . •.•••.::....� • :: .. ..; .. � '• No, or 10, Moderate small to large impact impact m—�.e may : occur occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3 - Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered "moderate to large impact may occur", or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact, please complete Part 3. Part 3 should, in sufficient detail, identify the impact, including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant. Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting, probability of occurring, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short -tern, long-term and cumulative impacts. S "U dy n.t S� Pir + 1 rr (I V lJ 1 � d � -FFi cu t-1•- � c� -c. �e-,rv� � v� �- q jditt w -)a a <c- r 6 e 'er S ✓ a-,�c 2, ❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. r�A Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above, and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ate Title of R sp nsible Officer n Signatur ofrep er (if different from Responsible Officer) Page 4 of 4 Grant variance with conditions: 1. Subject to all required agency approvals, such as Health Dept. and Dept. of Transportation. 2. No improvements beyond 160' from the front property line, with exception to the well and temporary structures under 144 sq. ft not attached to the ground. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Graham All in favor - Yes 7:15 pm meeting adjourned - Congratulations you have your approval G