The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-05-03TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals May 3, 2022 Hybrid Minutes approved 6-7-22 1 Members Present: Janis Graham (Chair), Ben Curtis, Henry Slater Zoom: Karl Kolesnikoff, Joy Foster Recording Secretary, Absent: 0 Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning Applicants, Brian DeYoung with Keith Pond, Applicants, Leslie Morning Sky with Ron Butler, and Steven Lantz. Public Zoom: Peggy Thorp Meeting called to order at 6:03 PM 3 Signal Tower Road, Area Variance Applicant: Leslie Morning Sky with Ron Butler Chair Graham 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 Walter Butler for a variance to allow construction of a garage in the front yard, 75 feet from the road at 3 Signal Tower Road, Tax Parcel ID 50.-1-5.42. The Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in front yards. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday May 3, 2022 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. Details on how to connect will be posted May 2 to 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 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. Board talks with applicants to be clear on the frontage. There are no further questions from the Board or public. Graham: reads the Tompkins County Review where they give no recommendations. 2 *239 as Attachment Motion made by: Graham- to close this part of the public hearing 6:10 PM Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor – Yes Sense of the Board: All are fine with project. 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 accessory structure is a permitted use in the district and seems entirely consistent with the neighborhood, especially since it will be shielded from view by existing trees. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: Curtis - 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: The benefits can be achieved by some other siting, but the applicant appears to have chosen the ideal location. Any other location would create an undue burden on the applicant with no benefit to the surrounding community. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes C.IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Whether the variance is substantial is indeterminate because it is difficult to determine if the structure is in the front yard or not. In either case, however, the proposed structure is not in the required front yard setback and thus could be considered not substantial. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: - Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes 3 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 will have a minimal effect or impact on the environmental conditions and the visual impact is mitigated by tree coverage. Motion made by: Graham - Yes Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, difficulty is self-created, but see A through D, above. Motion made by: Slater - Yes Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor - Yes Curtis moves that this is a Type II exempt actions SEQR – 617.5c12 Second: Graham - Yes All in Favor – Yes Decision to Grant Variance: with one condition: That the proposed accessory structure shall be at least 50 feet from the road right of way. Motion made by: Kolesnikoff to Grant this Variance as requested with one condition. Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes Variance granted 6:21 PM Open next hearing 6:22 Pm Graham reads public notice: 4 NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Brian DeYoung for a variance to allow reconstruction of a dwelling that was damaged by fire in 2013 at 1686 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel ID 70.-1-5. This parcel is in the Neighborhood Residential zoning district and already has one single family home on the lot. The Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits more than one single family home per lot in this district. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday May 3, 2022 at 6:15 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. Details on how to connect will be posted May 2 to 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 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. Comments and questions from the Board • There currently is a single-family with attached garage that is a rental unit • Accessory units are only allowed if owner occupied. • This is single-family rental with no owner on property • Been empty 10 years and badly burned • Owner says only slightly burned and is fixable • Code Enforcement letter states house is more than 50% burned * Letter as Attachment Board and applicant look at map/survey to show entire property. Time frame of property is: 2013 Estate owned 2015 Sold to David Hall 2020 back to Estate owned Brian DeYoung is agent to sell the property Keith Pond is property manager Objective is to get this Variance to be able to sell. Comments from the audience: Steve Lantz talks about the letter he wrote 5 *Lantz Letter as Attachment Mr. Lantz main concerns are insufficient water resources available, and higher density of people and renters is undesirable to neighbors. Limited water availability is a concern for residents on the southern slope of Snyder Hill. Thorpe states that in 2013 she installed a new water system that is a community well system that is one of very few left in NY. Attach 239 letter that reports: To help protect water quality and reduce stormwater runoff to the intermittent stream and Six Mile Creek, it is important to reduce the amount of incremental development that occurs within the streams buffer. We understand that the existing fire damaged house is within the 50-foot buffer from the edge of the intermittent stream and that it is desirable to rebuild withing the existing footprint. Any additional encroachment into the 50-foot buffer should be avoided to the greatest extent possible. *239 Letter as Attachment Motion made by: Graham to close the public part of this meeting 6:49 PM Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor – Yes Sense of the Board: • They fail to show that they can’t realize a reasonable return • They have admitted to income from the rentals on the property • Its being rented and can continue to be rented • Have not show dollars and cents that they are losing money Board to answer the 4 questions 1. THE APPLICANT CANNOT REALIZE A REASONABLE RETUN PROVIDED THAT LACK OF RETURN IS SUBSTANTIAL AS DEMONSTRATED BY COMPETENT FINANCIAL EVIDENCE. Applicant testified that they are receiving income from the property, and they presented no evidence that they were not able to realize a reasonable return from the property. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes 6 2. THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS UNIQUE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD. The property is somewhat unique in that the building is damaged by fire and, prior to that, was used in a manner nonconforming to current zoning regulations. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Slater- Yes All in favor – Yes 3. THE REQUESTED USE VARIANCE, IF GRANTED, WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. If home was restored to a single-family dwelling, it would be consistent with the historic character of the neighborhood. But given that another home exists on the lot, it would not be consistent with the future of the neighborhood as envisioned by Dryden’s current zoning law. Motion made by: Curtis Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor – Yes 4. THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN SELF-CREATED. There is a clear and long record of the fact that the alleged hardship was self-created. Motion made by: Slater Second: Curtis- Yes All in favor – Yes 7 Based on the Board’s determination that this variance cannot be granted, the Board has also determined that conducting the environmental review is not necessary since the Board is not approving any actions. Curtis: moves Second: Graham All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to Deny this Variance based on the findings. #1 finding reasonable return and #4 being alleged hardship being self-created. Second: Kolesnikoff - Yes All in favor – Yes Approve the minutes from February meeting Kolesnikoff: moves Second: Slater All in favor – Yes – 3 Recusing – Curtis – 1 Graham moves to adjourn 7:13 PM Second: Slater All in favor - Yes 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 Inclusion through Diversity March 31, 2022 Ray Burger, Planning Director Town of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -l, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area Variance for proposed accessory structure located at 3 Signal Tower Road, Town of Dryden Tax Parcel #50.-1-5.42, Walter Butter, Owner/Appellant. Dear Mr. Burger, The Tompkins County Department of Planning & Sustainability has reviewed the proposal submitted by your municipality as required under the provisions of New York State General Municipal Law §239 -l, -m and -n. We have no recommendations or comments on this proposal. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Should you have any questions about this review please contact us. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability