Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-02TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals August 2, 2022 via Hybrid Approved 10-18-22 1 Members: Janis Graham (Zoom), Henry Slater, Ben Curtis (Acting Chair) Absent: Karl Kolesnikoff Others Present: Ray Burger Director of Planning. Applicants Brian De Young with David Barken and Keith Pond, Thomas Pirko, Suzanne Kuntz Residents: 0 Meeting called to order at 6:06 PM 1686 Slaterville Rd. Area Variance Applicant: Brian DeYoung Chair Curtis asked if Board members and all those present had received the notice. All indicating they had, Curtis requested a motion to waive reading of the notice. Second: Graham All in favor - yes NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Brian DeYoung for an area variance at 1686 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel ID 70.-1-5. This parcel is in the Neighborhood Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden requires a 50 foot front yard setback. Applicant requests 15 foot of relief to allow single family structure to sit 35 feet from the road. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday August 2, 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 August 1 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. 2 Applicant do you have any thing further you would like to tell us? • We are going to focus on just the primary structure, which is the fire damaged structure. Making it into just a single-family home. • The other “Primary structure" will become just storage, no living space, no utilities, no address. • The plan is to improve the quality of the neighborhood by cleaning up the site and rehabilitating the structure and removing the eyesore and dangerous site where a school bus stops. • We are planning to move the driveway around the corner (to the common driveway to the east) to lessen traffic on a busy road but will leave the spot allowing buses to stop and drop off children. • The older Mobile Home has been removed. Our plan will be that the property has gone from 4-5 dwellings to 1-single-family home. • We are replacing the sewage system per the County Review. Slater moves with no more comments from the Board we will close the public part of the hearing 6:19 pm Second: Graham All in favor - yes ADD 239 3 A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No, the proposed project and renovations of existing structure is consistent with many of the other properties in the immediate surrounding neighborhood and therefore consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Motion made by: Slater- Yes Second: Graham- 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: Home is preexisting and due to the several years lapse in addressing the fire damage applicant finds himself in a situation where a variance is necessary to complete the repairs. There is no other alternative feasible to accomplish this project. Motion made by: Slater- 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: The Board finds it is substantial because it is 15’ out of 50’. However, it is consistent with the original structure that was there which was built-in compliance with the laws that were in effect at that time. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: - Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes 4 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 will be no adverse effect and in fact by reducing the number of residences on the lot this project will have a positive environmental impact. The project will also have a positive impact on the neighborhood by renovating the fire damaged structure, protecting the gorge and moving the driveway. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, because when property was bought, they knew of the existing problems. And time was well past when it could have been renovated without a variance. Motion made by: Graham - Yes Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEQR exempt type II action part 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(16) per the Planning Department Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes Conditions: 1. One address which is 1686 2. Receive required permits and approvals from the Town of Dryden; comply with County Planning Department 239 recommendations regarding the septic system and obtain required septic permit and approvals from the Tompkins Co. Health Dept. 3. No other occupied structures on the property. Decision to Grant variance request of 15’ of relief with the 3 conditions. Motion made by: Graham Second: Curtis - Yes All in favor – Yes Congratulations you have your variance 6:45 PM 5 Next hearing 140 Bradshaw Rd. 6:48PM Graham asked if Board members and all those present had received the notice. All indicating they had, Graham requested a motion to waive reading of the notice. Second: Curtis All in favor - yes NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Tom Pirko for an area variance at 140 Bradshaw Road, Tax Parcel ID 37.-1-20.12. This parcel is in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in front yards and requires a 50 foot front yard setback. Applicant requests 15 foot of relief to allow an accessory structure to sit 35 feet from the road and in his front yard. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesday August 2, 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 August 1 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. Applicant Tom Pirko • He has talked to Dave and Ray in the Planning Dept., he met with Ben and Janis on site to come up with the best possible site. • Needs to keep shed up close to the tree line and not randomly placed in the middle of the yard. • Close to tree line is protected from the road and the view, neighbors want it there and it’s the most convenient spot as well. • Rick Young Highway Supervisor stopped and help determine the ROW. • There are many other structures in this neighborhood just as close. I don’t feel I’m asking for something unusual for this neighborhood. • If the decision is that the shed be no closer then 75’ from the center of the line, applicant really wants clarification because 75’ from the center is sufficiently different then 50’ from the edge of the road. Board with Ray Burger have discussion on the ROW, or edge of road or back of ditch, or from the center of the line. Much confusion on this measurement. 6 Board questions: • There are 4-5 acres, and this is the only place you can place this shed, Board finds this to be in a difficult place. Tom thinks this is the most practical place and most convenient and will look the best. And after talking with the Planning Dept. for guidance. • Why can’t shed go off end of house (South End)? Tom says a garage is planned for there in the near future. Graham moves with no more comments from the Board we will close the public part of the hearing 7:14 pm Second: Curtis All in favor - Yes A. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WOULD BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No, accessory buildings in the front yard are not unusual in this Rural Neighborhood. There have been no letters or concerns from neighboring property owners. Motion made by: Slater- Yes Second: Graham- 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: Clearly there are a number of other places to place structure but the applicant has indciated very good reasons for placing it in the front yard. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes 7 C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, the variance as requested is substantial because the building is closer to the road then 75’ from the center line of the road. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: - Slater - 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: No, see A and it’s a small shed with rural homes, no runoff issues. Motion made by: Graham - Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, it is self-created. The applicant has had control over this property since before there were any improvements. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEQR exempt type II action part 6CRR-NY 617.5( c) (16) per the Planning Department Second: Graham - Yes All in favor - Yes Decision and Conditions 8 1. Variance be granted and that no part of the structure be any closer than 75’ from the Center of the Road Motion made by: Curtis to Grant this Variance as requested with 1. condition. Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes Congratulations you have your Variance Next hearing 2012 Dryden Rd. 7:25 PM Continuance of meeting June 7, 2022 Applicant: Suzanne Kuntz • Requesting to place 2- 12x24 foot sheds in the front yard. • PB accepted the Sketch Plan 7-28-22 • Printing is done in the garage, and they received the building permit for the renovations. They have a C of O. Motion made by: Curtis, we will close the public hearing 7:28 PM Second: Graham - 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: There is some visual impact, but applicant has agreed to plant a vegetative screening between the road and the sheds. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Graham- 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: There are other places to put the sheds but because of where the well and the septic are and needing to acess the sheds from the driveway, placing the sheds elsewhere would create a disproportionate burden to the applicant. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes 9 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 or not the variance is substantial is indeterminate because the building is either in the front yard or it is not, in this case placement in the front yard is mitigated because the structures are not proposed to be located in the required front yard. Motion made by: Curtis - Yes Second: - Graham - 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: See above, the visual impact is proposed to be mitigated by a vegetative screening. Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater- Yes All in favor – Yes E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, it is self-created. However, structure and septic existing and the existing topography and the garage and driveway preexisting. Placement is the best place . Motion made by: Curtis- Yes Second: Slater - Yes All in favor - Yes Motion made by: Curtis to classify this SEQR exempt type II action 617.5c9 Second: Slater - Yes All in favor – Yes 10 Decision and Conditions: 1. Installation of vegetative screening approved by the Planning Department 2. Granting of a CofO for a Mixed Residential and Commercial Use. Motion made by: Slater to Grant this Variance as requested with 2. conditions Second: Graham – Yes All in favor - Yes Congratulations you have your Variance Slater Motions to adjourn 7:50 PM Second: Graham - Yes All in favor – Yes