Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA 2023-12-05TOWN OF DRYDEN Zoning Board of Appeals 12-5-23 via Hybrid Approved 1-2-24 Board Members Janis Graham, Chairwoman, (excused) Ben Curtis, (Acting Chair) Henry Slater Mary Witman Mike Gill Others Attending Ray Burger, Director of Planning Dillon Shults, Planner Joy Foster, Board Secretary, (zoom) Applicants & Public Attending Mary & Reggie Brown, 36 Mott Rd. Applicants Jamie Ayers, 464 Sheldon Rd. Applicant Kelby Riemer, 1648 Dryden Rd. Applicant 464 Sheldon Road Public Hearing was opened at 6:05 PM, by Acting Chair Ben Curtis and after confirming that all in attendance have received or read the legal notice, reading the notice was waived. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: H. Slater All in favor NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Jamie Ayers for an area variance at 464 Sheldon Rd Tax Parcel ID 30.-1-36.13. This parcel is in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in the front yard area. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav December 5, 2023 at 6:00 nm 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 October 2 to the Town website at: drvden.nv.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: vlann1n464'drvden.nv.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. 464 Sheldon Rd, Tax Parcel 30.4-36.13, Rural Residential Zoning District Relevant Code Town of Dryden Code Section 270-3.2 (Zoning Definitions — Use, Accessory) states - "Unless otherwise permitted in this Law, an Accessory Structure shall not be permitted in the front yard of a Principal Use." That prohibition is further demonstrated in Section 270-6.1 Area and Bulk Table, which does not specifically provide front yard setbacks for accessory structures. Summary The applicant, Jamie Ayers, requests relief from Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 to install a 10-foot by 16-foot pre -built shed within the front yard area at 464 Sheldon Rd. As proposed, the shed will be located primarily to the north of the applicant's residence and will extend into the front yard 7 feet past the existing front porch (see map below). The area of the proposed garage is located on mostly level lawn and driveway area. Along the road frontage of the residence is vegetation (a couple trees and shrubs). Department Staff visited the site on 10/10/2023 to assess the proposed building area and measure front yard setbacks. As proposed, all yard area setbacks found in Chapter 270, Section 6.1 will be met. The Chair asks the applicant if he has anything further to add to his application. With nothing further asks if any members of the Board have any questions or comments. The Board has questions about the garage/tarp/tubular building in the way front close to the road. What is it and did you get a permit from the Town for such. Applicant: says his son stores his small boat under that. Didn't think it needed a permit as it's temporary and portable, easy to take down or move, no foundation. Applicant not sure of the size. The Board: a lengthy discussion with the Zoning Officer and Planner ensued, about what is a structure and what requires a permit, and placement, setbacks on something that is not a structure. The Board asked for clarification regarding setback requirement for structures less than 150 square feet. Burger and Shults stated that they had determined that a building 150 SF or less per the zoning law is neither a building nor a structure and therefore it is not required to comply with zoning law requirements including setbacks or placement in the front yard. With that Curtis moved to close the Public Hearing Second: M. Witman All in favor Discussion/Decision At the request of Curtis, the Board proceeded with the required questions for an Area Variance; the responses given by the ZBA members were as follows. 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: The ZBA finds the structure will not produce an undesirable change and would be in the character of the neighborhood. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: M. Witman All in favor 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: It's feasible that the benefits could be achieved by some other method, but the burden of relocating the structure to another site on the property would far exceed the benefits to the community. The proposed structure takes advantage of an existing cleared area and is accessible via an existing driveway. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: H. Slater All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Whether the variance is substantial or not is indeterminant in that it is either in the front yard or it's not. However, it is insubstantial in impact. Although it is in front of the existing house, it is not in the required front yard, being over 50 feet away from the highway line. Motion made by: M. Whitman Second: - M. Gill All in favor 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 ZBA finds that the proposed variance will have a negligible effect on the physical and environmental conditions as the shed is a small structure. The visual impact will be minimal. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: B. Curtis All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, it was self-created, but the proposed structure's placement on the property is optimal, given the existing conditions and limitations of the site. As noted above. Motion made by: M. Whitman Second: M. Gill All in favor Motion made by: Curtis to classify this as SEOR exempt tvpe II action - 617.5(c)(12), per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: M. Whitman All in favor A motion was made by B. Curtis to approve the Area Variance as requested with one condition. 1. Condition — the applicant establishes compliance regarding the structure that is in the front yard closer to the road. Second: M. Whitman All in favor Congratulations your variance is approved. Attach 239 review Department of Planning r �* Sustainability COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 1 Phone: (607) 274-5560 1 tompkinscountyny.gov/planning Ocotber 20, 2023 Dillon Shults, Planner Town of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Area Variance for proposed Front Yard Variance located at 464 Sheldon Road, Tax Parcel #30: 1-36.13, Jamie Ayres, Owner and Applicant. Dear Mr. Shults: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county -wide or inter -community impact. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, M. Megan McDonald Deputy Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. 1648 Dryden Road Public Hearing was opened at 6:35 PM, by Acting Chair Ben Curtis and after confirming that all in attendance have received or read the legal notice, reading the notice was waived. Motion to waive reading the notice made by: M. Witman Second: M. Gill All in favor NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Kelby Riemer for an area variance at 1648 Dryden Rd, Tax Parcel ID 44.-1-17. This parcel is in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden requires a 50-foot front yard setback for structures. The applicant proposes to construct a front porch and side porch within the 50-foot front yard setback. The applicant requests 13 feet and 7 feet of relief to construct a front porch and side porch respectively. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav December 5.2023 at 6:15 um 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 October 2 to the Town website at: drvden.nv.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: plannin2(iWrvden.nv.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. 1648 Dryden Rd, Tax Parcel 44.-1-17, Rural Residential Zoning District Relevant Code Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 (Area and Bulk Table) requires a 50-foot front yard setback in the Rural Residential Zoning District. Summary The applicant, Kelby Riemer, requests relief from Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 to construct an 8-foot by 18-foot front porch and a 6-foot by 8-foot side porch within the 50-foot front yard setback area. The existing residence, to which the porches will connect to, is located within the 50-foot front yard setback area. As proposed, the front porch and side porch will be located within 37 feet and 43 feet of the front lot line respectively. The applicant's parcel abuts a New York State right-of-way (ROW) along Dryden Road. As such, the front yard setback is measured from the edge of the ROW rather than the highway boundary established by a road -by -use (in cases where the lot extends to the centerline of the highway). Therefore, although the proposed front porch will be located 37 feet from the front yard lot line, it will be located approximately 62 feet from the edge of the pavement on Dryden Road. The applicant's residence and yard area are approximately 10 feet below the elevation of Dryden Road and the road frontage in front of the residence is partially screened by several mature trees. Department Staff visited the site on 10/27/2023. As proposed, side yard and rear yard setbacks found in Chapter 270, Section 6.1 will be met. The Chair asks the applicant if he has anything further to add to his application. Applicant: Bought the house to flip, needs to fix it up, build decks/porches to make appearance better and comply with Building Code. Existing porches are not safe and need to be rebuilt. Put the roof back on the porch and rebuild the decks and stairs. The sliding glass door that is there needs the deck. With that M. Witman moved to close the Public Hearing Second: B. Curtis All in favor Discussion/Decision At the request of Curtis, the Board proceeded with the required questions for an Area Variance; the responses given by the ZBA members were as follows. ADD 239 NEXT Department of Planning a Sustainability COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 1 Phone: (607) 274-5560 1 tompkinscountyny.gov/planning November 21, 2023 Dillon Shults, Planner Town of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Area Variance for front and side porch located at 1648 Dryden Road, Tax Parcel #44.-1-17, Kelby Riemer, Owner and Applicant. Dear Mr. Shults: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county -wide or inter -community impact. We do, however, have the following comments on the proposed action: • The proposed front porch construction is within 50 feet of the intermittent stream on the parcel. We acknowledge the existing structure is also within 50 feet of the stream and, therefore, suggest that the Town work with the applicant to minimize any additional construction activity within 50 feet of the stream and establish, to the extent practical, a vegetative buffer within 50 feet of the stream to better protect water quality in the stream. • The well on the parcel is located in close proximity to the proposed front porch. In order to protect the safety of the drinking water in the well, the applicant should refrain from any grading or other activities that may cause water to pool in the vicinity of the well. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. 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: It's an improvement to the property replacing the existing porch and deck although slightly larger it's not sufficient to cause any visual impact to adjacent neighbors or the community. Also, the house is about 10 feet below the grade of the existing one which will mitigate any visual impact for passing traffic. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: M. Witman All in favor 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: No there is no reasonable alternative as the doors are there and some sort of deck or porch is required for the building code compliance and moving the doors would put an enormous burden on the applicant disproportionate to any benefit to the community. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: H. Slater All in favor s C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, it's substantial being 1/3 of the required setback but it's the minimum amount of relief that the applicant needs to build a porch there which he is required to do. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: - B. Curtis All in favor 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: Despite the structure being close to the existing stream the proposed construction of a porch and a deck for the existing doors will have minimal impact on the environment and the community. The visual impact will be an improvement. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: M. Witman All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: No, it's not self-created, the applicant has an obligation for the safety of the occupants of the building and what he is requesting is the minimum to provide that. The building is already there along with the doors. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: B. Curtis All in favor Motion made by: M. Witman to classify this as SEOR exempt tvpe 11 action 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(12), per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: H. Slater All in favor A motion was made by H. Slater to approve the Area Variance as requested with one condition. 1. The condition that the applicant receives a copy of the County 239 Review and takes reasonable steps and works with the Planning Dept. to address the County's concerns. Second: M. Whitman All in favor Congratulations your variance is approved. 36 Mott Road Public Hearing was opened at 6:57 PM, by Acting Chair Ben Curtis and after confirming that all in attendance have received or read the legal notice, reading the notice was waived. Motion to waive reading the notice made by: B. Curtis Second: M. Gill All in favor NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Dryden will conduct a Public Hearing to consider the application of Reginald Blomfield-Brown for an area variance at 36 Mott Rd, Tax Parcel ID 35.4-17.1. This parcel is in the Rural Residential zoning district and the Code of the Town of Dryden prohibits placement of accessory structures in the front yard area. SAID HEARING will be held on Tuesdav December 5, 2023 at 6:30 Um 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 October 2 to the Town website at: drvden.nv.us You can also submit comments prior to the meeting or request meeting details by email to: planninv,(t-i drvden.nv.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. 36 Mott Rd, Tax Parcel 35.-1-17.1, Rural Residential Zoning District Relevant Code Town of Dryden Code Section 270-3.2 (Zoning Definitions - Use, Accessory) states- "Unless otherwise permitted in this Law, an Accessory Structure shall not be permitted in the front yard of a Principal Use." That prohibition is further demonstrated in Section 270-6.1 Area and Bulk Table, which does not specifically provide front yard setbacks for accessory structures. Summary The applicant, Reggie Blomfield-Brown, requests relief from the Town of Dryden Code Section 270-6.1 to construct a 40-foot by 88-foot pole barn within the front yard area at 36 Mott Rd. The project site contains an existing manufactured home park - Mott Road Park. The pole barn will be used to store maintenance equipment used at the manufactured home park. The applicant also proposes to construct an access driveway on North Road that will lead to the pole barn. The parcel has two front yards, on Mott Road and North Road. As proposed, the pole barn will be located within the front yard area on North Road. Although the pole barn will be in the front yard area, it will be located more than 150 feet from the edge of North Road. As proposed, all front yard and side yard setbacks found in Chapter 270, Section 6.1 will be met. go The Chair asks the applicant if he has anything further to add to his application. With nothing to add H. Slater moved to close the Public Hearing Second: M. Gill All in favor Discussion/Decision At the request of Curtis, the Board proceeded with the required questions for an Area Variance; the responses given by the ZBA members were as follows. The Board and the Zoning Officer and Planner have a discussion on where they are measuring for the setbacks. Whether the mobile home park ordinance applies and whether the shed or the mobile home is the primary structure. In the case of a corner lot there are two front yards, one facing each of the adjacent roadways. According to the mobile home law, zoning laws apply, see Section 183-12(B). The setback from the front yard is measured to the first structure in the front yard — in the case of a manufactured home park that would be a manufactured home (a building greater than 150 square feet). The proposed pole barn will clearly be the first structure as measured from the front yard on North Rd and therefore needs the ZBA approval for an accessory structure in the front yard area. 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: It will be a desirable change as the equipment will be housed inside the building. Visual impact will be minimal due to the distance from the road. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: M. Witman All in favor H 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 alternatives, but the proposed location makes the best sense on the property and the burden on the applicant locating it elsewhere would be disproportional to any benefit to the community. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: H. Slater All in favor C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Whether the variance is substantial or not is indeterminate in that it is either in the front yard or it's not. However, it is insubstantial in impact. Although it is in the front yard it is not in the required front yard in that it is over 150 feet from the highway line. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: - B. Curtis All in favor 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 is subject to Stormwater Management Permit due to the size of the building and therefore the applicant should seek help from the Planning Department to meet stormwater requirements. Motion made by: H. Slater Second: M. Witman All in favor E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF- CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Yes, it is self-created, but the proposal minimizes any impact on the community. Motion made by: B. Curtis Second: M. Witman All in favor Motion made by: H. Slater to classify this as SEOR exempt tvpe 11 action 6 CRR-NY 617.5(c)(9), per the recommendation of the Planning Dept. Second: M. Witman All in favor A motion was made by B. Curtis to approve the Area Variance as requested with 2 conditions. 1. Applicants gain approval with the County for the curb cut onto North Road. 2. Comply with Stormwater Management Regulations for the Town. Second: H. Slater All in favor ADD COMMENT ADD 239 NEXT C° Department of Planning f3 'Sustainability COMMISSIONER Katherine Borgella DEPUTY COMMISSIONER M. Megan McDonald 121 E. Court St, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 1 Phone: (607) 274-5560 1 tompkinscountyny.gov/planning November 21, 2023 Dillon Shults, Planner Town of Dryden 93 East Main St. Dryden, NY 13053 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of New York State General Municipal Law Proposed Action: Area Variance for proposed pole barn located at 36 Mott Road, Tax Parcel #35. 1-17.1, Reggie Blomfield-Brown, Owner and Applicant. Dear Mr. Shults: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposed action identified above for review by the Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability pursuant to §239 -1, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law. We have determined the proposed action will have no significant county -wide or inter -community impact. We do, however, have the following comment on the proposed action: • The applicant should work with the Tompkins County Highway Department as the proposed driveway access to the pole barn is located on a county road. We look forward to receiving notification on the final action taken by your municipality within 30 days of decision, as required by State law. Sincerely, Katherine Borgella, AICP Commissioner of Planning and Sustainability cc: Jeffrey Smith, Tompkins County Highway Director Creating and implementing plans that position Tompkins County communities to thrive. stairsR(@Rmail.com 11-8-23 We will be in Florida and unable to attend this hearing. We have no problem with Reggie's proposal and therefore are in favor of his project. He is a good neighbor. Douglas and Virginia Stairs 296 North Rd. Dryden,NY Sent from my Phone Congratulations your variance is approved. Approval of 10-3-23 minutes, the Board does not have the hardcopy of the minutes, so Curtis moves to approve at the next meeting. B. Curtis Motions Second: M. Witman All in favor ADJOURNMENT B. Curtis Motions to adjourn 7:15 PM Second: M. Witman All in favor