ZBA Minutes of April 3, 2001

TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

APRIL 3, 2001

AGENDA: (1) Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

MEM. PRESENT: Chairperson Charles Hanley, Stuart Berg, Oers Kelemen, and Nick LaMotte.

ALSO PRESENT: Henry Slater, John V. Heintz, Eric Dicke and Kaitlin Lovell

LEGAL COUNSEL: Randy Marcus

The Board discussed the minutes from the March 6, 2001 and approved them as

amended. Motion: Nick LaMotte Second: Stuart Berg

***************************************************************************

(1) Cornell

Chairperson Charles Hanley opened the hearing of The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology of 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Village of Lansing who was asking the Zoning Board Of Appeals for a variance to Article VII-A Section 754.3. Chair Hanley read into the record a letter dated March 21, 2001 from Henry Slater to the Board. He noted that the file also contained the Long Environmental Impact Statement, Agricultural form, Several survey maps, and a longer statement of the applicant as well as notification to all neighbors. There was no reaction of any kind in the file nor any since the file was mailed to the Board members. He opened the floor up for the representatives of the Lab of Ornithology.

J. Heintz: We would like the Board to consider this application for a variance. The reason for the application is that federal law requires that when doing work adjacent to or within wetland areas that you prepare a design to the best of your ability to minimize the impact to federally protected wetlands. In taking into account all of the factors that we did at the site including the ability for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic to move efficiently through the site. The design presented (for the building) is out best attempt to both meet all of our requirements for the building and minimize the impact to federal wetlands. We respectfully request that the Board consider out application for this variance to place a parking area a distance of 7.5 feet from the edge of the right -of- way instead of the required 15 feet.

C. Hanley: Would you please come up and make sure that we understand exactly what area (on the map) that you are talking about.

J. Heintz: As delineated on this drawing, the edge of the proposed parking area is a distance of approximately 7.5 feet from the edge of the proposed right-of-way. A distance of an additional 7.5 feet away would require us to move this whole area into this area (indicating an area in the direction of the existing road) which would impact that much more into the wetland.

C. Hanley: Where is the current building on this map?

J. Heintz: The current building is located down here. (Indicating the location of the map)

O. Kelemen: John, is this all going to be new road down here?

J. Heintz: Yes that is new road.

O. Kelemen: Why can’t the road be moved 7.5 feet this way? (Indicating a direction moving away from the existing road).

J. Heintz: Actually there is wetland in this area as well.

O. Kelemen: So you would be interrupting that way too.

J. Heintz: This is actually a small finger right here, which is one of the reasons that the road curved in. It represents an area where we have minimized because there are wetlands on this side and over here.

C. Hanley: So the present building is in here. So Sapsucker presently runs straight down here.

J. Heintz: That’s correct.

E. Dicke: Then it turns south of the barn.

C. Hanley: So the goose pond is over here.

S. Berg: This isn’t going to connect in just below the barn?

E. Dicke: No, the roadway will stay north of the barn. Instead of that extra jog.

S. Berg: It will come out to Rt. 13 at Brown road.

E. Dicke: It will be completely rebuilt.

C. Hanley: So it will go to the other side of the barn and hook up with Rt. 13 at the same location?

E. Dicke: That’s correct.

S. Berg: So that rough road now that is below the barn takes a right and a left and it’s going to just go straight.

C. Hanley: So it actually pulls the traffic away from the area.

S. Berg: Who owns that barn?

E. Dicke: Cornell. It’s going to stay.

S. Berg: The only people who live in this area are the O’Connors right?

E. Dicke: That’s correct.

S. Berg: Of course they didn’t have a problem with this right?

E. Dicke: No. We have been working very closely with them on this.

S. Berg: I have a question regarding parking lot structure. Does it save space if these spots are herringbone?

E. Dicke: Traditionally they are less efficient.

H. Slater: Actually they take up more space because there are two angles to consider.

S. Berg: But you don’t need as much space between the two rows.

R. Marcus: If you refer to this layout you can narrow the east/west dimensions by going that way, but you end up having to stretch the north/south dimension to accommodate the same number of spaces. Based on review of other parking lot layouts for some commercial developments, you can get away with a narrower isle between the opposing rows of parking spaces. You would have to add some number of feet in the north/south direction.

J. Heintz: The layout of the parking lot was done by the landscape architect. The landscape architect was given the task of meeting the requirements of the village of Lansing while minimizing the impact. I can only assume that they did look at it. I know we looked at a number of considerations before deciding on this one.

S. Berg: What was the intent of the 15-foot setback? I know for side property it’s pretty clear, but was there anything special for a roadway?

H. Slater: The only thing that I can think of would be vehicular/pedestrian safety.

R. Marcus: The only explanation I have seen, and it doesn’t relate specifically to the Town of Dryden law because I don’t know any legislative history of the Town of Dryden, but elsewhere it sometimes relates to site distance for entry and exit into the parking area.

H. Slater: Which goes along with vehicular/pedestrian safety.

S. Berg: What would be in that 7.5 foot space?

J. Heintz: It will be landscaped space.

S. Berg: Below eye level of a vehicle?

J. Heintz: Yes.

Chair Hanley closed the hearing and invited the applicant to stay for the deliberations and decision or to contact Henry Slaters office on April 4th, 2001.

FINDINGS

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 THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

The location of the parking area was selected as part of an overall plan, which is interconnected. The location of the road and the parking area was specifically designed to limit the impact on the adjacent wetlands. Therefore no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties.

Motion: S. Berg Second: O. Kelemen

In Favor: 3 Opposed: 0

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:

Movement of either the road or the parking lot away from each other would produce a greater detriment to the adjacent wetlands than the applicant’s proposed location. The parking lot location has been determined to be the least intrusive on the site. Therefore this is the most feasible method for the applicant to pursue in the project.

Motion: S. Berg Second: N. LaMotte

In Favor: 3 Opposed: 0

C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

The requested relief is substantial. However, given the reduced speed of the road, and the non-visually obstructive landscaping, there will be no hazards created to cars entering or exiting the parking area.

Motion: S. Berg Second: N. LaMotte

In Favor: 3 Opposed: 0

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:

Due to the unique character of the site, Cornell has attempted to minimize the amount of developed space, while providing increased parking and improved access. The variance relief will minimize any environmental impact of the parking area or road on the site.

Motion: N. LaMotte Second: S. Berg

In Favor: 3 Opposed: 0

E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

The difficulty was self-created.

Motion: N. LaMotte Second: O. Kelemen

In Favor: 3 Opposed: 0

THIS VARIANCE IS AS EXEMPT / NON-EXEMPT ACTION UNDER SEQR SECTION 6NYCRR-617.5-c-12

CONDITIONS: The applicant’s must conform to the following:

1. Conclude negotiations to relocate and dedicate the

Appropriate section of Sapsucker Woods Road in the

Town of Dryden.

2. Provide copies of wetland development permits from

DEC and the Army Core of Engineers, and resulting conformance certifications.

Motion: Grant Variance with conditions: N. LaMotte

Second: S. Berg

VOTE: YES: ( 3 ) Oers Kelemen, Nick LaMotte, and Stuart Berg.

NO: ( 0 )

ABSTAINED: ( 0 )

DECISION: VARIANCE GRANTED