The official copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes are available at the Town Clerk’s Office. These minutes may differ from the official minutes in formatting or spelling. For more information contact:
Town Clerk:
Bambi Hollenbeck
Address:
93 East Main Street
Dryden, NY 13053
Phone:
607-844-8888
9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday – Friday (excluding holidays)
E-mail:
townclerk
Board Minutes by Year:
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
Zoning Board Minutes:
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals
December 7, 2004
Agenda: (1) Carlton and Ann Manzano
(2) Lucente Lifestyles property Variance
Mem. Present: Oers Kelemen, Paul Lutwak, Thomas Quinn, David Sprout
Also Present: David Weinstein, Barbara Caldwell, Erica Evans, David Tyler and Assistant, Carlton Manzano, Ann Manzano, Larry Fabroni, Stephen Bell
•(1) Carlton and Ann Manzano
7:15 Chairperson Oers Kelemen Opened the hearing of the Carlton and Ann Manzano, 418 Caswell Road, Freeville requesting permission to build an extension off a preexisting garage that would be used as an artist studio. Mr. Kelemen read the application into the record and reviewed site plans and descriptions.
7:19 Mr. Kelemen opened the floor for discussion.
D. Sprout Asked Mr. Manzano is there was any rise or fall in front of his house that could impair the vision of a motorist.
C. Manzano Confirmed that they did live on a knoll but at the top of it.
P. Lutwak Asked if there was any neighbors that would care about this construction.
C. Manzano Said that none of the neighbors minded the idea.
O. Kelemen Asked the member if they thought there would be any undesirable changes or detriments to near by properties by creating this proposal.
Said responded by saying that he thought it fit in well with what is already there with the approval of Mr. Lutwak and Mr. Sprout.
H. Salter Stated that the request was exempt from 6175c 12 and 13 and does not encroach on any of the 239 L and M
O. Kelemen Said that it fit well with current structures and does not farther encroach to the road the existing structure. Then asked for a second on this ruling. Mr. Sprout second and approved this statement along with Mr. Lutwak.
O. Kelemen Asked if there was any other ways that the applicant could a achieve there benefits by some other method other then this variance.
Asked Mr. Manzano if the topography of the area prohibited in anyway the creation of this project in anther area.
C. Manzano Stated that the topography of the area would prohibit construction in other areas due to the general slope of the terrain.
O. Kelemen Stated to allow for the most particle use the structure must be attached to the garage; if it is attached to the garage other locations are not suitable due to topography of the site and location of the pool.
Asked that it be seconded which Mr. Sprout did then approved by Mr. Sprout and Mr. Lutwak.
O. Kelemen Stated: is substantial is to non-conformist but to a lesser degree then existing structure.
Asked for someone to move this statement, which Mr. Lutwak did, seconded by Mr. Sprout and approved by Mr. Sprout and Mr. Lutwak did.
O. Kelemen Moved that the members say not to the statement saying that the construction would have an adverse effect on the property. Mr. Lutwak seconded and Mr. Sprout, Mr. Lutwak, and Mr. Kelemen all approved.
D. Sprout Moved that the variance be approved for the Manzano, which was approved by Mr. Sprout and Mr. Lutwak.
•(2) Lucente Lifestyles property Variance
O. Kelemen Stated the hearing be opened to the Lucente area variance case. Chairman Kelemen red the opening proposal and stated that they would only be looking at four sites for the sake of time.
D. Tyler Stated that he would be presenting an over view of the entire project so the board members could then ask any question that they have.
O. Kelemen Told the party that there are many outstanding documents that are necessary to making a decision. Told the party that they could withdraw the application or they could present it as is.
D. Tyler Stated to the board that he would like to be able to put the application of the table so they could at least consider what is be brought to them. He continued with a overview of the property. Stated that the Lucente’s original plan was to build high-end apartments but since the market is not favoring that they need to make a change. Stated that changing the lot lines would be a very difficult because of the mortgage.
O. Kelemen Asked if the same financer was involved in each lot
D. Tyler Answered that it was all the same. Continued by saying that he thought this was a good idea because it was putting owner occupied housing up instead of a landlord situation that he feels people don’t like as much.
Continued by clarifying the purpose and use of the territories and stated he how he thought it would be a good thing for Dryden. Then asked the board to give him any question and concerns so he knew where to go on the next meeting.
O. Kelemen Asked for a consensus of the board members to hear the rest of the Lucente’s case or to wait until the rest of the outstanding documentation was there.
P. Lutwak Stated that he thought the hearing should go on since Mr. Tyler was present.
D. Tyler Stated he would like some kind of approval so that they could then go to the Planning Board for final approval and to finish everything up.
L. Fabroni Stated the first two where the most complicated so they would be discussed in more detail. Went on to say that the 14 lots where all over 20,000 square feet.
Started discussion on lot one. Stated that the party wall was 8 feet long in all of them but maybe one. Continued with the decision of lot one by stating it would share a common drive way with two.
P. Lutwak Asked him how utilities went into the units.
L. Fabroni Answered by stating that there is a sewer line that comes up the back of the lot and that all the two buildings on each lot share a common sewer line.
Stated the water was the same, one water line to the two buildings per lot, but it came from the front of the houses.
Stated that the electric was split when it reached the houses.
Went on to talk about the shared drive way for 4 of the units and how that is the best idea for them.
O Kelemen Told him that the board would need a definitive answer in writing that the shared drive way in the first lot is over 15 wide through out.
L. Fabroni Asked the board if they were comfortable in moving from lot one to lot two which was accepted by the board. Stated that this lot also has the shared driveway that is the biggest problem.
O. Kelemen Asked why there was for sale signs out already.
L. Fabroni Answered by saying that they have been trying to sell them, as they are already prier to sub division.
Went on to lot three stating that it was easier since both of the lots will have full frontage but still a shared drive way. Continued with saying that there would be 5 foot long shared wall.
P. Lutwak Asked in Observatory Circle was a town road
L. Fabroni Answered yes and stated that they were prepared to talk to the attorney general to get approval for common driveways.
Entered to lot four which also has split frontage and then stated that it was almost identical to lot three.
Went on a brief over view of the rest of the lots:
Lot five is cut in acreage and in frontage to the road.
Lot six is the same as lot five
Lot seven is also the same as five and six
Went on to state that five six and seven are the easiest of all the lots.
Skipped until lot twelve and said that the common wall was much large in this one making it different from all of the others. Then concluded
O. Kelemen Thanked the presenters and opened the stage for the public in attendance.
D. Weinstein Stated that he would like to see the original plan go through presented by Mike Havanic in 1994 but not allow apartment to be adapted to the back of the lot.
P. Lutwak Asked if any of the lots were sold and was answered with not but some are rented
O. Kelemen Then asked for any other people’s opinion on this project.
E. Evans Stated that she disagrees completely disagrees with the splitting the property. Thinks that two buildings right next two each other will not look any better or sell any better then how it is.
D. Tyler Asked if it was alright if he was to sit down with Mr. Marcus and come up with some kind of approval so that they could move ahead with planning this project.
O. Kelemen Told the party that they are holding themselves up since they are not giving the board the documentation need to view this proposal.
H. Slater Told the Lucentes that there would be an issue with two of the party walls and that they need to think about fixing that.
P. Lutwak Asked if the board could leave open the hearing until next time.
H. Slater Told the board to leave the case open until they come back with information regarding there proposal.
T. Quinn Made a motion that the board would continue their conversation on the first four lots when the applicant is ready to reconvene. Mr. Sprout seconded that proposal and was voted on with everyone agreeing.
9:00 Chairman Kelemen closed the meeting.
Notice of Decision
December 7, 2004
A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Carlton and Ann Manzano of 418 Caswell Rd., who was asking for relief from Dryden Town Ordinance Section 804.1 All buildings/structures shall be not located closer than 70 feet from the middle of the public road/street. This project is an extension of an existing non-conforming detached garage (26′ from the centerline) where 70′ is required.
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday December 7, 2004 with members present: Oers Kelemen, Paul Lutwak, David Sprout, and Thomas Quinn.
Area Variance
Applicant: Carlton and Ann Manzano
- 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, fits well with current structures.
Motioned made by: O. Kelemen Second: D. Sprout
In Favor: 5
Opposed:
Abstained:
- 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 THE FOLLOWING:
To allow for the most advantageous use, the structure must be attached to the garage. If attached to the garage other locations are not suitable because of the topography of the site and the placement of the pool.
Motioned made by: O. Kelemen Second: D. Sprout
In Favor: 5
Opposed:
Abstained:
- C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING:
Is substantial as to nonconforming but in a lesser degree then existing structure.
Motioned made by: P. Lutwak Second: D. Sprout
In Favor: 5
Opposed:
Abstained:
- 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 THE FOLLOWING:
No
Motioned made by: O. Kelemen Second: D. Sprout
In Favor: 5
Opposed:
Abstained:
- E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING:
Yes
Motioned made by: D. Sprout Second: P. Lutwak
In Favor: 5
Opposed:
Abstained:
SEQR – This project, being a single family area appeal, is SEQR exempt. See
6 NYCRR Part 617, Section 617.5-C. 12 & 13
239 L & M Review: This project is 239 L & M exempt as it does not encroach
any 239 (M) 3 B thresholds
FINAL MOTION: To approve appeal as filed
Motioned made by: D. Sprout Second: P. Lutwak
In Favor: 5
Opposed:
Abstained:
Decision: Approved as requested
STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TOWN OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
CARLTON AND ANN MANZANO
The property located at 418 CASWELL ROAD
(Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No. 29.-1-22
I, Oers Kelemen, chairperson of the Town of Dryden ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure of such Board, that the foregoing are the findings of fact and decision approved by such Board on:
December 7, 2004
Dated: Dryden, New York
Date: ________________________
Oers Kelemen
