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
February 2, 2005
Agenda: (1) Strebel Planning Group
Mem. Present: Oers Kelemen, Thomas Quinn, David Sprout, John Goodrow
Also Present: Henry Slater, Nancy Morgan, James Skaley, Debbie Lego (Art Lego), Leslie Strebel, Paul Strebel, Christopher Strebel, Stephen Bell, ZBA Attorney Randall Marcus
- (1) Strebel Planning Group
7:50 Chairperson Oers Kelemen called the meeting to order and started to describe the Strebel Planning Group’s plan to build an off street parking lot. They are requesting area variance relief from Article 14 Section 1401.10 (Off street parking for general office use for a proposed 944 Dryden Road parking lot).
O. Kelemen Read a letter from TG Miller which both say that there does not require any further engineering review.
Went on to read a letter from Mary L. James, a neighbor, in which she displayed her distaste for the idea of more parking.
L. Strebel Told the Board that this decision will either make or break the deal to buy the land in which they are looking to build a parking lot on.
O. Kelemen Read a letter from Ms. Strebel to Henry Slater that showed the new plans for the parking lot and showed each spot.
L. Strebel Stated that she understood that some of the neighbors were worried about the project and the fear that apartments will be showing up in the background of the landscape. She assured everyone that the intension of the business was to stay there and to become a central part of the community.
O. Kelemen Asked if anyone in the audience had any comment or question.
J. Morgan Stated that she was against the variance. Her biggest problem with the variance is the timing and she believes that the Board should wait until the new comprehensive plan is done to undertake this project.
O. Kelemen Asked if there were any more public opinions.
D. Lego Asked what kind of business it really is.
L. Strebel Answered by saying that it is a financial planning office, which deals with many clients.
O. Kelemen Told the public that they are not discussing whether the business should be here but whether they should be allowed to build a parking lot of only 19 spaces, fewer than required by law.
T. Quinn Asked how this could affect the traffic flow.
L. Strebel Told them that they have about four people stop in a day and two trips by the UPS.
T. Quinn Concluded that there really isn’t that much traffic.
O. Kelemen Asked how many parking spaces are there now?
L. Strebel Said that there are about six or seven spaces so there is a problem with parking unless the parking lot is expanded.
O. Kelemen Asked how many spaces were in the circle of the parking lot.
L. Strebel Stated there was six and the reason the circle was put there was to make it easier for people to leave so they didn’t have to back out onto the road.
O. Kelemen Asked about over night occupancy and RV or boat storage in the parking lot.
L. Strebel Responded by telling the Board that neither will be happening.
O. Kelemen Stated the public statement section was over and that the Board was going to start deliberation.
Went in to the area variance findings A-E statement discussion. Then completed the SEQR short form.
All Agreed that the SEQR review resulted in a negative declaration of significance.
Board conducted a part II SEQR.
T. Quinn Moved to check the second box on the SEQR form, which states that there will be no adverse effect on the environment.
J. Goodrow Seconded the motion by Mr. Quinn to check the second box and was approved by all.
O. Kelemen Congratulated Leslie after the group approved the variance. Then called the meeting to close at 8:40.
Notice of Decision
February 2, 2005
A public hearing was held to consider an application submitted by Leslie A. Strebel for 944 Dryden Rd. tax parcel #56.-3-13, who was asking for permission to construct a parking lot that is under the required amount of parking spaces, 19 where 37 are required an appeal of Dryden Town Zoning Ordinance Article 14 Section 1401.1.
Said hearing was duly conducted by the Town of Dryden Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday February 2, 2005 with members present: Oers Kelemen, Thomas Quinn, John Goodrow, and David Sprout.
Area Variance
Applicant: Leslie A. Strebel
- 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. Town requirement is 37 parking spots, reducing this requirement to 19 for this purpose would not create detriment to the character of the neighborhood or neighboring properties.
Motioned made by: O. Kelemen Second: T. Quinn
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 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 THE FOLLOWING:
No, by allowing reduction it will be possible to minimize any negative environmental impact require.
Motioned made by: T. Quinn Second: D. Sprout
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
- C. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING:
No, The requested variance well being substantial will result in less over all change to the lot
Motioned made by: D. Sprout Second: J. Goodrow
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
- D. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE FOLLOWING NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING:
One neighbor expressed opposition to placement of the business, the granting of variance would have a positive as compared to application of town law which would have required more paving.
.
Motioned made by: T. Quinn Second: J. Goodrow
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
- E. IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THE CONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINDS AS THE FOLLOWING:
Yes, see findings above
Motioned made by: O. Kelemen Second: D. Sprout
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
SEQR: Motion for a Negative SEQR Declaration made by: Thomas Quinn
Second: John Goodrow
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
FINAL MOTION: Motion to grant variance as requested
Motioned made by: D. Sprout Second: O. Kelemen
In Favor: 4 Opposed: 0
Abstained: 0
Decision: Approved as requested
STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
TOWN OF DRYDEN
In the matter of the appeal of CERTIFICATE
Leslie A. Strebel
The property located at 944 Dryden Rd.
(Town of Dryden Tax Map Parcel No. 56-3-13)
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:
February 2, 2005
Dated: Dryden, New York
Date: February 2, 2005 ________________________
Oers Kelemen
