Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-20-BZA MINUTES TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 04/20/11 APPROVED 05/18/11 PRESENT : Acting Chairman Carl Mann, BZA Members Barbara Bristow, Dick Coogan, Andy Glasner, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Zoning Typist Robin Carlisle Peck Excused : George Tselekis Applicant : David Schott, Anita Schott, Vincent Mulcahy Public : Krys Cail , Tom Myers, Jan Zeserson, Marjorie Joy Wegner, Barbara & Carl West Mr. Mann called the meeting to order at 7 : 35 . He stated they have to applications to review tonight. He would like to start with David and Anita Schott. The application indicates they would like to divide the lot and build a new house on the flag lot that would be created. He asked the applicant to describe the project. Mr. Schott stated his wife works in Virginia and they spend a lot of time there . They would like to divide the property and build a house they can use for their off time as well as retire here in the future . His sister would like to purchase the house they are currently living in. The new house would be approximately 1100 to 1200 square feet. They have reviewed different plans but are leaning toward a garage with housing above . Mr. Coogan asked what zone this is being considered; he noted the zone map bisects the property. He would recommend the use the road frontage to determine the zone . Mr. Rachun stated once the Board decides they should read the determination in the resolution. The members reviewed the map and determined the front lot is in the Moderate Density zone (R2) and the back lot determined to be Rural Residential (R2) . Under these guidelines the front lot is now conforming, the rear lot does not meet required setbacks. The back lot is 2 acres and the front lot is 1 . 14 acres . The two property owners stated they realized this and do not have a problem with this. Ms Cail stated she owns property along the back line of the lot. It was subdivided many years ago, this property laid on clay tiles, it used contain wetlands with cattails . She is concerned with the driveway being proposed . They have had continual problems since 1979 with flooding on their property . There had been a retaining pond on the site however it was filled in. The bedrock is very close on this property . An increase of impervious surface will increase flooding . She does not see the need for this especially since the applicant will only be living there part time . She stated neither neighbor was approached to purchase additional property to make these lots conforming. Mr. Schott stated the house sits atop of a slope the runoff goes to the left of the lot this does not go onto Ms . Call ' s property . Ms . Call stated drainage tile was put down all across the back field. This was done by the Pagliaro ' s to facilitate tomato growing . Mr. Schott stated he has spoken to Matt Pagliaro who has stated drainage tile was never installed by them. Board of Zoning Appeals 4/ 20 / 2011 [Type text] Page 1 Mr. Myers stated he would like to ask the Board make properties being developed be compliant with the codes . The code is specific and feels deals with codes and issues should not be done . Mr. Mann stated he could appreciate Mr. Myers stand however there are sections that allow for variances given certain circumstances being met. Mr. Glasner noted the back lot would nearly meet code, he would like to clarify the concern is it the code or drainage . Ms Cail stated she is not hearing a hardship on the applicant ' s part. She had to ask FEMA for assistance for flooding years ago . Mr. Glasner asked if the flooding was the issue or zoning . Ms . Cail stated if they wanted to give the variance because he is a buddy, go ahead . Mr. Glasner stated he has never met the applicant in his life. He is trying to determine what Ms . Cail has as a concern drainage or code . Ms . Cail stated the way they have the driveway positioned it would drain fast. She is very concerned about flooding. Mr. Glasner questioned the front setbacks, the frontage required is 250 the frontage would be over 200 thus this not substantial . Mr. Mulcahy stated there are ways to divert water, there is the use of swales , substances inserted so the water can be absorbed. He is unsure how to mandate a pitch or swale area to divert water but would suggest this be an option . Any contractor would be able to construct a plan to assure water issues are mitigated . Mr. Glasner asked if this is addressed in the building permit. Mr. Rachun stated it would not meet the threshold so it would not be reviewed . Mr. Glasner stated he is hesitant to approve the variance . The land is adequate however he would like to have the neighbor' s be in agreement with the water issues . Mr. Mann agreed he stated there is an issue and would like to have this be resolved . Mr. Schott stated Ms . Cail had stopped the excavator when he was building his first house on this lot. She stated they were flooding her lot, the excavator stopped and it was not the work being done on the property that was causing the flooding . Mr. Glasner MADE the MOTION, Mr. Coogan SECONDED the MOTION to table the application until the next meeting, Wednesday May 18th . The plan should be revised with corrected lines . The Board would like to see the runoff issues and suggested the neighbors work together to mitigate the water problem . The vote was UNANIMOUS application tabled until Wednesday, May 18th Mr. Mann stated the next order of business is an application received by Mr. Jack Lewis to tear our and replace a boathouse on his lakefront lot. He asked if the applicant was present. Mr. Vincent Mulcahy introduced himself and stated he was representing Jack Lewis tonight. Mr. Mann asked Mr. Mulcahy to present the project. Mr. Mulcahy stated Mr. Lewis would like to tear down the boathouse currently on his property and replace it with a new boathouse . It was nonconforming however the boathouse was grandfathered in. The Lewis ' have a 12 foot runabout that is difficult to Board of Zoning Appeals 4/ 20 / 2011 [Type text] Page 2 ai4'"•"AY laS 'L T^It. . `z' maneuver into the boathouse, there is very little space on either side . They would like to use the boathouse to store their boat vs . having to store their boat off site . The new boathouse would allow for the width and height required to store their boat, it is using the 100 year flood level . The height increase would be inconsequential regarding obstructing the view. The detailing would be similar to what the house is and would be simple/neutral in color/style. There would be no windows unless the neighbors desire such . He could not preconceive any neighbor complaints on the project . Ms. Bristow stated there has been a concern regarding excessive lighting . Is there any plan to add lighting to this building which would increase the lighting on this property . Mr. Mulcahy stated there would be lighting, but is unaware of lighting issues mentioned by Ms . Bristow. Mr. Glasner stated he is not understanding the hardship related to this project. Mr. Mulcahy stated the Lewis ' cannot utilize their own boathouse due to the size being too small . This is not fair to them to have a boathouse yet have to pay additional fees to store their boat. Ms Bristow noted the boathouse is 6 inches from the property line . Would they utilize the neighbor property while the work is being done . Mr. Mulcahy stated there is an issue in that the deed is different than the survey. The deed states 6 inches along boathouse . The work if necessary could be restricted to the Lewis ' property it would be difficult but it could be done . Mr. Mann asked if there was other empty space on the property a boathouse could be located. There seemed to available space . Mr. Mulcahy stated they had installed a bulkhead which was with DEC requirement. They are trying to not have to relocated the bulkhead and since the boathouse is already located here would prefer to keep the boathouse where it is . Ms . Bristow stated concerns from neighbors regarding swimming had been brought to their attention. Mr. Mann asked the members to read into the record the letters received for this project. Ms . Bristow read the letter from Joy Wegner regarding safety issues against the project. Mr. Glasner read the letter from Jan Zeserson regarding residents to have large and overly lit structures on the lot against the project . Mr. Coogan read the letter from Karl West, regarding substantial changes to the neighborhood, safety, and against the project. Mr. Mann read the letter from Ken Zeserson regarding safety, not in compliance with character of neighborhood, and against the project . Mr. Mulcahy stated his response to the letters is he is surprised to hear so much hostility from the neighbors . Nobody has called Jack to complain about the lights . The statement nobody is in residence is completely not true . Their son is attending Cornell and is at the house along with a few classmates . The people that have gone through the building process of this house with the Lewis ' have seen the difficulties these people have endured. The complaints offered are baseless and mean spirited against the new people in the neighborhood. He stated the NYS guidelines do not require hardships, them not allowing this is in violation of state laws . Mr. Mann stated they are required to look at hardship and if it self created . The old boathouse is acceotable . Asking to build a new one opens up this type of review. Mr. Mulcahy stated the threat to life and limb regarding boats is not true . This is a simple building on the site it is currently located. Board of Zoning Appeals 4/ 20 / 2011 [Type text] Page 3 Mr. Glasner stated he appreciates Mr. Mulcahy ' s passion. He asked if there were alternatives to locating the boathouse . One of this Board ' s duties is to review alternatives . Mr. Mulcahy stated he is not responding to the Board ' s duties . He is upset that the Lewis ' are good people and the neighbor' s are complaining simply because they do not want to let them in. Mr. Mann stated this Board has to consider neighbor' s complaints . When reviewing the projects have to be reviewed for conforming to the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Mulcahy stated if they look at other properties on the lake they would notice the boathouses are typically pushed to the edge of the property. Ms Bristow noted Mr. Lewis owns three connecting lots on the lake . She questioned why they could not locate the boathouse on the Northern most lot he owns . Mr. Karl West introduced himself as the neighbor directly next to Mr. Lewis ' lot. He stated the Lewis ' own a boat 23 feet long, there is concern he would purchase a larger boat with the acquisition of a larger boathouse . Mr. West distributed and offered into the record pictures indicating the property line, the close proximity to his property and the detriment he feels this would create . He continued describing the risks he feels this offers currently, and if build larger for the future to his family swimming in the cove . He feels there are alternatives to locating a larger boathouse that would not put his family at risk. Mr. Glasner MADE the MOTION, Ms . Bristow SECONDED the MOTION, WHEREAS , the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by having the specification build in compliance with current zoning, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THIS BOARD REJECTS THE APPLICATION. The vote is as follows : Ms . Bristow AYE Mr. Coogan AYE Mr. Glasner AYE Mr. Mann AYE The application is REJECTED . Ms Carlisle Peck stated the minutes of 01 /20/ 11 need to be approved. The meeting was the Orson Ledger application. Mr. Mann MADE the MOTION, Mr. Coogan SECONDED the MOTION to APPROVE the MINUTES . The vote was taken, ALL IN FAVOR. MINUTES APPROVED . The members motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8 : 50pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals T 4/ 20 / 2011 e text]] Pa g e4 Town of Ulysses Planning Board Minutes April 20 , 2011 Submitted by Rod Hawkes Approved 05 /04/ 11 Present: Ken Zeserson, Sarah Adams , Peter Fry, John Wertis , Rod Hawkes, Alex Rachun (part of the time due to concurrent ZBA meeting) Absent : Rebecca Schneider, Stan Beames The chair opened the meeting at 7PM . 1 ) The first item on the agenda was a proposal by John Wertis to formalize PB procedures . The PB voted unanimously to accept Mr. Wertis ' draft as a working draft and to pursue the finalization of said draft in subsequent meetings . 2) The second item on the agenda was a revision of the proposed boundaries for the proposed Office, Technology, Mixed Use Zone (OTMU) . The basic revision proposed by the subcommittee of Sarah Adams, Peter Fry, and Rod Hawkes was the elimination from the OTMU of the parcels included in the original map prepared by Mr. Fry that lie north of Route 96 and east of Krums Corners Road . These included two parcels : one that is between Krums Corners Road and Wilkins Road; another that is east of Wilkins Road . John Wertis proposed 4 amendments to the revised boundaries and the PB considered and voted on each amendment in turn. Mr . Wertis distributed another version of the map indicating in red the 4 amendments he proposed. • The first amendment, Wertis Map # 1 , was to eliminate from the OTMU and area of approximately 3 . 5 acres east of the small creek or swale that roughly bisects lot 8 . 12 on the north side of Rte . 96 . The rationale was that this land has already been subdivided from the lot and is good agricultural land. The vote was unanimous to adopt the amendment . • The second amendment, Wertis Map #2 , was to add approximately 30 acres to the northern boundary of the revised OTMU to include the entirety of two parcels that are currently partially included in the revised OTMU . The vote was 1 in favor and 4 against and the amendment was not adopted . • The third amendment, Wertis Map #3 , was to reshape the section of the revised OTMU located east of County Route 141 (Krums Corners Road extended south of Rte 96) and south of Rte 96 . The proposed amendment would have moved the proposed northwestern boundary to the bank of the stream that is currently outside the proposed zone and would have moved the southern boundary of the further north . The vote was 1 in favor and 4 against and the amendment was not adopted . • The fourth amendment, Wertis Map #4 , was to extend the boundary of the portion of the revised OTMU that is south of Rte 96 and west of County Route 141 further west to include approximately 75 more acres . The vote was 1 in favor and 4 against and the amendment was not adopted. The board then voted unanimously to adopt the revised OTMU boundaries as amended. 1 3 ) The third item on the agenda was the list of allowed uses for the OTMU . A proposal to amend the list presented by Mr. Zeserson to include antique sales was approved unanimously . A second proposal to add automotive repair centers was not approved . The board then voted unanimously to adopt the amended list of allowed uses . 4) The fourth item on the agenda was a discussion of the concept of floating zones . After a brief discussion the board decided to investigate whether someone could educate the board on the concept of floating zones so that an informed discussion could take place . The board also decided to create a list of other topics for which expert guidance and training would be appropriate . Further discussion was tabled until the next meeting . 5 ) Additional topics discussed included : To avoid conflicts with ZBA meetings on Wednesday nights, the board will consider returning to the original Tuesday meetings . The board will meet on Wednesday , May 4 if Jonathan Kanter has completed a draft of the design guidelines sufficiently prior to that date so that PB members have time to review the draft before the meeting . Mr. Zeserson will inquire about the status of the draft and prospects for delivery to the board. The meeting was adjourned at 9PM .