Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-15 BZA TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING & PUBLIC HEARINGS 4/15/2003 PRESENT: Chairman George Tselekis, Zoning Board members Ken Christianson and Carl Mann, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Zoning Clerk Karin Lanning. ALSO PRESENT: Applicants/Agents Christopher Van Horn, for Margaret Miller, Jack Lewis and Vincent Mulcahy for the Marshall Estate, and John Fahs; Neighbors: Tom & Carolyn McGory, John Gorskey, Nancy Bentley, Frank White, Bob & June Nafis, Don Stewart, Cathy Webb, Larry & Jan Avery, George & Gayle Kennedy, John & Carol Wilson, Heinz & Anna Riederer, Edward Biondi, and Randi Beckman. Chairman Tselekis called the meeting to order at 7:33 pm. The first order of business was a public hearing for an area variance request by Margaret Miller, represented by Christopher Van Horn, for property located on Garrett Road and known as tax parcel 18.-3-7.3, for the purpose of constructing a house on a property consisting of less than one acre and having less than the required 200 feet of road frontage. Chairman Tselekis noted that two of the five Board members are absent tonight and informed the applicants and their agents that they may elect to postpone a hearing to a later date when there will be a full board. Tselekis specifically asked Christopher Van Horn, agent of the first applicant, Margaret Miller, if he wished to continue with the public hearing and board action as scheduled, and, if so, to describe his project. Mr. Van Horn stated that he wishes to build a 2-bedroom, A-frame, Chalet style house on the lot, which has a nice view of the lake. Mr. Van Horn also stated it will not be a large house. Chairman Tselekis called for comments from the public on the variance request. Frank White-I am the owner of property to the North and also the East of this lot. My concern is that the necessary septic system will fit on the lot, and that Mr. Van Horn will be able to meet the various setback requirements. I would warn Mr. Van Horn, that, though I do not have any plans to build at this time, I could someday decide to build a house on my property, which may block the lake view from your house. Like I said, I don’t currently have plans to build, but I cannot promise I never will. My main concern, though, is the creek that runs through my property-I don’t want it to be polluted by the septic system. The Board noted approval of the variance request does not address the septic system; Mr. Tselekis stated that septic systems are regulated by the Tompkins County Health Department, who will certainly require Mr. Van Horn to install a system that will not pollute the creek or adjoining properties. Carol Wilson-I have a concern. We live right across the road from this lot, and we bought our lot so that we would have a lake view. This house will block our view. John Wilson-When we built, we conformed to Town Law. Mr. Rachun pointed out that, in 1972, when Margaret Miller bought the parcel, it was a conforming building lot. As far as the Tompkins County Health Department is concerned, it still is adequate for a septic system. Indeed, if Ms. Miller wished to build a house on the lot, no variance would be necessary. The situation is that Mr. Van Horn’s purchase offer for the property requires a variance so that he will be able to build on it. No more comments were heard from the public. Chairman Tselekis asked if the Board members had any questions. Mr. Tselekis asked Mr. Rachun if blocking of a view is a valid consideration for the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Rachun stated it is not. The Board reviewed the survey map of the property, and determined that the lot has 150 feet of frontage and is about 30,000 square feet in size. The Board briefly discussed the request. Mr. Mann moved the following, which Mr. Christianson seconded: WHEREAS, the variation in regards to the requirement is not substantial, and WHEREAS, there will be no or minimal increase in population density and thus no or minimal increased demand on governmental services, and WHEREAS, there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood, and no substantial detriment to adjoining properties, and WHEREAS, the difficulty cannot feasibly be obviated by other means, and WHEREAS, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the variance be granted. Mr. Christianson aye Mr. Mann aye Mr. Tselekis aye The variance was granted. The second order of business was an area variance request from the Marshall Estate, represented by Jack Lewis, Cathy Webb and Vincent Mulcahy for property located at 7 Maplewood Point Road and known as tax parcel 29.-1-15, for the purpose of adding onto and renovating a residence situated on a lot that does not meet the minimum requirements for frontage and square footage, and which is also not large enough to allow inscription of a 200-foot diameter circle of useable area. The public hearing was called to order at 7:48 pm. Mr. Tselekis asked Vincent Mulcahy, agent for the first applicant whether or not he wished to have the hearing this evening. Mr. Mulcahy stated he would like to proceed as scheduled. Mr. Tselekis asked Mr. Mulcahy to describe the project. Mr. Mulcahy-The property is like many lake front properties in that it has no street, and is rather accessed by a shared drive, and in that the property is a non-conforming lot. The house presently has 3 bedrooms, and will continue to have only 3 bedrooms after the addition is built. The addition and renovation plans involve altering the current house both by adding on and by removing some of the current residence. Mr. Mulcahy stated the existing foundations will be reused, and the plans call for an approximately 10 %, or about 600 square feet, of difference between the present footprint of the residence, and the planned footprint. Mr. Mulcahy further explained that the buyer wishes to conduct the renovations and addition because the present residence is in rather poor condition and is not well constructed. Mr. Christianson noted the copy of the map submitted by the applicant shows a small portion of the current house to be located on the adjoining property. Mr. Rachun explained that this is a common difficulty with the County’s tax map system, particularly along the lake. Mr. Rachun noted many lakefront homes are shown as being in the lake on the County tax maps. Mr. Bob Nafis noted a difference between the square footage Mr. Mulcahy referred to above and what is noted in the information packet submitted with the application. Mr. Mulcahy explained that the square footage he referred to earlier was the additional footprint, not the additional gross habitable area, and explained both terms. Bob Nafis-I talked to him (Mulcahy), and my biggest concern with this is over the fact that they’re extending the vehicle turn-around by about 20 feet and do not show plans for a retaining wall or other means of protecting the bank on that edge of the property line so that it will not affect my property. Mr. Nafis came to the front of the room and pointed out the location of the bank in question, which, he stated, if not supported would allow dirt to fall away from the rear of his property. Mr. Mulcahy-The current retaining wall is more or less aesthetic-it doesn’t really hold the bank in place. (Mr. Nafis agreed) We want to have an ample turn around to avoid backing onto the neighboring property. We do plan to retain the bank fully. We will probably build a 6-foot tall wall with “dead men”, or supports going into the bank behind the wall, and will slope the bank away from the wall at the top-I believe the bank at the top of the present wall slopes up very sharply, correct? (Mr. Nafis agreed). Mr. Mulcahy also noted, as he understands the law, it would be illegal for the applicant to develop the site so that water drains onto an adjoining property or otherwise alters an adjoining property. Mr. Tselekis asked Mr. Rachun how this issue is handled. Mr. Rachun explained it would only be addressed through a SPDES permit, required only if more than one acre of land is being developed, or through Site Plan Review, which is not required for a single-family residence. Mr. Mulcahy noted he usually does submit a drainage plan when he submits an application to a Planning or Zoning Board. Mr. Rachun noted that the Board can make proper handling of drainage and retention of the bank a stipulation to the granting of a variance. Mr. Nafis stated a stipulation would be satisfactory. Randi Beckman asked how tall the roof-peak of the house will be. Mulcahy-I haven’t actually measured, but from looking at the house, I would say the roof is currently 20 feet high at its peak, after renovations the peak will be about 26 feet high, so there will not be a huge difference from what currently exists. Randi Beckman-Maybe this is not the proper venue for asking, I don’t know, I’m sorry if I shouldn’t ask this here, but will the renovated house fit into the character of the neighborhood? It seems excessively large to me. Mucahy-We plan to develop the house so that it will fit into the style and character of the neighborhood; for example, the roof will be modest, and instead of making the structure one enormous blob of a building, we will be breaking the house into several elements that will allow it to fit into the style and character of the neighborhood. Randi Beckman-Our house is a rental property, and construction usually takes, what, about nine months? Those weeks during construction season are quite precious to us. What plans do you have for operating hours? Mulcahy-We are looking at two contractors, one of whom I have worked with for over 15 years, and both of whom I think are excellent contractors. My guess is they will start no earlier than 8 am and usually will wrap up around 4 pm, with no weekends. The Lewis’s (buyers) are very conscious of and sensitive to the close proximity of the neighbors. June Nafis-There are a lot of kids along the road, especially in the summer; and the road is not suitable for lots of heavy machinery and trucks. How will this be dealt with? Mulcahy-The road may make it necessary to only bring ½ loads in, and, or to use smaller vehicles. I know the contractors have experience dealing with these issues, and will be sensitive to them. Mr. Mann-Do you have an estimated number of cubic yards of material that you expect to remove from the site? Mulcahy-No, but it is very conceivable that some, maybe even most, of the debris will be used on site to fill in a wet, undesirable basement and some crawl space. I do not think anyone’s interests will be served by damaging the road or bridges; the Lewis’s expect to use them everyday, so they certainly will not want them to be damaged, and there would definitely be responsibility for any damage to the road or the bridges resulting from this project. Mr. Mann-I would really feel more comfortable if you could give me some idea of how much material will be removed; are we talking 100 loads of dirt, 500? Carolyn McGory-In the information packet, you include “+ or –“ with your dimensions. I would like a maximum percentage of variation set for these variations. How much variation are you expecting? Mulcahy-A matter of feet; basically, we put the + or –‘s in there so that, if we do for whatever reason need to make minor adjustments, we can do so. Mr. Tselekis-Could you agree to stay within a percentage of variation, say 5%? Neighbors commented that 5% allows quite a bit of variation. Mr. Tselekis-How about 3%? Mr. Mulcahy stated he could stay within 3% variation. The neighbors agreed this was acceptable. June Nafis-Is there a law setting a maximum percentage of a lot that can be taken up by a house? Mr. Rachun noted most lake front homes are non-conforming in one aspect or another, and this is a common form of non-conformance. The Board and Mulcahy discussed potential means of removing material from the site. Mulcahy was asked if he had considered using a barge to remove the material, and he stated he has considered this means, and it is still a possibility. Hoping to obtain a better idea of what the private road is capable of handling, the Board asked the residents if there is garbage pick-up along Maplewood Point Road. The residents stated there is neither trash nor recycling pick-up along the Maplewood Point Road. Mr. Mann asked again for information concerning the amount of debris Mulcahy expects will be removed from the site, requesting at least an estimate. Mr. Mulcahy described the bank as being pitched at about 45 degrees, and noted he expects to excavate 8 feet into the bank to a height of eight feet to build the retaining wall. So noting, Mulcahy stated there is 4 feet of basement crawl space as well an area of 8-foot deep basement that will, in all likelihood be backfilled. Assuming these two areas are filled in, Mulcahy stated he expects very little material to be removed from the site. Mr. Mann asked how material will be removed from the site without damaging the road. Mulcahy answered this will be accomplished by using smaller trucks and equipment. Mr. Mann asked neighborhood residents if they have had cement trucks down the road before. Several residents stated cement trucks have come down the road. Ed Biondi explained that one neighbor who is an engineer figured out the weight capacity of the two bridges along Maplewood Point Road, and restricted concrete trucks to partial loads in order to avoid exceeding the weight limits. Biondi also noted that Fallon’s figures reflected the fact that, because of the length of cement trucks, only part of a truck’s weight will ever be on either of these bridges at one time. Mr. Mann-But the property owners’ association has not set weight limits for the bridges? The residents stated they have not set weight limits on the bridges. Mr. Tselekis noted it would seem a wise idea to determine and post the weight capacities of the two bridges. After brief discussion amongst the Board members and between Mr. Mulcahy and the Board members, Mr. Mann moved the following resolution, which Mr. Christianson seconded: WHEREAS, the variation in regards to the requirement is not substantial, and WHEREAS, there will be no or minimal increase in population density and thus no or minimal increased demand on governmental services, and WHEREAS, there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood, and no substantial detriment to adjoining properties, and WHEREAS, the difficulty cannot feasibly be obviated by other means, and WHEREAS, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the variance be granted with the following contingencies: FIRST, that no large construction trucks or equipment, such as would damage the bridges or the road will be used to bring materials in or to carry matter or debris out. SECOND, that all drainage is to be handled within the confines of the lot. Mr. Christianson aye Mr. Mann aye Mr. Tselekis aye The variance was granted with contingencies. The third order of business was a public hearing for an area variance request by John Fahs for property located at 1516 Taughannock Boulevard and known as tax parcel 18.-4-1.1, for the purpose of erecting a carport within the required 50 feet from the highway right-of-way. The public hearing was called to order at 8:35 pm. Mr. John Fahs explained he wishes to have a pre-fabricated carport set up on his property for the purpose of keeping snow and ice off his car in the winter. Mr. Fahs noted he could have put the carport on the other side of his property, where it would be accessed via another driveway on his property, but he has been told by the State Parks Department that said other driveway has been effectively appropriated for State use. Chairman Tselekis asked if anyone from the public had any comments, and none were heard. The Board briefly discussed the variance request. Mr. Mann moved the following, which Mr. Christianson seconded: WHEREAS, the variation in regards to the requirement is not substantial, and WHEREAS, there will be no or minimal increase in population density and thus no or minimal increased demand on governmental services, and WHEREAS, there will be no change in the character of the neighborhood, and no detriment to adjoining properties, and WHEREAS, the difficulty cannot feasibly be obviated by other means, and WHEREAS, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the variance be granted. Mr. Christianson aye Mr. Mann aye Mr. Tselekis aye The variance was granted. Hearing no further business, Mr. Mann moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Christianson seconded the motion. Mr. Christianson aye Mr. Mann aye Mr. Tselekis aye The meeting adjourned at 8:43 pm. Respectfully Submitted, Karin T. Lanning Zoning Clerk KTL:kl Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting & Public Hearings 4/15/2003 6