Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-19-BZA-DRAFTDRAFT TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 11/19/2014 7:00 p.m. Approved: (n/a) Present: Chairperson George Tselekis, BZA Members: Bob Howarth, David Means, Town Environmental Planner Darby Kiley Public Present: Rudy Nunez and Cheryl Thompson Continuation: Appeal of James Curran for area variances under Article XVII, Section 17.5 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The property includes two existing buildings (Ithaca Antiques Mall and Howl Studios), and the proposal is to subdivide the property so that each building is on a separate parcel and to create a third parcel, which is currently vacant. The distance between the buildings is not sufficient for the proposed lots to meet the required setbacks; in addition the proposed lots exceed the maximum lot coverage requirement of 50 percent. Area variances from the lot area and yard requirements (including front and rear setbacks and lot coverage) of the Article XVII, Section 17.5 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law will be needed. The property is located at 1607 Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number 33.-1-8.12. Mr. Nunez told the board that he is the acting property manager at Howl Studios. His responsibilities include renovating and maintaining the property while also renting out rooms to artists and crafts people. Ms. Kiley asked Mr. Nunez whether or not he had heard any confirmation from the County Health Department regarding the proposed installation of septic systems at the property. Mr. Nunez said Gary Bush, the engineer, had been working with the Health Department to improve designs. Ms. Kiley said the Health Department had been waiting on a fee that the applicant had yet to pay. To her knowledge, the Health Department had requested two septic systems. Mr. Howarth asked about the location of the septic system and leach field. Mr. Nunez said he was not familiar with the location. Ms. Kiley said the front building would be putting in a new septic system. Mr. Nunez was asked about water connections. He said Palmer would be breaking ground on a new water line. Howl Studios is currently on well water. Mr. Howarth commented that it is a small lot to handle both septic and water. Mr. Tselekis said that each building – Howl Studios and the Ithaca Antiques Mall – will have different occupants in them and having different owners for each building makes Board of Zoning Appeals November 19, 2014 2 sense. Parcel B has a totally different purpose than Parcel A, he said, adding that the whole project makes sense and is more sensible and usable for all involved. Mr. Means said he agreed. Mr. Howarth said his only concern was the border between parcels A and B, to provide more area for Parcel A. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to grant the appeal, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Petitioner, James Curran, owner of 1607 Trumansburg Road (Tax Parcel Number 33.-1- 8.12), seeks the following area variances from Town of Ulysses Zoning Law §17.5: Front Yard Setback for Parcel A: 1 foot instead of the required 50 feet; Side Yard Setback for Parcel C: 19.4 feet instead of the required 25 feet; Rear Yard Setback for Parcel C: 10.5 feet instead of required 35 feet; Maximum Lot Coverage for Parcel A: 53% instead of required 50%; Maximum Lot Coverage for Parcel C: 66% instead of required 50%. The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefit to the Applicants against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the area variances are granted by considering the following five statutory factors. Benefits sought by applicants are to subdivide the parcel in order to create three parcels, so that the two existing buildings would be on separate lots: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. No, the property includes two existing structures. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. No, because of the location of the existing structures, any option for subdividing the property would create two lots that cannot meet all of the lot area and yard requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. Of the four area variances requested, the Front Yard Setback of Parcel A, the Rear Yard Setback and Maximum Lot Coverage for Parcel C are substantial. The Board of Zoning Appeals November 19, 2014 3 Maximum Lot Coverage for Parcel A and Side Yard Setback for Parcel C are not substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No, both structures are existing, and no additional construction or land disturbance is planned at this time. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Yes, the applicant was aware of the zoning requirements when the subdivision was proposed. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows: three of the area variances are substantial, and the alleged difficulty is self-created, however, the buildings are existing, and the benefits to the applicant referred to above if the area variances are granted are outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, it is the opinion of the BZA that the request for area variances is granted, and the subdivision is subject to approval by the Town of Ulysses Planning Board. Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Result: resolution to grant variances passed. Consideration of a motion to rehear the Appeal of Susan and Richard Roenke for area variance(s) under Article XX Section 20.8 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This appeal is for the purpose of the keeping of sheep, where the number of sheep does not meet the maximum number permitted by the Zoning Law Standards for Animals in Residential Areas. The BZA denied the area variance on March 5, 2014, and the determination was reviewed by NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets. Based on that review, the BZA will consider rehearing the variance request. The property is located at 2586 Agard Rd, Town of Ulysses; Tax Parcel Number is 19.-1-3.35. Mr. Tselekis said the board would be rehearing the appeal following a letter from the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets, which argued that the town’s zoning in regard to the number of allowed sheep was far too restrictive. Citing town zoning, Mr. Tselekis said just 16 sheep were permitted on the Roenke property. The property owner had previously requested a variance to allow for 120 sheep. The board denied the Board of Zoning Appeals November 19, 2014 4 variance, but the property is located in a County and State Agricultural District, which prompted the State Agriculture and Markets Department to get involved. He said Ms. Kiley and Town Attorney Mariette Geldenhuys have been in contact with State Ag and Markets and have concluded that the board should rehear the request for the variances. Mr. Howarth stated for the record that Ag and Markets sent a letter to former Ulysses Town Supervisor Doug Austic in 2004, arguing that the town was not taking seriously Ag and Markets’ concerns over what they perceived as restrictive zoning. On the contrary, he said, the town did take appropriate action and made significant changes to zoning during Roxanne Marino’s tenure as town supervisor. Ms. Kiley said the town’s zoning law for animals in residential areas has been on the books since the 1960s. Mr. Howarth said the town has spent a fair amount of time with the applicants, and the town was not getting a lot of feedback. He said he would be happy to work closely with State Ag and Markets to resolve the issue, but communication between both parties is essential. He suggested someone from Ag and Markets be present in future discussions. Mr. Tselekis said that it did not sound like there was much leeway with Ag and Markets on their call for 120 sheep. Mr. Howarth said Ag and Markets does not have the power to overrule the town, but does feel that the current zoning is wrong in that it is too broad in restricting animals. Mr. Means said his concern was with the care of the animals, when they are left out in the cold with a downed electric fence and frozen water. Ms. Kiley said she is aware of a manure pile on the property, and a neighbor has called the property owner in the past to inform them that their sheep were loose. She said it is unclear who should respond in such cases when sheep escape. If you see an animal running down the road, she asked, whom do you call? Mr. Means maintained that animal safety was his main concern and also suggested the property owner move the manure pile further back onto the property. Ms. Kiley said asking Ag and Markets to attend future meetings is a reasonable request. Mr. Howarth said Ag and Markets has nothing if they fail to attend and the board votes down the appeal. He said he thinks Ag and Markets is wrong in their assertions, and they do not have veto power if the town passed an action by a super-majority vote. Their role, he continued, is to help the applicant bring a suit against the town for unfair zoning. Ms. Kiley said she is not sure what the repercussions are when Ag and Markets claims the town is in violation of the law. Board of Zoning Appeals November 19, 2014 5 Mr. Howarth said he has studied the law extensively and it says Ag and Markets’ role is to promote agriculture and make sure towns do not get in the way. As a town, Ulysses has the right to protect public health and safety, which preempts Ag and Markets. The board should be fair to the applicant and work with Ag and Markets but Ag and Markets cannot veto the town’s action if the town has a responsibility to maintain public health and safety. It makes sense to have the town attorney here. Mr. Tselekis said the applicant was working with Cornell in how to handle the sheep properly. It appears the applicant is not managing the sheep properly. Mr. Howarth said the first hearing with the applicant was frustrating, and the applicant left before the vote. The take-home message, he said, was the town did not have the authority. He reiterated his opinion that the current town zoning is wrong to classify sheep the same as chickens or cows. They are not the same. Mr. Means asked about the possibility of 50 to 60 sheep. Referencing a Soil and Water Conservation District report, Ms. Kiley said the land could handle 120 adult sheep for 8 acres. She suggested the town invite Gene to come and explain how Soil and Water arrived at that figure. For the next meeting, board members said they would like to review the applicant’s lease agreement with the Grassroots area. Resolution Mr. Howarth made the MOTION to hold a rehearing on the area variances and invite Ag and Markets in on the discussion. He said he hopes the board does its best to convey to Ag and Markets that the board tried hard to work with the applicants. Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Result: resolution to rehear the Roenke area variance passed. Meeting Minutes Review Mr. Means MOVED the MOTION to accept the 10/01/2014 meeting minutes, and Mr. Tselekis SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Result: the minutes for 10/01/2014 are approved. Board of Zoning Appeals November 19, 2014 6 Mr. Howarth MOVED the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Tselekis SECONDED the MOTION. The vote was unanimous. Meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m.