Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-29 Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29 , 2003 1 Town of L 2 Wednesday, January 29 , 20038 7000 PM Zoning Board of Appeals 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS 4 (*Denotes present) 5 * Steve White, Chair * Daniel Konowalow (Alt. ) 6 * David Dittman 7 Linda Hirvonen 8 * Steven Wright 9 * Wayne Lucas 10 * Richard G. Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer 11 12 PUBLIC PRESENT 13 J . Scott Hick Lansing, NY 14 John Hicks Lansing, NY • 15 Delores Hicks Lansing, NY 16 Thomas Skibitsky Lansing, NY 17 Lynda Skibitsky Lansing, NY 18 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 Stephen White, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 : 04 PM . 20 In the absence of Linda Hirvonen, the Chairman designated the alternate member, Daniel 21 Konowalow to take her place . 22 Public Hearing, John Hicks 157 Waterwagon Road, Tax Parcel # 42 41 23 1 . 20 24 Mr. White read the legal notice printed in the Ithaca Journal regarding the public hearing for a 25 variance request for 157 Waterwagon Road, Tax Map # 42 . - 1 - 1 . 2 . The public hearing was 26 opened. 27 Mr. Hicks advised the ZBA members that he purchased this parcel in 1984 as he was a farmer at 28 that time . Mr. Hicks acquired a loan through a Farmers Home Administration Loan at a low 29 interest rate . Also, working hands must occupy the residence . The bank has requested that since 30 Mr. Hicks is no longer farming, this parcel must be removed from the loan . Mr. Hicks came 31 before former Code Enforcement Officer George Totman, who approved this lot as a marketable 32 building lot. Shortly thereafter Mr. Hicks put this parcel on the market and had a perspective • 33 buyer until he found out this subdivision was not legal . Due to Mr. Hick' s neglect for not filing Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals , January 29, 2003 I with the Tompkins County Clerk within the specified time limit as indicated in § 405 C of the • 2 Town of Lansing Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the approval is void . 3 4 Steven Wright : What might you have done if you couldn ' t have subdivided this? I ' m trying to 5 understand what your options were to the extent that you ' ve been damaged . 6 John Hicks : It was the agreement I made so I could remortgage the property. 7 Scott Hicks : At the time we put this lot together the health department required 30 , 000 square 8 feet so that ' s why we put this together. If we had known they were going to change it to 40, 000 9 square feet then we would have made provisions same as the upper lots . 10 Steven Wright : How would the situation be different if George Totman hadn 't made a mistake 11 on his interpretation of the building size? It sounds like you would have still had to refinance . 12 John Hicks : Groton Bank took it over. If Groton Bank hadn ' t taken if over than FHA probably 13 would have foreclosed on it. 14 Stephen White : How long was the FHA mortgage for that you had on that property? 15 John Hicks : It started in 1984- 30 years . 16 Daniel Konowalow : Are you involved in any of the other properties in this development? 17 John Hicks : We developed it starting in 1989 . At the present time I do not own any land in it. 18 Steven Wright : Is this the only land you own of Waterwagon? 19 John Hicks : No, towards the lake I own 50 acres (south side) . It ' s not served with water, so I • 20 can ' t do anything with it because the water pressure is too great. It would be too costly to bring 21 water in or up . 22 Steven Wright : Have you tried to buy another 10,000 square feet from adjoining land owners? 23 John Hicks : No, due to my money situation . 24 Daniel Konowalow : Your water supply is now municipal water? 25 John Hicks : Yes . 26 Chairman White advised the public that the Hearing is still open if any 27 person wished to give comments or to ask questions . 28 The Skibitsky ' s : The only purpose that anyone would buy that land is to build on. 29 Daniel Konowalow : Were you active in the public meeting when zoning laws were first 30 approved by the Planning Commission and Town Board back in the middle 19901s? 31 John Hicks : I was involved in it as a developer, but I didn ' t come up here and sit through it. 32 Daniel Konowalow : But, you were more or less aware of the zoning regulations prior to coming 33 to visit Mr. Totman . 34 John Hicks : Not really. I don ' t study them, that is why I came up here . It ' s not my job . I don ' t 35 get paid for it. I ' ve gone through the process, I came to see George Totman, I worked with the 36 Bank to do what I was supposed to do at that time . 37 Steven Wright: What has been the negative financial hardship you have suffered as the result of • 38 George Totman misinterpreting the zoning laws? 39 Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29 , 2003 • 1 John Hicks : My payments are bigger than they are supposed to be . 2 Steven Wright: What would you otherwise have done? 3 John Hicks : Probably repossess 4 Steven Wright: What' s the mortgage on it? 5 John Hicks : Sixty some thousand 6 Daniel Konowalow : You did participate with the surveyors? 7 John Hicks : Yes . The other lots average 1 . 7 acres . I have deed restrictions so that they can not 8 be split. 9 Chairman White moved to close the public hearing at 7 : 24 PM. The to board seconded , VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIED , 11 12 The board discussed the conditions of an area variance as follows : 13 14 Steven Wright : I asked Mr. Hicks if there was an attempt to buy some of the other 15 property behind him to make this a 40 , 000 compliant lot, and I have not seen any 16 evidence . The issue about George Totman, there ' s a legal principle where you basically 17 enter into a contract with someone because you have promised them something and they 18 have arrived to their detriment on what you have promised . (Promissory estoppels) I have 19 not heard anything that would tell me that there was to Mr. Hick ' s detriment . It sounds • 20 like he was facing the FHA issue no matter what. Zoning is the other element . 21 David Dittman : I think John has been damaged . The reason I think he ' s been damaged 22 is, you don ' t look at the lot the way it is, you look at the lot the way it was approved . By 23 taking back what George Totman said , Mr. Hicks is now unable to sell that 2nd lot of 24 which he has a contract on for $27 , 000 . 00 , $ 27 ,000 . 00 is his loss . 25 Daniel Konowalow : This land is still worth something, unsold and undivided . 26 David Dittman : In economics, he ' s forgoing the opportunity to sell that lot separately 27 and that would be called an "opportunity loss" . The question is, is the house with that lot 28 worth $27,000 . 00 more or because of that lot (30,000 sq ft) . If he sold the house on a 29 40,000 sq ft . lot is he going to gain a selling price of an additional $ 27, 000 . 00 because he 30 has this extra 30,000 sq ft attached to it? I would venture to say he is not going to gain 31 another penny on the sale of that house for the extra 30, 000 sq ft. The fact that this lot is 32 attached to the house, John losses $27 , 000 . 00 33 Steven Wright : I disagree with that. It was never from a legal perspective unattached . 34 So what you ' re really saying is John ' s maximum opportunity in a free market 35 environment might be $ 27, 000 . 00 or $25 ,000 . 00 some number greater than the 36 opportunity accordingly under the approved Lansing Zoning Ordinance . You might 37 make that say argument for everybody back there who has 1 . 7 acres . They are deeded 38 that way, zoned that way and every one of them are suffering an opportunity loss because 39 they can ' t subdivide. • Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals , January 29 , 2003 1 David Dittman : This is different situation . Everybody that bought a piece of property • 2 that John sold them with a deed and covenants says they have to maintain 1 . 7 acres . 3 When John brought the house, it had 70 ,000 sq ft and this additional 30, 000 sq ft before 4 the zoning law with no covenants upon that property. John then came and asked to 5 subdivide, and was given permission . The fact that he didn ' t register, I would say that ' s 6 John ' s fault therefore he looses out. Had Mr. Hicks registered it within the 60 days, it 7 would have been a done deal and he wouldn ' t be here . George Totman created this 8 problem. 9 Steven Wright : Are we supposed to be interpreting the Zoning to be the maximum 10 financial opportunity to people who might be affected by the zoning so the zoning didn ' t 11 apply. 12 David Dittman : The fact that George Totman approved the subdivision changes the ball 13 game . That is what creates the opportunity cost, which creates the economic loss . 14 Stephen White : The other thing to look at is all the other lots in there are 1 acre or 15 better. This does not go with the neighborhood . If a variance is issued on a piece of land 16 like this, the neighbors next to it could do the same . 17 David Dittman : The question is, could they? Do they have a piece of paper where it was 18 approved by George Totman? If they do, than I think they could come before us . 19 Everybody in that subdivision behind this lot has the opportunity to come forward tonight 20 and speak at this public meeting tonight, and I don ' t see or hear anyone. 21 Stephen White : When George Totman issued this approval , was what lie issued within • 22 the zoning laws at that time? Did that lot qualify as a legal building lot when Mr. Totman 23 gave the ok to do this? 24 Richard Platt : No . 25 Daniel Konowalow : Even though it would meet this proposed lots minimum size 26 requirement by the Health Department, and I do say minimum, I ' m concerned if this 27 were in fact approved, a house built there and a septic system failing. That is such a small 28 lot that there ' s no set place for it to go . 29 Steven Wright : That ' s not within our auspices of the ZBA to consider that . Whether we 30 think good planning or not, somebody else sets those standards . 31 Wayne Lucas : You can ' t consider that part of this . John has the paperwork from the 32 Health department; they ok ' d it for 30, 000 sq . ft . 33 David Dittman moved to approve the variance . Wayne Lucas seconded . 34 VOTE : 35 Stephen White No 36 Steven Wright No 37 Dan Konowalow No 38 David Dittman Yes • 39 Wayne Lucas Yes Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29, 2003 I With a vote of three (3 ) No ' s and two (2) Yes ' s the request for a variance has been • 2 denied . 3 4 Dan Konowalow motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 59 PM . Wayne Lucas seconded. 5 VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • • Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29 , 2003 1 Town of L 2 Wednesday , January 29 , 2003 ; 7000 PM Zoning Board of Appeals 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS 4 (*Denotes present) 5 * Steve White, Chair * Daniel Konowalow (Alt.) 6 * David Dittman 7 Linda Hirvonen 8 * Steven Wright 9 * Wayne Lucas 10 * Richard G. Platt, Zoning and Code Enforcement Officer 11 12 PUBLIC PRESENT 13 J. Scott Hick Lansing, NY 14 John Hicks Lansing, NY • 15 Delores Hicks Lansing, NY 16 Thomas Skibitsky Lansing, NY 17 Lynda Skibitsky Lansing, NY 18 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 Stephen White, Chairman called the meeting to order at 7 : 04 PM. 20 In the absence of Linda Hirvonen , the Chairman designated the alternate member, Daniel 21 Konowalow to take her place . 22 Public Hearing, John Hicks 157 Waterwam Road, Tax Parcel # 42 .41 23 1 .20 24 Mr. White read the legal notice printed in the Ithaca Journal regarding the public hearing for a 25 variance request for 157 Waterwagon Road, Tax Map # 42 . - 1 - 1 . 2 . The public hearing was 26 opened . 27 Mr. Hicks advised the ZBA members that he purchased this parcel in 1984 as he was a farmer at 28 that time . Mr. Hicks acquired a loan through a Farmers Home Administration Loan at a low 29 interest rate . Also, working hands must occupy the residence . The bank has requested that since 30 Mr. Hicks is no longer farming, this parcel must be removed from the loan . Mr. Hicks came 31 before former Code Enforcement Officer George Totman, who approved this lot as a marketable 32 building lot . Shortly thereafter Mr. Hicks put this parcel on the market and had a perspective • 33 buyer until he found out this subdivision was not legal . Due to Mr. Hick' s neglect for not filing Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29 , 2003 1 with the Tompkins County Clerk within the specified time limit as indicated in § 405 C of the • 2 Town of Lansing Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the approval is void. 3 4 Steven Wright: What might you have done if you couldn ' t have subdivided this? I' m trying to 5 understand what your options were to the extent that you ' ve been damaged. 6 John Hicks : It was the agreement I made so I could remortgage the property . 7 Scott Hicks : At the time we put this lot together the health department required 30, 000 square 8 feet so that ' s why we put this together. If we had known they were going to change it to 40, 000 9 square feet then we would have made provisions same as the upper lots . 10 Steven Wright : How would the situation be different if George Totman hadn ' t made a mistake 11 on his interpretation of the building size? It sounds like you would have still had to refinance . 12. John Hicks : Groton Bank took it over. If Groton Bank hadn ' t taken if over than FHA probably 13 would have foreclosed on it. 14 Stephen White : How long was the FHA mortgage for that you had on that property? 15 John Hicks : It started in 1984- 30 years . 16 Daniel Konowalow : Are you involved in any of the other properties in this development? 17 John Hicks : We developed it starting in 1989 . At the present time I do not own any land in it. 18 Steven Wright: Is this the only land you own of Waterwagon? 19 John Hicks: No, towards the lake I own 50 acres (south side) . It ' s not served with water, so I • 20 can ' t do anything with it because the water pressure is too great. It would be too costly to bring 21 water in or up . 22 Steven Wright: Have you tried to buy another 10, 000 square feet from adjoining land owners? 23 John Hicks : No, due to my money situation . 24 Daniel Konowalow : Your water supply is now municipal water? 25 John Hicks : Yes , 26 Chairman White advised the public that the Hearing is still open if any 27 person wished to give comments or to ask questions . 28 The Skibitsky' s : The only purpose that anyone would buy that land is to build on. 29 Daniel Konowalow : Were you active in the public meeting when zoning laws were first 30 approved by the Planning Commission and Town Board back in the middle 1990 ' s? 31 John Hicks : I was involved in it as a developer, but I didn 't come up here and sit through it. 32 Daniel Konowalow : But, you were more or less aware of the zoning regulations prior to coming 33 to visit Mr. Totman . 34 John Hicks : Not really. I don ' t study them, that is why I came up here . It ' s not my job . I don ' t 35 get paid for it. 19ve gone through the process, I came to see George Totman , I worked with the 36 Bank to do what I was supposed to do at that time . 37 Steven Wright : What has been the negative financial hardship you have suffered as the result of • 38 George Totman misinterpreting the zoning laws? 39 Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29, 2003 1 John Hicks : My payments are bigger than they are supposed to be. • 2 Steven Wright : What would you otherwise have done? 3 John Hicks : Probably repossess 4 Steven Wright : What ' s the mortgage on it? 5 John Hicks : Sixty some thousand 6 Daniel Konowalow : You did participate with the surveyors? 7 John Hicks: Yes . The other lots average 1 . 7 acres . I have deed restrictions so that they can not 8 be split . 9 Chairman White moved to close the public hearing at 7 : 24 PM. The 10 board seconded . VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED . 11 12 The board discussed the conditions of an area variance as follows : 13 14 Steven Wright : I asked Mr. Hicks if there was an attempt to buy some of the other 15 property behind him to make this a 40, 000 compliant lot, and I have not seen any 16 evidence. The issue about George Totman, there ' s a legal principle where you basically 17 enter into a contract with someone because you have promised them something and they 18 have arrived to their detriment on what you have promised . (Promissory estoppels) I have 19 not heard anything that would tell me that there was to Mr. Hick ' s detriment . It sounds • 20 like he was facing the FHA issue no matter what. Zoning is the other element . 21 David Dittman : I think John has been damaged . The reason I think he ' s been damaged 22 is, you don' t look at the lot the way it is, you look at the lot the way it was approved . By 23 taking back what George Totman said, Mr. Hicks is now unable to sell that 2"d lot of 24 which he has a contract on for $27 , 000 . 00 . $27 , 000 . 00 is his loss . 25 Daniel Konowalow : This land is still worth something, unsold and undivided . 26 David Dittman : In economics , he ' s forgoing the opportunity to sell that lot separately 27 and that would be called an "opportunity loss" . The question is, is the house with that lot 28 worth $27 ,000 . 00 more or because of that lot (30,000 sq ft) . If he sold the house on a 29 40,000 sq ft . lot is he going to gain a selling price of an additional $27 ,000 . 00 because he 30 has this extra 30,000 sq ft attached to it? I would venture to say he is not going to gain 31 another penny on the sale of that house for the extra 30,000 sq ft . The fact that this lot is 32 attached to the house, John losses $27 ,000 . 00 33 Steven Wright : I disagree with that . It was never from a legal perspective unattached . 34 So what you ' re really saying is John ' s maximum opportunity in a free market 35 environment might be $27,000 . 00 or $25 , 000 . 00 some number greater than the 36 opportunity accordingly under the approved Lansing Zoning Ordinance. You might 37 make that say argument for everybody back there who has 1 . 7 acres . They are deeded 38 that way, zoned that way and every one of them are suffering an opportunity loss because 39 they can ' t subdivide. • Town of Lansinp, Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29, 2003 1 David Dittman : This is different situation . Everybody that bought a piece of property • 2 that John sold them with a deed and covenants says they have to maintain 1 . 7 acres . 3 When John brought the house, it had 70, 000 sq ft and this additional 30, 000 sq ft before 4 the zoning law with no covenants upon that property. John then came and asked to 5 subdivide, and was given permission. The fact that he didn ' t register, I would say that ' s 6 John ' s fault therefore he looses out. Had Mr. Hicks registered it within the 60 days , it 7 would have been a done deal and he wouldn ' t be here . George Totman created this 8 problem . 9 Steven Wright : Are we supposed to be interpreting the Zoning to be the maximum 10 financial opportunity to people who might be affected by the zoning so the zoning didn ' t 11 apply. 12 David Dittman : The fact that George Totman approved the subdivision changes the ball 13 game. That is what creates the opportunity cost, which creates the economic loss . 14 Stephen White : The other thing to look at is all the other lots in there are 1 acre or 15 better. This does not go with the neighborhood. If a variance is issued on a piece of land 16 like this, the neighbors next to it could do the same. 17 David Dittman : The question is, could they? Do they have a piece of paper where it was 18 approved by George Totman? If they do , than I think they could come before us . 19 Everybody in that subdivision behind this lot has the opportunity to come forward tonight 20 and speak at this public meeting tonight, and I don ' t see or hear anyone. 21 Stephen White : When George Totman issued this approval, was what he issued within • 22 the zoning laws at that time? Did that lot qualify as a legal building lot when Mr. Totman 23 gave the ok to do this ? 24 Richard Platt : No . 25 Daniel Konowalow : Even though it would meet this proposed lots minimum size 26 requirement by the Health Department, and I do say minimum, I ' m concerned if this 27 were in fact approved, a house built there and a septic system failing. That is such a small 28 lot that there ' s no set place for it to go . 29 Steven Wright : That ' s not within our auspices of the ZBA to consider that. Whether we 30 think good planning or not, somebody else sets those standards . 31 Wayne Lucas : You can ' t consider that part of this . John has the paperwork from the 32 Health department; they ok ' d it for 30, 000 sq . ft. 33 David Dittman moved to approve the variance . Wayne Lucas seconded. 34 VOTE : 35 Stephen White No 36 Steven Wright No 37 Dan Konowalow No 38 David Dittman Yes • 39 Wayne Lucas Yes Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals, January 29, 2003 1 With a vote of three (3 ) No ' s and two (2) Yes ' s the request for a variance has been • 2 denied . 3 4 Dan Konowalow motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7 : 59 PM . Wayne Lucas seconded. 5 VOTE : ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 • • Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 29 , 2003 7 : 00 PM Visitors Please Sign In Below : (Please Print) Name Address l i fl • • �34 TOWN of LANSING ��. a "Home. of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty " ZONING, PLANNING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT Box 186 \t� Lansing, NY 14882 ', l\ 1 �I E-mail: toleades@twcny . rr. com Town of Lansing Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting January 29 , 2003 TOOPM Lansing Town Hall -Small Court Room Agenda Tithe: Agenda Topics 7:00 PM Public Hearing, John Hicks, 157 Waterwagon Road, Tax Map #42:1 -1 .2 7:15 PM John Hicks, 157 Waterwagon Road, Parcel # 42.-1 -1 .2 Mr. Hicks Presents Case ZBA Comments and Questions ZBA Decision Motion to accept or deny with any Conditions Second Motion Vote Meeting Adjourned at JJT5 PM � w Q z o z w m N � C4 g N x o x x x x x x . 0 � f 7 7 U 7 2 R c 2 f 2 3 � f W a ■ £ 2 R g m m m § § 2 LU �