Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-02 - BZA / d ' TOWN OF ULYSSES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 PRESENT : CHAIRMAN : KEN CHRISTIANSON ; MEMBERS : CARL MANN JR . , RUSSELL CARPENTER , JAMES HICKEY JR . , GEORGE TSELEKIS ; ZONING OFFICER : ALEX RACHUN ; SECRETARY : ROXANNE SMITH ALSO PRESENT : FIRST VARIANCE REQUEST : MARVIN AND ALLISON PRITTS ; SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST : PETER AND BARBARA MCCHESNEY , MARILYN TSAPIS , JIM KERRIGAN ( her attorney ) , LAURA HOLMBERG ; THIRD VARIANCE REQUEST : RACHEL SIEGEL TRUST ( not present ) , LAURA HOLMBURG ( her. attorney ) , STAN AND ANN PALMER , JOSEPH ALLEN ( Palmer ' s attorney ) , BRUCE WILSON ( Town attorney , present as a neighbor , not in his official capacity ) , MR . AND MRS . WHITE , ( neighbors ) AND KAREN WELLS . MARVIN AND ALLISON PRITTS 5150 COLD SPRINGS ROAD TRUMANSBURG , NY 14886 The Chairman called the first hearing to order at 7 : 35 PM . Marvin and Allison Pritts have requested a variance under Article II , Sec . 6 of the Zoning Ordinance ; for the purpose of adding a roofed porch to the front of their house . It had been denied under Article V , Sections 1 and 2 of the Ulysses Zoning Ordinance in that a lot purchased prior. to 1977 must have 150 feet of frontage ; and t he front yard in a Residence District must be no less than 50 feet from the highway right of way . 11/ The Chairman inquired of Mr . Pritts what the line on the map indicating 75 feet meant . He responded that Alex had said they should be back 75 feet from the center of the road . They are over the line by 3 feet in one area , and 5 feet in the other . George asked what the frontage of the lot was . Allison responded 135 " point some - t hing " . Alex stated that he had received a telephone call from the neighbor immediately to the east ; Ron Gladstone . He expressed his approval of the project . Preface to the following resolution was t he comment that the roof was being put on a proch that was already t here . Zoning Member James Hickey made the resolution : Whereas : The variation in question is not substantial in ✓ elation to the requirement ; W hereas : There will be no effect at all to increased pop - u lation density , and no burden on any available governmental facilities ( such as fire , water or refuse disposal ) ; Whereas : There would be no substantial change in the character , and no detriment to any adjoining ® properties ; Whereas : What they want to do can obviously only be accomplished by what they are proposing ( a ✓ oof for their porch ) . Whereas : It appears that the proch / deck was already there , it ' s only a question of adding a roof to it , w hich would likely enhance the appearance of the property to the benefit of all concerned ; In the interest of justice it would appear to dictate that we grant t he variance ; I move that we grant it . George Tselekis seconded the motion . The Chairman called for a vote as follows : Russell Carpenter - Aye Carl Mann - Aye K en Christianson - Aye G eorge Tselekis - Aye J ames Hickey - Aye The variance was approved unanimously . f, C TOWN OF ULYSSES 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 PETER AND BARBARA MCCHESNEY 1115 TAUGHANNOCX BLVD . ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 The Chairman called the second hearing to order at 7 : 40 Phi , Peter and Barbara McChesney have requested a variance under Article II , Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance ; for the purpose of rebuilding a collapsed garage and altering its ' original footprint . It was denied u nder Article A , Section I , of the Ulysses Zoning Ordinance in that n o building shall be erected on a lot with less frontage than 150 feet for property purchased prior to 1977 . The Chairman stated that the McNhesne ' s desired to build a two car garage with a work area in the same spot where the original h ad collapsed . Mr . McChesney stated that the new structure would not be any bigger , just a different shape . The original was L shaped ; the n ew structure will be rectangular . The back wall is cement ( cinder block ) and helps hold the bank up . The new structure will be inside t hat cement wall . The boat will be stored in the garage . The drive way was not paved when the original garage was built . When the drive - way was paved , it was paved into the garage ; the cinder blocks were already there . The Chairman asked for comments from the audience . A lengthy discussion ensued . Mr . James Kerrigan spoke on bej alf of his client , Mrs , Marilyn Tsapist ( e next door: neighbor of the McOhesue s ) . Once he looked at the survey , he noted that the structure was inches within the property line , indicating a side lot problem . He stated that he would be the first to admit that there is an ulterior motive in his ✓ equest ( to consider the side lot problem ) . He mentioned that they were present a year ago with an identical application . The Chairman interupted , stating that that was not an identical application . Mrs . O auOlet said they didn ' t want to change the structure , that the request was similar . The Chairman said that Mrs . T5apist had requested e living unit which is entirely different from a garage . Mr . Kerrigan asked that the hearing be adjourned for a month , as his first request . H e stated that the original structure would be demolished for the new structure , and that the original was a 2 bay carport with a roof over it . He mentioned that it appears that over 894 of the existing building is demolished , which takes it out of an application to re - build and non - conforming use . To suggest that the removal of the existing structure and putting in a I bay garage is the same as an existing 2 bay carport ; h e suggests is not the case . It is difficult to pick up the elevation from the plans . The side elevation shows 8 feet ( which the original structure was with e Flat roof ) . The new plans call for a patched roof , with the addition of e cnpolo . The side elevation will result in ( above grade ) about 20 feet . The Chairman asked what the main objection was ? Mrs . Tsapist said that they ' re in the woods , it would be an eyesore . These are ail t iny lots ; it will be 4 feet from Mrs . Teapist ' s only entrance , l5 feet from a major center of her home ( porch ) , said Mr . Kerrigan . Peter McChesney stated that Mr . Kerr, igan ' s .facts are incorrect . 1 The building is set back more than 5 feet from the property line . The structure is roughly equivalent to the structure it is replacing ( it may be 10 feet more , or less ) , it just is a different footprint . The height may be 15 feet . Lim Hickey said that they need to address Mr . terrigan ' s point about the use being as good or better . He cites Section I , of Article 7 , under, the non - conformance provision of the Zoning Ordinance . That has to No with a non - conforming use , the discussion is about an area variance . The entire Article , and all its ' Sections are completely inapplicable . Mrs . Holmberg said that every improvement the NcChesneys have made , have been excellent . It is e beautifully maintained property . She is not directly affected as she in on the other side . poi TOWN OF ULYSSES 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 Mrs . Tsapist stated that this will affect her view . The Zoning Officer , Alex Rachun , commented that even if Mr . McChesney cleared his path , so to speak , there would still be enough III building there in evidence , to constitute the required 15 % under normal circumstances . This building came down , as far as the roof is concerned , it was probably due to how the building was constructed as well as with what . The addition of a pitched roof makes sense , it won ' t necessarilly constitute a volumetric change of the building . The footprint is being ® altered . That may obviate a change that is not in keeping with the 15 % rule . He feels comfortable with all the requirements being set forth for a variance under, reconstituting a building back to its ' original or better condition . Most homes in Tompkins County generate a pitch roof instead of a flat roof ( for structural reasons ) . George asked Mr . McChesney why he was changing the footprint ; what was the advantage of the new design ? He responded that it gives him a little more room to turn around in . It ' s a tight situation . The " third bay " is really a door for aesthetic reasons only . The area is too short to take a car . Mr . Kerrigan requested that no part of the building be within 5 feet of the property line . Mr . McChesney said he ' d be happy with that . Carl questioned Alex if there was anyway to ascertain a property line without a survey ? Alex responded that it is within the Boards ' power to request a survey . That may be an undue hardship . Mr . McChesney stated that he would rather not have it surveyed . In lieu of a survey you could probably have it re - defined , just have it measured said Alex . Mr . McChesney said that was fine , he would have it measured . Jim said that he would like to make a motion ; but first he would III like to preface the motion with the remarks from the Zoning Officer with regard to the requirements ( including the 5 feet requirement ) . He also wants to state for the record that one year ago the only opponents who appear this evening were applicants whose plans were successfully opposed by tonights ' applicants . Whereas : It appears that in a context of normal attitude t owards lakefront properties , the variation is not substantial in relation to the requirement ; Whereas : There is obviously no impact on population density o r any governmental facilities ; Whereas : Replacing a garage with a garage does not affect a substantial change in the character of the neigh - borhood ; this Board remains unconvinced by the unsubstantiated offerings of the opponents that there is going to be a substantial detriment to any ad - joining properties ; Whereas : It would appear it would be consistent with our ✓ iew of dealing with lake properties and projects o f this nature , to grant an application such as t his ; ® I move to grant this variance . Russell seconded the motion . Carl asked for discussion . He commented that this could be considered a substantial detriment to adjoining properties ( item 3 ) , and he thinks the garage can be re - built without substantial volume increase ( as p.roposed ) , he thinks it would be a mistake to grant the variance . Jim did state that Mr . McChesney should meet the 5 feet requirement and probably have it surveyed . If he does not , it is at his own peril . The vote was as follows : Russell Carpenter - Aye Carl Mann - Nay Ken Christianson - Aye George Tselekis - Aye James Hickey - Aye The motion has been carried four to one . / • 7 TOWN OF ULYSSES 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 RACHEL SIEGEL TRUST 1535 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 The Chairman called the third hearing to order at 8 : 17 PM . Rachel Siegel Trust has requested a variance under Article II , Section 6 of the Ulysses Zoning Ordinance . This is for the purpose of subdividing a legal conforming lot into two non - conforming lots . • This was denied by Alex Rachun under Article V , Section I of the ® Ulysses Zoning Ordinance , in that a legal conforming lot requires 200 feet of frontage . Mrs . Siegel ' s attorney , Laura Holmberg , represented her . She stated that Mrs . Siegel bought 2 adjoining lots in 1979 on the west shore . At some point they were joined for tax purposes . Each lot is more than an acre , each lot has a septic system . One lot has a resi - dence on it . That lot is for sale . She could not find a buyer for both lots . In the former configuration the north lot has about 184 feet of frontage and the south one has 163 feet of frontage . They share the same tax number . The sub - division has been destroyed as a result of this . There are 2 deeds . When you tax them as one , you destroy that division line between the two lots ( according to the Zoning Ordinance and the NY State sub - division laws ) . Alex stated that he looks at the property as 1 lot . Jim Hickey mentioned that the ZBA heard a similar case awhile back . It concerned property formerly owned by Robert Tuttle . Alan Vogel ( the new owner ) wanted to treat the property as 2 lots ( as they had been in the past ) . Laura Holmberg did point out the substantial size of the 2 lots . Stan Palmer mentioned that he owns the road to that property . He said it was actually one lot when it was sold to Dean Madison ( previous owner ) . One section was sold to Mr . Siegel . The only rea - son there were 2 septic systems put in was that Dean Madison was pressed for money . The code was changing ( Health Department ' s ) at the time , and you had to have a certain amount of space between gullies . In t ime he wanted to sell them as 2 lots . The title is in the name of the trust . Jim stated that for the ✓ ecord that there is a deed from Dean and Phyllis Madison to Rachel Siegel then of 203 Forest Drive , Ithaca , recorded in Book 571 , page 1066 , recorded July 26 , 1979 . The same parties were a party to another deed , recorded the same day . It should also be noted that Deed 1 refers to the deed for the northern half . Deed 2 refers to the deed for the southern part . The Whites property and the Siegel ' s property w ere at one time , one lot . The Whites are immediately north of the Siegels . Joseph Allen ( attorney for the Palmers ) stated that to suggest ® that you can ' t make a decent profit from the property the way it sits ( from a realtor ' s viewpoint ) is rather self serving . There is a differ - e nce between financial loss and failure to achieve financial gain . They ' re saying that they can not achieve an economic gain if the variance is not approved by this Board . This is hardly the practical difficulty . In any event , it is certainly self created . The property could be divided so that the house lot meets the zoning requirement . Mrs . White spoke . Her concern is that the second parcel not become a building lot . They bought their ( White ' s ) property with the u nderstanding that the Siegel ' s would not build there . The frontage is determined by the lake . Alex stated that they really needed to spend some time talking about access to these parcels . Laura Holmberg pointed out that in comparison to the surrounding lots , these 2 are substantial . The Palmer ' s lake front lot has 75 feet of frontage ( just south of the south parcel ) . The lots just north of the north parcel are all about 100 feet in width . Mr . Palmer pointed out that there is nothing built on their 75 foot parcel , and they know hp t TOWN OF ULYSSES 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 they can ' t build on it without a variance . He said he was concerned with the right of way because of the dust issue . His daughter ' s home is on that road and she has children . He said speed is an issue , that he has threatened to put in speed bumps . ( Mrs . Siegel is one of the worst violators . ) Bruce Wilson ( Town attorney ) spoke . His property is the next house south of Mr . Palmer . He owns basically 365 feet of frontage , and is in the process of acquiring 265 feet more . As a neighbor he Awants to see the Zoning Ordinance enforced . The Zoning Ordinance was created in 1977 , which means the parcels were created as 2 non - conform - ing lots . They have a right to build a dock , not a building . It was created in violation of the Zoning Ordinance . ( The requirement is 200 feet of frontage . ) This is a self - created hardship . He buys property to keep his privacy , relying on the Zoning Ordinance ; he relies on the Board to enforce it . He also mentioned that under Town Law 280 A , it is a requirement to build with access to a public highway . Alex agreed with Mrs . Holmberg ' s comments that these lots are not considered small lots on the lake in the Town of Ulysses . The issues that concern him are 280 Town Law and 282 of General Business L aw ( which over - rides 280 Town Law ) which is the Martin Act . These are rules governing condominiums and houses that are built and serviced front to back by a private driveway . If you want to sub - divide front t o back , today in New York State , as of 1993 , you can only do that with the approval of the Attorney General ' s office or the private right of way has to be eased over to the Town . Alex suggested that the Board make this one legal conforming lot . III Laura Holmberg interjected that the Martin Act did not apply to t his situation . No one has come in for a building permit . Jim Hickey agreed . A building permit requested in the future could be a problem , said Alex . We ' re limited by the sphere of what ' s in our concern ; which are the factors set forth here , said Jim . This could not be a building lot set forth by the uniform code . Let ' s just strike the Martin Act and stick with the uniform code , said Alex . The objection that the neighbors h ave is that they would like to see the lot with the house on it fit uniform code ( 200 feet ) said Russell . Carl made the motion as follows : this request for a variance as written be denied . Ken seconded the motion . The vote was as follows : I George Tselekis indicated taht he has customers on both sides of the issue , so he would like to abstain . Russell Carpenter - Aye Carl Mann - Aye Ken Christianson - Aye James Hickey - Nay The motion is carried 3 to 1 . The variance has been denied as written . Carl brought up to the Board the issue of plot plans . ( Page 2 , ill top right hand corner . ) Most of the plans the Board receives are seriously remiss in this , and as a result , the Board asks questions it shouldn ' t have to . The plans should be drawn to scale . Alex agreed , and said he ' ll request them in the future . The hearing adjourned at 9 : 25 PM . - i i � o 7 TOWN OF ULYSSES PLANNING BOARD MEETING TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 PRESENT : CHAIRMAN : DAVID TYLER ; MEMBERS : KRYS CALL , GERRI KEIL , PETER DEMJANEC , GREGG HOFFMIRE The Planning Board will continue to pull together its ' fall efforts on the proposed revisions to the Residential portions of the Zoning. Ordinance . The Planning Board is proceeding to integrate those ideas ( the general concepts adopted last fall ) into the exist - ing Ordinance . A The meeting came to order at 7 : 40 PM . The first order of busi - ness was the review and approval of the minutes from the meeting of April 18 , 1994 . The minutes were approved unanimously . Krys Cail mentioned that Doug Austic ( Town Supervisor ) has re - quested a monthly report of what the Planning Board is doing . It was suggested that at the first Planning Board meeting of each month that there be a short statement at the beginning of the minutes which Doug could review . This would save him from having to go through the entire minutes in detail . The Members then reviewed the minutes from the Master Plan meeting of April 26 , 1994 . Monika Crispin , from the Tompkins County Cooperative Extension Ag Program , gave a presentation . The minutes were detailed , informative , and gave the Planning Board a good sense of the status of the agricultural segment of our community . There was a consensus that the conditional agricultural users , are those who were farming on a large scale , were facing increasing economic pressures both from taxes and in the market place . It was suggested that the Ag segment of the community was changing ; more than it was dying . That seemed to be reflected in the information that was provided by Monika Crispin . It is apparent that there are many factors affecting the Agricultural community , including local markets , national and world markets , real property and income tax considerations , and so forth . It is clear that the Ag exemption procedure needed to be looked at . • Moving on to the continuation of work on the Zoning Ordinance , discussion moved into the question of what other uses would be per - mitted in the R1 A District beyond the Residential 1 or 2 family dwelling . Peter raised the question about the percentage of lot coverage spelled out in the Ordinance of 10 % for churches and so forth . He suggested that it shall also apply to sub - division c . public library , daycare centers , schools , fire stations and other quasi - business activities which would be permitted in the Residence District . David asked if the 10 % lot coverage was reasonable ? Peter indicated it was in a rural community . Discussion then got into the question of setbacks , how that applied to the types of uses that would need to provide substantial parking on the property to service the use permitted . Peter indicated that the lot coverage percentage would not cover parking . It was ® felt that there needed to be some buffer, between the asphalt and neighboring residential structures . it was decided , with respect to the R1 A District , yard setbacks shall apply to all R1 A uses , as to parking areas except for one or two family dwellings . Discussion then moved on to the uses where Special Permit was required . The concern was raised again about whether the Special Permit process would become more or less , a rubber stamp , lest the procedure was clearly spelled out . Approximately one half hour of discussion / debate ensued with respect to the permit procedure which was enumerated last fall . The result of the discussion was the fol - lowing re - drafting of that provision . Special Permit provision should be set forth separate from the R1 A section and should read as follows : Il0 TOWN OF YLYSSES 2 PLANNING BOARD MEETING TOWN HALL MAY 2 , 1994 In deciding whether to grant a Special Permit , the Board o f Zoning Appeals shall be furnished by the applicant concrete data o n the following : a . impact of proposed use on the neighborhood ( traffic 111 burden ) b . demand on municipal resources c . population density d . character change ® e . noise level f . public safety and welfare g . impact on planned future infrastructure improvements h . impact on land use 1 . The applicant shall provide details of steps proposed to ameliorate any and all detrimental factors identified in the above analysis . 2 . The Board of Zoning Appeals shall have the authority to consider steps proposed to ameliorate the identified detri - mental factors and to require certain conditions to be met to accomplish the amelioration . 3 . The Board of Zoning Appeals shall deny an application for S pecial Permit if the ameliorating steps or conditions proposed are found to be inadequate to compensate for the d etrimental effect of the proposed project , if it finds t he detrimental factors are not adequately addressed by t he applicant in its proposal . The above was to be evaluated and revised when viewed as a whole on the minutes of the meeting when produced . Peter made the suggestion that if Roxanne could have the word processor in front of her as they were drafting , the work could go a lot quicker, and easier , everyone could see what was being proposed and modify / clarify it as they went along . He indicated that this could be in the minutes and it could then be discussed at the next meeting . Due to fatigue , it was decided to continue this meeting on the draft ordinance at the next meeting , which is scheduled for May 16th . At 9 : 05 PM the meeting was adjourned .