Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-22-BZA-finalTOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPROVED MINUTES Wednesday, September 22, 2021 This meeting was held via video conferencing due to COVID-19 virus. Approved: November 17, 2021 Present: Board Chair Steve Morreale, and members Andy Hillman, Robert Howarth, Cheryl Thompson, and David Tyler; Town Planner Greg Hutnik, and Town Board Liaison Katelin Olson. Public in Attendance: Linda Liddle, Adam Less, Umit Sirt, Dillon Pranger, Laura Larson, Thaddeus Grady, and Sheila Reakes. Call to Order: 7 p.m. Public Hearing – Appeal by Dillon Pranger, for an area variance from §212-47 (E), front yard setback in the LS Zone, and an area variance from §212-47 (F), side yard setback in the LS Zone. The applicant is seeking to build a 397 square-foot detached garage that is six (6) feet from the side property line, where 15 feet is required, and 33 feet from the front property line where 50 feet is required. The property is approximately 1.95 acres in size and is located on Taughannock Blvd., Tax Map # 31.-2-8.2. Mr. Pranger, presenting on behalf of the applicant, Laura Larson, said the intention is to build an open-air carport near the roadway. This would make for easy in and out access. Ms. Larson added the existing gravel driveway is difficult to navigate in the winter, and regular plowing damages the driveway. The carport would be built using stilts and near an existing roadway pull- off, or tarmac, which is on the Department of Transportation right of way. A public hearing notice for this application was sent to neighbors. Mr. Hutnik said the Town did not receive any comments in regard to this project. Mr. Morreale opened the public hearing. Mr. Larson noted that she owns the adjacent property on which the planned carport will encroach on the sideyard. No public comments were offered. Mr. Morreale closed the public hearing. Referencing the drawings, Ms. Thompson noted that the car’s turn radius from the carport goes out into the road. Won’t this be a problem? Ms. Larson said there’s a wide road shoulder or pull- out area near the carport that runs parallel to Taughannock Boulevard. This should allow for safe in and out access. Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals 2 Mr. Howarth pointed out comments offered by Tompkins County Planning and the fact that, since Taughannock Boulevard/Route 89 is a scenic byway, project proposals near the roadway deserve careful consideration. Tompkins County’s Department of Planning and Sustainability recommended the following modification: “We recommend that the Town require the applicant avoid adverse impacts to any scarce plants and mature forest stands located on the site. The proposed project is located within the Glenwood Ravine and Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area (UNA-91) which was established due to the presence of scarce species such as hackberry and mature hardwood forests as noted in the attached. This modification is recommended to help protect the natural features located in this area.” If the Board does not incorporate the County’s recommendation, approval for the area variance would require a supermajority vote of the BZA. Mr. Pranger said he received Tompkins County’s modifications. By building on stilts, we’re disturbing the least amount of ground coverage, he said, adding he intends to minimize tree removal. Could you build the carport without removing any trees? Mr. Howarth asked, to which Mr. Pranger said there is a possibility but that he’d need to confirm this. However, Ms. Larson said there are already some trees falling in that area. She’s uncomfortable promising that all trees would remain. Referencing stated concerns about the scenic byway, Mr. Hillman also expressed concern about new structures encroaching on the DOT right of way – the side setback was less a concern since Ms. Larson owns the neighboring property. Have you taken into account increased water runoff from the carport and how that would impact the Unique Natural Area (UNA)? Mr. Pranger said no analysis has been done on potential runoff, but he’d be open to any curtailing measures. Ms. Larson said her driveway already has runoff ruts caused by vehicle traffic, rain, and snowmelt. This carport would help mitigate the wear and tear on the driveway, which she doesn’t want to pave, she said. Considering that the carport’s roof is 16.5 feet by 21 feet, Mr. Morreale said he’s concerned about runoff further eroding the property’s existing topography. Ms. Thompson suggested perhaps a foot-wide drain under eaves and/or gutters. Consideration was given to gutters, French drains, and even swales. BZA members agreed that some measures should be put in place to diffuse runoff and keep it from eroding the nearby steep slopes while minimizing impact to the UNA. The applicant was asked about alternative locations for the carport, and Mr. Pranger said they did explore other alternatives but the presented location is the most appropriate. The BZA returned to tree removal. Mr. Pranger said the project may necessitate the removal of one or two trees, but certainly not 30. He has not identified the tree species in the UNA. Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals 3 Conversation ensued regarding the carport’s footprint and its impact on the nearby vegetation. Ms. Thompson endorsed the proposed plan and said that the carport’s close location to the roadway may make it easier to build and will be less destructive to the nearby environment. Mr. Morreale summarized the BZA’s top concerns: details on the carport’s footprint, ways to mitigate water runoff and an analysis of vegetation, including specifics about tree removal, since tree roots are helping keep the steep slope intact. It’s difficult to make a decision without specifics, he said. Mr. Howarth reiterated his concerns about adding more structures along the scenic byway. Mr. Pranger said he would provide more drawings on ways to handle water runoff and that he’d be happy to meet with BZA members at the site to flag out the footprint and assess vegetation. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to table any action on the proposal, and Mr. Hill SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried unanimously, 5-0. Public Hearing – Appeal by Courtney Royal, for an area variance from §212-54 (F), side yard setback the Conservation Zone. The applicant is seeking to build a 410 square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit that is 37.5 feet from the side property line, where 50 feet is required. The property is approximately 3.86 acres in size and is located on Perry City Rd., Tax Map # 32-1- 4.3. Ms. Royal said the dwelling unit, or tiny house, would serve as a secondary home to the principal, single-family home. They chose the northwest corner of the property for several reasons – siting the dwelling unit behind the principal home was deemed unfavorable because it would require expanding the existing driveway and cutting through the yard. With the tiny house positioned in the northwest corner, existing trees serve as a visual buffer to the roadway and the western neighbors, and the driveway creates a delineation between houses on the Sirt/Royal property. Regarding rainwater management, Mr. Sirt said a roadside swale is located nearby on the property, and they intend to have rainwater mitigation incorporated into the tiny house. For water needs, the tiny home will tie into the property’s existing well. For wastewater, the tiny home will tie into the existing system on the property, Ms. Royal said, adding they intend to plant non- deciduous trees near the tiny home to act as a visual barrier. From our evaluation, the tiny home will not impact anyone’s view, she said. A public hearing notice for this application was sent to neighbors. Mr. Hutnik said the Town did not receive any comments in regard to this project. Mr. Morreale opened the public hearing. Mr. Grady, a neighbor, expressed appreciation for the project and encouraged granting the variance. He attended the meeting to also learn more about this process, since he’s interested in building something similar. Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals 4 Mr. Lee and Ms. Reakes live on the adjacent property, uphill from the Royal/Sirt property. Their view is the primary concern as well as the location of the structure. Mr. Sirt said the proposed house, with a height of 22 feet, will be positioned in the tree line and shouldn’t impact the Reakes’ view. Mr. Lee said he was not so much concerned with the lakeview, which the applicant has considered, but with seeing the new structure. He requested visiting the site and reviewing where the house would be positioned. Would it be an Airbnb? he asked. Mr. Sirt said the tiny house will have a multi-purpose use, including possibly for residing in while renting out their primary house. The family needs workspace, and while families visit, the Sirt/Royal family would stay on the property in the tiny house. Ms. Royal wouldn’t go as far as saying the house wouldn’t be used as an Airbnb, but said there wouldn’t be steady in-and-out traffic at the house. We’ll be on the property, she said, adding that the tiny house could be used as an elder cottage or senior suite. No further public comments were offered. Mr. Morreale closed the public hearing. Noting the survey map, which identifies the proposed house as an “elder cottage,” Mr. Tyler stressed that the term “elder cottage” should be used cautiously. A cottage is more accurate, he said, or, as Ms. Thompson noted, an accessory dwelling unit. A thorough discussion ensued regarding the present proposal of an accessory structure in the front yard. Mr. Howarth pointed out that the project, as proposed, also would need a variance for an accessory structure in the front yard. Currently, according to Mr. Hutnik, Town law prohibits accessory buildings in front yards, though, he added, accessory dwelling units are a different classification. He said the proposed site for the tiny house is considered the front yard. Mr. Sirt said they were told the proposed site is located in the sideyard, not the front yard. Further discussion ensued, and BZA members were in agreement that two variances, not one, were required – one for the sideyard setback and another for the siting of an accessory dwelling unit in the frontyard. However, as Mr. Sirt noted and Mr. Hutnik confirmed, were the tiny home positioned further east into the yard and away from the sideyard, that would remove the need for the sideyard variance. Only one variance would be required then, that being the construction of an accessory dwelling unit in the frontyard. The BZA reached a consensus to table the meeting, and the applicants intend to return in a month or two with an altered application. In the meantime, Mr. Sirt requested clarity on the definition of frontyard. Responding to Ms. Royal’s request for any further documentation, Mr. Morreale said positive feedback from Mr. Lee would be helpful to include. Mr. Tyler advised the applicants to handwrite a correction on the survey map, noting the term “elder cottage” is incorrect. Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to table any action on the proposal until the next meeting, and Ms. Thompson SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals 5 Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Ms. Thompson SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro on November 9, 2021.