Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-15 - BZA TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 03/15/06 APPROVED 03/29/06 PRESENT : Chairman George Tselekis, BZA Members Carl Mann, Andy Glasner; Zoning Typist Robin Carlisle Peck EXCUSED : BZA Members Gerald VanOrden, Joel Warren ALSO PRESENT : Cathy Terwilliger Chairman George Tselekis called the meeting and a duly advertised public hearing to order at 7 : 30pm. The purpose of the public hearing was to hear comments on an area variance requested by Robert and Sharon Greenbaum to rebuild a house that was destroyed by fire on their lot at 5221 Terrel Road, also known as tax parcel 21 -3 - 1 . Cathy Terwilliger is present to represent Mr. and Mrs . Greenbaum as they currently reside in West Virginia. The application was completed by Ms . Terwilliger. Ms . Terwilliger informed the Board she is a neighbor. The have put in a proposal contingent on a variance to build a house or a garage on the property. If the variance is not granted they will not purchase the property. The Greenbaum ' s reside in West Virginia and have rented the property for 4 or 5 years . They have given Ms . Terwilliger authorization to act on their behalf. Mr. Tselekis verified Ms . Terwilliger ' s address as being 5209 Terrell Road , Trumansburg, NY-her residence is 20 feet from the house that was destroyed in the fire . He noted they are the people who would have the most input into this project. Ms. Terwilliger stated they would like to expand their house they are residing in a tiny cape cod. They are unsure if they would like to build a new one and rent the one they currently own or expand their house with an addition . They do need some expert advice. After the fire they felt very vulnerable due to the proximity to their house, once the insurance company cleared the destruction they requested the house be destroyed due to safety issues . This ruined the prospect to obtain a building permit. A request to leave the footers was made for future building-they have a foundation that is approximately 40 x 30 as well as 2 concrete patios remaining on the lot . There is an existing sewer system, electric and two wells are on the lot. She noted a picture of the property from a real estate listing was submitted with the application of the house after the fire. Mr. Mann noted the picture was in the application however the picture was difficult to see . It was noted by the picture that it was before the fire however a correction was made to read after the fire. Ms Terwilliger stated it should have been indicated as after the fire . It used to be L shaped, and the original was a ranch style and the L shaped addition was made after. She drew the sketch and apologized for the simplicity of the sketch. She stated that since the Greenbaum ' s they have had rotten neighbors . The property was listed through Mark Wright and he had land contracts with the tenants- they all defaulted and the fire was deemed arson. They do not know who started the fire but during the fire were in fear of their residence for two hours and have decided they do not want anymore neighbors . Mr. Tselekis stated that Mr. Rachun had informed him that normally they could rebuild the house unless more than 80% is damaged . Ms . Terwilliger stated that is what the picture is supposed to convey but the copy is not indicative that more than 20% is left . If they were ever to rebuild they would adhere to all components of the Zoning law except for the lot size . Their lot size is a half acre ; years ago the lot was split. Mr. Tselekis asked what they want to do with the lot . Board of Zoning Appeals 2 03/ 15/2006 Ms . Terwilliger informed them they were told they have to let the lot sit for a year. The basement was filled with cinder block and had a lot of water in it. The Greenbaum ' s asked if they would like to purchase the property and they affirmed they would . They do not know if they want to build a new house, add on or what direction they specifically would go in . Mr. Tselekis stated the BZA would like to be flexible and help out as much as they can however they cannot issue an open ended variance . If they had a specific project it would be helpful . . Ms Terwilliger stated if they could issue a variance to rebuild a home it would be helpful . Mr. Tselekis asked if it would be the same footprint. Ms Terwilliger stated it would be smaller, but it would be a two story. Mr. Tselekis noted the old house had been 1 ,683 square feet. Ms . Terwilliger stated they were thinking in terms of 1800 but a two story, so it would be smaller at the base but go up . Mr. Tselekis noted that they could consider the variance for under 2 , 000 square feet with the same footprint or smaller. Ms Terwilliger stated it was her understanding the variance was only valid for one year. Mr. Mann stated if there was no substantial work performed ; this would be up to the Zoning Officer. Ms Terwilliger stated she was informed by Mr. Rachun dirt work or foundation work was considered substantial work. They want to know what their limits are. Mr. Mann noted there are several problems even if they add their current property to this property they are substandard for having enough land to have two dwellings on one parcel . One of the things they have to find to grant a variance, there are 5 items to consider, and #3 is whether the requested area variance is substantial . They are in an area that takes 200 feet deep and 400 feet length. The lot is 176 feet deep . Ms . Terwilliger stated that in the history of the property there have been no issues with houses or families or people getting along. There have been no well problems, sewer problems, or electrical problems that would hinder another family living there especially if they were the land owners . Mr. Tselekis asked Mr. Maim if they looked at it by the acreage would the %z acre vs . 2 acre be a substantial difference on the other hand is it possible to interpret they are giving the variance for the 15 % if part of the problem was they went too far in the demolition . Ms Terwilliger noted that is exactly what happened, had they known this was the Zoning Code they would have obtained the building permit. The property left was a hazard, there was 4 feet of standing water in the basement, it was a half dug basement, after the fire the Trumansburg ' Fire Department had to come and empty the basement so the Fire Inspector could investigate the fire. The property was destroyed as a favor to the families who were concerned about their children and their dogs that reside in the area. Mr. Mann stated the point he was making is they have 17,000 or 18 , 000 square feet on the proposed lot they need 80, 000 square feet any way it is reviewed it would have to be considered substantial . They have to discuss and decide if it is too substantial . They understand the problem and appreciate their concerns and what they are trying to do . They are bound by the rules the Town Board passes . Board of Zoning Appeals 3 03/ 15/2006 Ms. Terwilliger asked if it would help if the fire inspectors provided pictures of what how much was left . Mr. Mann stated that it does not matter how much was left they have to consider what is currently on the property. Mr. Glasner stated there are specific things they have to consider and provided the list to the applicant these are subject to interpretation . Ms Terwilliger stated she understands anytime a house is put on an empty lot it has to be good for the tax roll . She has been paying taxes in Trumansburg and sending her children to other schools so she understands . She reviewed the list, if they asked to have a garage vs. a house or adding onto their house . That is the direction they are considering. The neighbors they had before had pot plants growing and the local police were on the property. They are not real excited about having neighbors . If they granted a variance for a garage and an extension then they would purchase the property. If it is no to everything and anything, they cannot build and nobody could thus they would not be interested in purchasing the property. The property has beautiful apple trees and star magnolias- there is water, sewer, electric and would be a waste but if it has to go to weeds so be it. If they could put an apartment above the garage that would be acceptable . They are the only neighbors in the area-behind them is a Christmas tree farm and on the side is a cornfield. Mr. Maim stated he is not disputing any of this ; they do not have to follow that square footage it has to be a consideration in their deliberations . The variance requested was for a single family home between 1 ,000-2 , 000 square feet . That is what was advertised with notices sent to neighbors . That is what they have gathered to consider. They can make allowances for something different . Ms Terwilliger asked if there was any opposition from the neighbors . Mr. Tselekis stated there were no objections received and no other neighbors are present at the meeting . Ms . Terwilliger stated the neighbors responded to her notice to purchase the property with the fact they wanted to buy it . It is a gorgeous end lot, they have a pool on their property, and they have two girls and have put up with a lot . If they choose to do this and economically it is feasible they would like to have the Board ' s blessing. They would probably go more with the garage, would they still need the variance if they go this route. Mr. Glasner stated they would need a variance to build anything on the lot. The side yard setback fails the zoning code on the current lot. It does not matter if it is a cornfield it is to the property line . If they were to combine the two lots it would be closer to the allowance . The two lots are less than a half acre. Mr. Tselekis noted it would have less of an impact i f they were to consider an addition vs . a new building. Ms Terwilliger stated that if they were to do an addition it would not be any bigger than their existing house which is approximately 36 x 24 . Mr. Glasner stated unfortunately they cannot approve it today if it has not been applied for-they need to be able to get feedback from the public . If they are asking for input from the BZA as to what could be approved they can accommodate her. Mr. Mann noted that they are asking for 1 , 000-2, 000 square feet they could grant a variance based on 1 ,200- 1 ,400 square feet. Ms Terwilliger noted that is the size of her current house- it is 1 ,450 square feet. It is a 1 V2 story; they have an upstairs and downstairs with 1 %2 bath . It would be the ultimate if they could build onto their house, it would be less than 1 ,400 square feet. But if they chose to build a garage with an apartment overhead-it would be a three bay to house the cars and their boat . Board of Zoning Appeals 4 03 / 15/2006 Mr. Maim stated it would be about 36 x 24 with two stories . Ms Terwilliger noted they have constructed a fence that is 6 foot high across to the property line and down . They had a permit and built a massive deck as well . Mr. Glasner asked if they were looking at an 800 square foot garage would that be a feasible option. Ms Terwilliger stated her husband would really like to have the garage, he has stated they could make it pay for itself by having the rental apartment above. They have considered moving a modular onto the site as well . They are more inclined to not due to having the fire so close to their residence . They have permission from Joel who owns the lot behind them as well as the Stevenson ' s along the side to use additional footage to mow or plant for their yards . Mr. Mann stated that is all subject to the owner ' s whims thus cannot be considered when reviewing for side yard setback. Mr. Tselekis asked to alleviate the hearing being drawn out, would the applicant be willing to submit a plan with an addition with an apartment on top to give the Board something solid to approve . Mr. Glasner agreed this would be a much better approach. The key thing is wanting to rebuild and combine the two lots, coming in and asking for a generic approval is opening up potential situations vs . a more specific plans . If she and her husband are considering purchasing the lot they have to consider the Board ' s position to being able to approve a variance, the Board can appreciate the applicant ' s position in wanting approval prior to purchase . Ms Terwilliger asked if they would need architectural plans or can she do the crude drawing similar to what she did before. Mr. Tselekis stated they would need square footage, property lines, and dimensions . Ms Terwilliger asked if they choose to add on and build next door, can they combine the two properties so they would not have two tax maps . Mr. Mann stated she should contact an attorney, any advice they could give would be worth the price they charged ! Mr. Glasner stated basically what they would be looking for is a lot plan- lot dimension, where the buildings would be on it with their dimensions . What they would be planning to do with those buildings . If they plan on combining the lots, this would need to be displayed on the plan as well . Mr. Mann recommended the Board adjourn the meeting for two weeks to enable the applicant to come back with more specific details . Mr. Tselekis asked if this would constitute a new project . Mr. Mann asked if when she returns would it be a different project. Mr. Glasner offered that if they consider it a different project she would have to go back to Mr. Rachun and apply for a permit and be denied. However, if she adds additional details to her proposal with these additional details they can better measure whether or not it is substantial in comparison to the requirements . Mr. Mann made the motion to adjourn the meeting until 7 : 30pm, March 29th, 2006 at the Town of Ulysses for further consideration of the requested variance. Mr. Glasner seconded the motion. Board of Zoning Appeals 5 03/ 15/2006 Mr. .Glasner. Aye Mr. Mann Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye MOTION CARRIED . Chairman Tselekis adjourned the meeting at 8 : 05 pm . Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Zoning Typist 03/30/06