Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-29 - BZA TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 03/29/06 Approved 04/19/06 as presented PRESENT : Chairman George Tselekis, BZA Members Carl Mann, Andy Glasner, Gerald VanOrden; Zoning Typist Robin Carlisle Peck, Deputy Supervisor Dick Coogan, Planning Board Member John Wertis UNEXCUSED : Joel Warren ALSO PRESENT : Kathy Terwilliger, Jim and Rita Brown, Lori June, Doug Carman Chairman George Tselekis called the meeting and a duly advertised public hearing to order at 7 : 35pm . Mr. Tselekis stated the first order of business is James and Rita Brown; they would like to divide property on Colegrove Road . Mr. Mann asked if somebody could provide specifics of the project on the map . Mr. Brown asked if a larger map would help , the members affirmed this would . Mr. Brown displayed an architectural map of the property involved on the table . He indicated that what they have 65 -66 acres in the whole parcel that comes from Route 96 down through and behind Colegrove Road. There are 2 . 38 acres that come out on Colegrove Road, when he purchased the property the 2 . 38 was a separate lot and was combined for tax purposes . Mr. Mann asked if this was done deed wise or just for tax purposes . Mr. Brown stated it was just for tax purposes there was not a separate deed . Now he wants to sell this property, he wants to give his daughter an acre and a half to combine with her current adjacent property-this has been approved by the Planning Board. He wants to keep the 2 . 38 because he wants to sell the large parcel as a farm, the County stated 30 houses could go on this property-he does not want this to happen. He would keep the 2 . 38 acre lot and possibly sell it someday-there is enough room for a house, but his main reason is he does not want to have this property become a subdivision, it is farmland and brush, it is his plan to keep it as such as long as he can. If he opens it from road to road this would open it up for a housing development . Mr. Mann stated there is no reason they could not put in a cul-de-sac at the end, there is no requirement for thru traffic . Mr. Brown stated with the new zoning he does not believe it could happen because there is no town road. That would be up to the new owner. They have no plans for the property except they want to own land in Ulysses, 10 or 15 years down the road it may come to that. He has had calls from developers who would like to go from road to road; he is trying to stop that. According to zoning law it is a non conforming lot, he is trying to keep the lot as a building lot for someday down the road, maybe one of the adjoining land owners would like to buy it. It is a flag lot ; it has substantial acreage for septic etc . Mr. Tselekis verified that his main desire is to block off the big lot from Colegrove Road, he stated that since it is a non conforming lot there is no guarantee he could build on it. Mr. Brown asked if someone chose to build would they have to come before the board for approval. Mr. Tselekis affirmed they would have to have approval from the BZA . He asked for comments from anyone in the audience . Zoning Board of Appeals 2 03/29/2006 Ms Lori June stated that as adjoining landowners they are in support of what he is trying to do and hope in the future if the property is for sale they could purchase it as a buffer for their property. Mr. Tselekis informed the applicants and board members that Mr. Rachun had instructed him that this does not require a variance as no building is being done. It only requires a variance if the property is being built on not divided. It is the boards ' choice to try to rule on it or give it a pass on it for the evening. Mr. Glasner MOVED and Mr. VanOrden SECONDED II WHEREAS, no action is required tonight there will be no ruling on this request as there is no building proposed yet on the lot. Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye Mr. Van Orden Aye The motion was carried unanimously, no action was taken. Mrs . Brown questioned if this would hold up the sale of the property. Mr. Coogan informed Mrs . Brown the subdivision had been approved . Chairman Tselekis stated the second order of business was a continuation from the previous meeting. The application by Kathy Terwilliger for approval to build an addition onto her house to go onto the property she would purchase from Mr. Greenbaum on Terrell Road, he asked Ms Terwilliger if she could explain what she would be doing. Ms . Terwilliger stated at the last meeting they were not sure if they would build an it addition onto their house or build a garage, the Board had asked her to come back with more explicit plans for the building on the lot. They have drafted a drawing and are asking for approval of a 3 bay garage with an apartment on top for their daughter. Mr. Tselekis asked if this would be attached to their house. Ms. Terwilliger replied it would not be attached. Mr. Mann asked if they would combine the properties . Ms Terwilliger stated after hearing what happened to Mr. Brown she is not sure, she asked if for tax purposes the assessment would be higher. Her husband had asked her and she was not sure. Mr. Maim advised her to contact the assessor' s office. Ms Terwilliger stated they had wanted to attach the garage, because it would make more sense if they are using the 3 bay garage, but she is not completely sure . Mr. Mann stated that since she has not made up her mind, the Board would have to consider the property as being built on as a separate lot. � I Mr. Tselekis informed Mr. VanOrden that Mr. Greenbaum ' s house burned down and he would have been allowed to rebuild if there had been a little bit left. Ms . Terwilliger stated her attorney informed her that the reason it was torn down is it was a safety hazard, it was a five foot basement filled with water with no way to cordon it off The grandfather clause should hold for this property. Mr. Tselekis stated if they had left the structure she could have rebuilt the house . Zoning Board of Appeals 3 03/29/2006 Mr. VanOrden asked if it was '/2 an acre . Mr. Tselekis stated at the last meeting she was informed to come back with a specific plan. She has come back with a proposed 30 x 40 which would be smaller than the original building which was 1600 square feet; this would be 1200 square feet . The lot is significantly under the size allowance . Ms . Terwilliger stated there is a working septic system , wells and electric on the site already. In the 17 years they have lived there they have had no difficulty with these items with the two lots. Mr. Tselekis asked if they are both 1/2 acre lots . Ms Terwilliger stated the lot they own currently is a little more than a %2 acre and the lot they would purchase is a little under. Mr. Tselekis stated under the zoning code they are supposed to be 2 acres . He stated he had the plans if anyone needed to review them . Mr. Glasner stated the bottom is 40 x 30 the second story is 30 x 30, is that the way it is drawn or was it meant to come in at the top Ms Terwilliger stated she is not an architect, she did the best she could. Mr. Tselekis asked if there were any comments received in the mail . Ms Carlisle Peck stated there were no items in the record regarding this project. Mr. VanOrden asked how close to her existing house the new structure would be . Ms . Terwilliger stated they would move the new house 10 to 15 feet over towards the hedgerow; it has always been farmland and always will be. They do not own that property but after having gone through the fire they do not want to have their residence as close as the old one had been due to fire hazard . Mr. VanOrden asked who would be residing in the apartment. Ms Terwilliger said it would be their daughter who is in college, she would stay in it during the summer months, they have considered renting it out during the school year but they have not decided that as of this time . Mr. Glasner noted clarifying information in Article 21 - Section 21 . 1 building floor area- because it is on its own lot it would be a primary dwelling. There is a restriction of 750 square feet of enclosed level of floor area exclusive of garage or carport. With the upstairs apartment they have 30x30 so they would meet this requirement with 900 square feet. Another clarifying reference is Article 21 -Section 21 . 10 for abandoned cellar holes or damaged/derelict buildings- any building substantially destroyed by any cause shall be rebuilt or demolished within 1 year, for the purpose of the ordinance the substantially destroyed shall meet damage in excess of 50% of the replacement costs of the building in its entirety. This is clearly more than 50% of the value, there is no restriction as to how much should be left standing in 21 . 10 . He noted this information is on page 138 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Laws . Mr. Tselekis stated that in his interpretation if the original owner wanted to rebuild they would be allowed. Ms . Terwilliger stated this is what the insurance company told her. Mr. Tselekis stated it would be good to know what the original denial was for, referring to the 80% being destroyed vs . 100% . The idea was because it was 100% destroyed it had to be a new structure. Zoning Board of Appeals 4 03/29/2006 Ms . Terwilliger noted it was referred to the Board for lot size, the structure was not destroyed by the fire but rather demolished due to safety hazard, Mr. Rachun was not sure and that is why he referred the damage portion to the BZA. Mr. Glasner stated Article 20- Section 20 .4 (page 135 ) is what he believes Mr. Rachun was referring to . A non conforming use may be changed to a conforming use however thereafter it shall not again be changed back to the prior non conforming use . The next paragraph is pertinent- nothing shall prevent the substantial restoration of a non conforming use to its former condition or better within 6 months and the continued use of a non conforming building damaged less than 85 % of fair market value of the building immediately prior to such damage by fire, flood, earthquake, act of God or public enemy. He believes this is where the 15 % Mr. Rachun referenced was coming from, the damaged vs . abandoned he is not sure how to interpret them . Mr. Tselekis noted that 21 . 10 says any building substantially destroyed by any cause shall be rebuilt or demolished within one year. They demolished it and they are working on rebuilding it-substantially destroyed means more than 50% ; Section 20 . 4 nothing shall prevent the substantial restoration of a non conforming use to its former condition or better within 6 months and the continued use of a non conforming building damaged less than 85 % of the market value of the building prior. Interpreting Section 20 . 4 they have an automatic right to rebuild within 6 months. Mr. Maim asked if more than the 6 months has lapsed . Ms . Terwilliger stated the fire occurred on Martin Luther King Day, January 13 , 2006 . Mr. VanOrden asked if the original damage by the fire was less than 85 % . Ms . Terwilliger stated a picture was given with the application, this information was pulled and given to Mr. VanOrden. `. Mr. Tselekis stated he is not sure how Mr. Rachun established the estimate of the basement value. As he described it there was less than 85 % damage before destroying the building. The assessment of the house was $ 116,000 . 00. Mr. Glasner stated that the cost of a foundation for a garage is $ 10, 000 . 00 . Mr. Tselekis noted that they are substantially fixing up a heavily damaged building, they tripped up a couple of times, but this was done to prevent a safety hazard, they are coming in to rebuild promptly. Mr. Glasner MOVED, Mr. VanOrden seconded WHEREAS, Article 20 .4 applies, a rebuilding of a structure to improve it to better than its former condition within six months of fire damage, and that after the fire better than 15 % of the market value existed based on the foundation and existing structure before safety concern required its demolition. WHEREAS, Article 21 . 10 allows for rebuilding of a home within one year if it is substantially approved. WHEREAS, to maintain compliance with side setback requirements the structure should be placed in the center of the lot. WHEREAS , the front setback variance is not substantial if they maintain a setback of 70 feet vs . required 75 they approve the setback . THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals approves the variance for Kathy Terwilliger acting on behalf of Robert and Sharon Greenbaum for the property located at 5221 Terrell Road, Trumansburg, NY. Zoning Board of Appeals 5 03/29/2006 Chairman Tselekis called the vote : Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye Mr. Van Orden Aye The motion was carried unanimously, variance is approved. Ms . Terwilliger expressed her thanks to the Board and stated she would meet with Mr. Rachun tomorrow to obtain the building permit. Mr. Glasner asked for clarification for the future on Articles 20. 4 and 21 . 1 with regard to a building damaged by fire, specifically which applies 15 % of the building remaining per 20 .4 or if it is completely destroyed allow for rebuilding per 21 . 10 . Mr. Mann stated there is conflicting information . Mr. Glasner stated he would like a request for interpretation from the Town Attorney or the Planning Board. Mr. Mann stated he is not sure who is working on this , Mr. Rachun had stated the Town Board is working on revisions . Mr. Tselekis stated he is not sure he has a strong enough handle to address the question. When he had a problem he contacted Mr. Rachun directly with questions . Mr. Glasner agreed to contact Mr. Rachun and report his findings back to the Board. Mr. Coogan stated Roxanne Marino, Alex Rachun and Margot Chiuten will be addressing areas of concern they have when trying to apply the Zoning Laws . If the Board of Zoning Appeals find items these should be submitted . Mr. Wertis asked why it was taking so long, the Planning Board is facing the same strange document and finding it frustrating and making stupid mistakes, and doing things that probably should not be happening. This is strictly a personal opinion but he would like to see things move faster. Mr. Coogan stated it is a procedural issue, the items need to be reviewed for technical corrections . These will be done and no size issues would be addressed but the technical corrections will be presented at a Public Hearing. Mr. Tselekis stated the next order of business is the minutes of February 15 , 2006 . Mr. Mann MOVED to approve the minutes as presented, Mr. Glasner SECONDED. Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Mr. Tselekis Abstained Mr. VanOrden Aye The motion is carried, minutes approved as presented. Mr. Tselekis stated the next set of minutes for March 15 , 2006 needs to be reviewed. Mr. Mann MOVED to approve the minutes as presented, Mr. Glasner SECONDED. Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye Mr. VanOrden Abstained Zoning Board. of Appeals 6 03/29/2006 The motion is carried, minutes approved as presented. Mr. Coogan informed the Board he is arranging training sessions for the Planning Board regarding NYS law in general . He asked the Board if they would be interested in attending. The members affirmed they would be interested. The members updated their email addresses to provide to Mr. Coogan. Ms Carlisle Peck stated that she can email the minutes, this has been done for the. Planning Board in an effective manner. The members agreed this would be acceptable. Chairman Tselekis adjourned the meeting at 8 : 10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Zoning Typist 03/30/06 I) .