Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-16 - BZA TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 08/16/06 APPROVED 09/20/06 PRESENT : Chairman George Tselekis, BZA Members Andy Glasner, Gerald Van Orden, Zoning Typist Robin Carlisle Peck, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun EXCUSED : Barbara Bristow, Carl Maim Applicant: Peter Miller, Attorney representing Daniel Hotelling Chairman George Tselekis called the meeting and a duly advertised public hearing to order at 7 : 30pm . They are here to hear an application from Daniel Hotelling for an area variance for the property located at 4290 Cold Springs Road, Trumansburg, NY. The area variance is to change the border on two contiguous lots that Mr. Hotelling owns . He asked if someone was in the audience to represent this application. Mr. Miller introduced himself and stated he is here to represent Dan Hotelling who owns tax parcels 20-3 -6 . 1 & 20-3 -6 .2 which are two contiguous parcels on Cold Springs Road in the Town of Ulysses . Dan could not be here tonight as he is out of town and he asked Mr. Miller to represent him . He purchased the property in the early 80 ' s, at that time it was one tax parcel, in approximately 1987 he built the small house on parcel 6 . 1 , he built a small house on part of the property. With the help of the bank to obtain the mortgage he subdivided the property so he would not have to get a mortgage on all of the property. This property split was done arbitrarily by the bank attorney, he stopped at the property and someone has put a stake on the property which he believes measured to about 230 feet from the Westerly corner of property 6 . 1 ; it just seems like the property comes too far over onto 6 . 2 which is the larger parcel, this parcel has the large home and an secondary building on the property. The point is when the property was divided there was not a lot of thought given to this split other then making the bank happy to get the mortgage. When he was there today he realized that where the property line is it does really come quite to the larger home and gives the income home really far more yard then you would expect for this size home . He stated he would like to go through the various reasons he believes it would be appropriate to grant the variance . It would provide a larger and more appropriate yard for parcel 6 . 2 which has the large house on it . It was brought to his attention there is some confusion as what the actual frontage is on 6 . 1 , he has seen two different tax maps showing 216 feet then another was received by Dan that listed 238 feet of frontage, the mortgage that was registered in 1987 listed 223 feet of frontage. There are three different potential frontages lengths ; it seems this is a good time to clarify this issue . Regardless of what the true frontage is it is not a conforming lot due to the 250 feet frontage requirement in an R1 district. They are asking for a reduction of the 250 feet. There is a culvert that goes under Cold Springs Road that is 175 feet Easterly from the southwest of 6 . 1 . He showed the Board the tax maps listing different frontage lengths . He referenced the application where he illustrated the lot with 175 feet that has the frontage ending at the culvert. This culvert does maintain the integrity of the road allowing the water to pass under the road and onto Dan ' s land. They feel it would be a natural boundary for this property. He referenced in his letter to the Board if the variance is granted they would have the property surveyed and make sure there is a minimum of two areas and maintain the setbacks as required. He noted in reference to public interest the two properties are owned by Dan and the setbacks are all in compliance on both parcels so it would not have an adverse impact on the public . It does not permit the building of additional structures or any other additional development. Dan wants to provide a more logical yard for the larger home. To his knowledge he has had not heard of any public objections, there are no individuals present for the hearing and Dan indicated he had not heard of any objections . Zoning Board of Appeals 2 08/ 16/2006 With the above in mind he respectfully requests the Board grant Mr. Hotelling' s application for an area variance . Mr. Tselekis stated there are no individuals present to speak for or against the variance. The only correspondence received was a letter from Mr. Peter Miller- Adams, Theisen, May, Miller, and Yehl, Attorneys-dated July 31 , 2006 in support of the variance. Mr. Rachun asked when the culvert was put in. Mr. Miller stated he did not know, but Mr. Hotelling stated the culvert was located there when he purchased the property in the early 80 ' s . The previous owner did not like the culvert and filled it in with rocks . Mr. Glasner stated in Mr. Miller' s letter he mentioned the parcel currently is relatively close to Mr. Hotelling ' s property on 6 .2 . Is it conforming as it is now. Mr. Miller stated 6 .2 is currently conforming, it is a large lot. Mr. Glasner stated the issue he has is 6 . 1 has a small structure on it, it somebody wants to build a larger lot on it they could request a variance. If they make it smaller they reduce this possibility. Mr. Miller stated he has the setback requirements in his file, he had not thought through that issue with great specificity but he does believe they could build a larger one and still meet the setbacks . Mr. Glasner stated they would have reduced the flexibility by 40 feet. Mr. Miller stated it would in that direction but the lot is deep they could build in that direction and there would be space to the West. Mr. Rachun stated it would require an area variance, he stated an issue he can see is in the Spring and Fall it would be very wet. They would not reduce the potential for building by the frontage but by decreasing the acreage they would. Mr. Miller stated the only issue they are requesting an area variance for is the frontage- they would meet the two acre requirement. Mr. Glasner asked if the lots were on septic systems and where the septic field is located in relation to the boundary. Mr. Miller replied they are, he does not know where the septic systems are specifically located. Mr. Rachun stated that would be the purview of the Health Department. Mr. Glasner stated he would like to have this information before making a decision, especially if the drainage field from one parcel goes onto the other parcel . He asked if these two parcels are being sold separately. Mr. Miller replied it depends on who puts in an offer. Mr. Glasner asked if they are being listed separately. Mr. Miller affirmed they are but he also agreed with Mr. Rachun which is that because it is such soft, wet land he would be surprised if the septic was located there. And he would be surprised if the Health Department would allow this . If the Board wished he could contact Mr. Hotelling via cell phone and confirm the location. He asked if the request be granted contingent on the septic fields being separate. Mr. Tselekis asked if this is the Board ' s concern, he would be shooting himself in the foot by moving the property line over another' s septic field. Zoning Board of Appeals 3 08/ 16/2006 Mr. VanOrden stated they should, they are changing the definition of the property line and they should have this information . Mr. Tselekis asked is this a zoning issue or is this an issue between him and the person that buys the property. He thinks their issue is that they are making a non conforming lot and making it more non conforming. Mr. VanOrden stated that in so doing they could argue the Board helped create this problem by allowing this boundary line change. Mr. Glasner stated the Site Plan Review was done to approve the septic and the lot line. He is not exactly sure of the motivation to make this change. They have a small building on a very large lot perhaps that will make this more saleable . That makes sense, however if they move it over they are making an influence on whoever buys 6 . 1 ; that person is not here to speak. With that knowledge the lots are being sold separately they are making a decision for the future owner' s situation . He is sure he is not comfortable with making this decision right now . Mr. Miller stated the approval could be made contingent on the whereabouts of the septic system . He has gotten to know Mr. Hotelling fairly well over the past several months and he appears to be a smart, pragmatic guy. He would be surprised if the septic field or tank was anywhere near the drainage area, nor would he putting both septic fields on 6 . 2 . He is confident when they establish the locations it would be not be a problems . Mr. Tselekis asked if the Board would feel confident making the septic a contingency of the approval . This would allow the Board to zero in on the non conforming questions. Mr. Glasner replied he does not feel comfortable making a lot less conforming, he agreed the contingency would allow the septic question to be solved. Mr. Miller stated if they lot at the house, it really does come quite close. If you stand on the road and look perpendicular from the road it does come quire close to the house he and his wife live in. Since, he has both parcels on the market it would be an issue for the next owner whereas he had owned both parcels and was not really an issue for him. It looks like it is a close as 20-30 feet, if the property line is moved Westerly 20-30 feet both setbacks are conforming. The setbacks to the surveyor would be to maintain setbacks . Mr. Rachun asked if they shortened 6 . 1 would that give the room requested. Mr. Miller stated it would not; Mr. Hotelling is concerned with the proximity of the lot to the boundary line. Mr. Tselekis stated there is not a problem with the depth of the lot ; the problem is making the width of the lot smaller. Mr. Miller stated he is not sure other than the location of the septic what other valid concern it would be in adversely affecting the public . Mr. Glasner stated it would not adversely affect the public today. Mr. Miller is stating there is no reason to not do this-from his perspective there is no reason to do it . They have two lots one is conforming one which is not but is reasonably close-why make it less conforming. When he hears it is really close, unless there is a distance it is hard for him to guess. They have 356 feet of frontage that is quite large. The pictures do not show a reference to each other. Mr. Miller offered the parcel on 6 . 1 is under contract right now. The deal has been put on hold the people do not want to buy 5 acres . Zoning Board of Appeals 4 08/ 16/2006 Mr. Glasner replied the real reason comes out. If he is just trying to make a smaller yard with less length to reduce the cost, why not shorten the lot and leave the street frontage where it is. Mr. Miller replied that is not true, the Board knew they were trying to sell the property. There are several reasons the natural boundary with the culvert, and it makes more sense for the home on parcel 6 . 2 to have a larger yard. That goes hand in glove with the fact that there is a natural boundary. The lay of the land of both properties slopes down into this drainage. There is a hedgerow on either side of this culvert right know the property line stops somewhere to the East and you end up with a narrow strip of land for 6 . 2 . Mr. Glasner stated he does not understand the narrow strip, he indicated on a picture included with the application. Mr. Miller stated there are pictures that shows the culvert with the house in the back ground. He showed the pictures with the culverts and the hedgerows on pictures provided . Mr. Van Orden stated then they would not effectively gain any yardage due to the hedgerows . Mr. Miller replied the new owners could take down or put up a hedgerow . Mr. Tselekis asked about a line of trees that had been on the pictures. There was a thick line of trees then a newer line of trees on the property-is the newer line on the property line. Mr. Miller stated Dan ' s family had measured and placed a stake; if you stand where the stake is and look Northerly the line runs to the right of this hedgerow . They want to move it to the culvert which is 175 feet. The surveyor would provide definite markings . He stated he does not think it is disingenuous for Dan to change the lot lines make it more saleable. The reason he brought up the pending offer of 6 . 1 is that the people that may buy are in full accord with this application and the offer is contingent on this application. They were going to get one acre and are excited to get two acres instead. The realtor did not realize it would be a zoning issue with only 1 acre. He provided a panorama type picture that did not help the Board due to it showing the road as a curve and both houses were not shown. Mr. Tselekis reviewed and stated the pictures were not helpful . Basically, they want to give the big house the larger lot, and the smaller house the smaller lot. It is not disingenuous to want to do this, however the Town Board passed the Zoning Ordinance to require 250 feet and they have an obligation to get as close to this as possible unless there is a strong reason not to . Mr. Miller stated this is a reason he was trying to indicate in his letter that there is no plan to allow additional construction. He presumed the logic of the 250 feet is to prevent houses every 100 feet going down the road. This application will not change the proximity of the house or lead to construction of new homes . They could only replace this house with another home that has to meet the setbacks . Mr. Glasner stated there is a lot that nearly conforms ; they would be making the lot worse by allowing this variance. Mr. Miller stated there is a question of the actual frontage, when they say it is making it worse who is it worse for. Mr. Glasner stated they would be making a lot that is nearly conforming, less conforming by 40 or 60 feet. This would affect the future owners of the property. If anyone is to build the changes made here will affect the future owners . This would make this lot further away from conforming now and in the future then it currently is . Zoning Board of Appeals 5 08/ 16/2006 Mr. Miller stated but if the small house was replaced by a larger house, they would have to meet the setback requirements, they have two tax parcels with two homes ; one home would have 175 feet frontage instead of 220 feet of frontage. Mr. Tselekis stated everything is conforming now and everything would probably be conforming in the future even if they rebuilt a bigger house . The only issue is the frontage is non conforming now and it would be less conforming if they change it. Mr. Glasner stated they would have to come into the Board of Zoning Appeals as he is now, they would have a lot that nearly conforms, there is nothing preventing the current owner from simply reducing the depth of the lot to two acres and still meeting the contingency. Mr. Miller stated the current parcel is listed as two acres , they could not sell part of the tax parcel . Mr. Glasner stated he understands but they would still have to make an application and that is not what Dan wants nor does the prospective buyer want this . He has been reluctant to raise but there is no formal easement for this culvert, it is there as a matter of courtesy, he has left it alone to permit the drainage to maintain the integrity of the street and has never required an easement. He thinks it is a reasonable place to have the property line. The length of the time he has owned the property he has never given the Town a hard time about the culvert being there not withstanding the fact that there is no easement or right of way. Mr. Rachun stated they would gain more depth, although they would decrease the frontage, he agreed with Mr. Glasner in that the Town Board does not want to see cookie cutter lots on feeder roads . The question down the road is reducing one lot and making the other larger will that in some way work toward the goal of the Town Board and work against the Town Board. He does agree if someone wants to build a larger house on that parcel-the parcel will be smaller. However, Cold Springs Road does have a lot of lots that are well under 175 feet, 250 feet is what is required today and that is what they have to vote on. The other item to take into account is there is also almost enough land to put two houses on the other parcel. That could be part of the contingency is that this would not be looked at favorably. Mr. Miller stated that would be a clearly adverse condition, because you would end up with two homes vs . one . Mr. Tselekis stated it is not fair to hold any potential future applications against the applicant. The issue is they have a nonconforming lot they want to make less conforming; the question in his mind is the reason compelling enough to do that. Mr. Miller stated he would ask the Board weigh on one hand is it compelling enough, Dan wants do to what would make the home on 6 . 2 a nicer home with a better home with no real adverse consequences to the other parcel on 6 . 1 . There are clear advantages and compelling reasons Dan would like this granted and on the other side there aren ' t any adverse consequences . Especially, since Mr. Rachun offered there are other parcels that are approximately 175 feet frontage ; this variance would make this consistent to parcels on the road. As far as benefit or public use he does not see the adverse consequence. Mr. Glasner stated he is consistently ignoring the simple fact they are making a lot less conforming, he understands he is an advocate for his employer (client) . He is saying there is no compelling reason which is it is less conforming. Mr. Miller asked if there was any adverse consequence of being a less conforming lot . Mr. Glasner replied every time they make a change it moves further form what the Town Board gave them direction to do . Mr. Miller replied he does not see that there is an adverse affect. Zoning Board of Appeals 6 08/ 16/2006 Mr. Tselekis stated if he had a lot of 175 feet and wanted to build a house on it-that would be a compelling reason. But if they are creating one and making it less this is tough for them to do . Mr. Miller stated when this lot line was drawing this lot line 25 years ago it was drawn arbitrarily because the bank was putting on a mortgage and did not want to mortgage the entire 20 acres . They drew this line so the bank felt it was getting enough acreage for the purpose of the mortgage. This mortgage has been long since paid off, Dan did not have any input as to where the property line would be drawn. You could argue he is stuck with this albatross because he has this really nice property on parcel 6 . 2 that is quite close to the property line. Mr. Tselekis stated if you review the map it appears the property line was drawn midway between the two houses . Mr. Miller replied it could be he does not know what the thinking was . Mr. Tselekis stated they have to come up with some kind of decision, he asked if the members had any further questions. The members replied they had no further questions . He asked if any member would like to offer a motion. Mr. Glasner stated he did not feel strong enough to offer a motion. Mr. Van Orden stated he did not either. Mr. Tselekis stated he could not make a motion, but he felt if they approved making a lot less conforming like this without a compelling reason. It would be an arrogant disregarding of the zoning law. From what he saw the culvert was not a real deep drainage, he saw the hedgerow, but not a deep drainage suggestive of a strong property line. I can see how it would be convenience and make the larger lot easier to sell, but making the lot less conforming would not be a strong enough reason for him. Mr. Miller asked if they could refrain from making a decision and stop at the site on Cold Springs Road and view the site . He stopped prior to coming to the meeting and it is a very distinct recession of the ground that comes down from both homes . It is also of great significance to the integrity of the road that the water from the road drains here. In his mind it truly is a natural boundary it makes sense for this to be the property line vs . 50 feet Easterly towards the large home . It is not a logical place for a boundary line. Mr. Glasner stated he would commit to stopping by and seeing the property. But he is having a hard time understanding the compelling reason and he is basically in the same place Mr. Tselekis is and would not feel it is appropriate to approve the variance tonight. If they would like to have the variance tabled he would commit to driving by to see it. Mr. Van Orden agreed he would stop by the property and agreed to have the decision tabled for tonight . Mr. Glasner made the MOTION to hold off on a decision until the next scheduled meeting and neither approve or deny the request; the Board requested the following items be provided to them for consideration : 1 . The applicant should provide clarification as to what the actual frontage of parcel 6 . 1 is AND 2 . Provide detail regarding the septic systems for parcel 6 . 1 and 6 . 2 . Mr. Van Orden seconded the MOTION. Chairman Tselekis called the vote: Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye Mr. Van Orden Aye Zoning Board of Appeals 7 08/ 16/2006 The motion was carried unanimously Mr. Rachun stated the County maps have been wrong in the past, if there is confusion the legal deed related to the property should be used. Mr. Miller stated he does not have the legal deed with him but the deed for parcel 6 . 1 states the frontage of 6 . 1 is 223 feet . He has not been provided with a survey but he will double check with Dan. Mr. Glasner stated what is on the back of his mind is that if this lot had 251 feet of frontage he would not consider this at all . Why if it is nonconforming why would he make it less nonconforming. Mr. Miller stated he comes back to the fact that there is no adverse impact. Mr. Tselekis stated all members would go to the site if stakes could be placed to indicate the boundary lines it would assist them in reviewing this plan. The information requested should be provided to them by the next meeting which is September 20, 2006 . Mr. Tselekis adjourned the meeting at 8 : 15 pm . Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Zoning Typist 09/20/06 i •