Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-10-BZA 1 TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 02/10/10 APPROVED 07/21/10 PRESENT : Chairman George Tselekis, BZA Members Barbara Bristow, Dick Coogan, Andy Glasner, Code Enforcement Officer Alex Rachun, Zoning Typist Robin Carlisle Peck, Town Board Member David Kerness , Town Attorney Mariette Geldenhuys Excused : Carl Mann Applicants : Jim Seafuse, Bret Seafuse, Peter and Sarah Gould, Susan Tyczinski Chairman George Tselekis called the meeting and a duly advertised public hearing to order at 7 : 30 pm . They have three different applications in front of them. They will review the Jim Seafuse/Shursave application as that was a continuation . Then they will proceed alphabetically, Gould then Tyczinski . He stated they are considering a request for the Shursave grocery store expansion . He asked the applicants to present the project. Mr. Bret Seafuse stated they are looking to put on an addition to the grocery store . It would take up the space between the Pharmacy and the Grocery store. They would like to expand sections of the store to meet the needs of the consumers as well as compete with Ithaca supermarkets . The parking lot and traffic would be unchanged . It would exceed the 12, 000 square feet law . They are looking for a variance to put the addition on . Mr. Tselekis asked if there were any comments from the audience. None were given. He stated they had received correspondence from Gerald Reynolds ; Trumansburg Fair Neighbor stated they had no objection to the variance and fully support the expansion of the store. He stated at the last meeting they had decided to continue this hearing so information could be provided to Tompkins County Planning. They had received the letter from Tompkins County Planning. He read the letter to the members and audience. The department had reviewed the proposal and found it would not have a negative impact on the community or county wide . They did include several recommendations on the site plan. He asked if the Board had any other questions . Mr. Glasner stated based on the advice they received . They established there was no other feasible method due to the firewall not working for a store . He asked if a feasible method had been found since their last meeting. Mr. Bret Seafuse stated it had not the situation was still the same . Mr. Glasner asked if the appearance of the store would remain the same. Would they be maintaining the design of the current Shursave and Palmer Pharmacy? Mr. Bret Seafuse stated they would. They are designing it to be a continuation of the current building. There would be a patio in front extended the length of the building. The same materials would be used. Mr. Glasner stated while the change is substantial in square footage, if they were to build an extension or a different storefront it would fit in the boundaries and the conditions set forth within the guidelines for zoning. The only real variance is to have the building connected without a firewall vs . real square footage. The expansion is less than the requirement . Mr. Bret Seafuse stated that is correct . Mr. Glasner noted the adverse effect was established through the County. Mr. Tselekis stated for him personally as they are filling in between two existing buildings onto a parking lot, there are plenty of setbacks in all directions and it is in a 2 commercial area he does not see any adverse impacts to the neighborhood . He asked if there were any other questions/comments from the Board . None were offered he asked if there was a Motion, he stated it is important to list all facts involved in detail . Mr. Glasner made the MOTION, seconded by Ms . Bristow Whereas, there will no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood based on the description of the addition to the building to match the current and existing building, and Whereas, there is no detriment to nearby property resulting from the requested variance consisting of the addition the Shursave, the existing structure, and filling in between the existing structure and the Palmer Pharmacy, and Whereas, the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative method other than an area variance as has been noted in discussion. A firewall is not conducive to the store which requires continuous flow of people from one side to the other, and Whereas, the variation is substantial in size compared to the requirement, however, compared to a new freestanding building would meet the requirements. Therefore making it less substantial in the total impact to the area, and Whereas, the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood per the Tompkins County Planning Review, and Whereas, the alleged difficulty was not self-created in that the property exists, the expansion is a reasonable thing to do for the business and the firewall restriction is the only requirement that could not be met, the other requirements have been met, Be it therefore resolved that the Town of Ulysses Zoning Board of Appeals approve an area variance to expand the Shursave Grocery Store by 11 , 655 square feet to a total of 37447 square feet, to Jimmy Seafuse, 2085 Trumansburg Road, Trumansburg, NY, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel 13 . -3-2. Chairman Tselekis called the vote : Ms . Bristow Aye Mr. Coogan Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye The vote was unanimous . Variance was APPROVED Mr. Tselekis stated the next on the agenda is for Peter and Sarah Gould, a variance to construct a porch on property located at 111 Maplewood Road . The problem is , like a lot of the lake lots, the lot frontage is only 62 feet whereas 250 feet is required, side yard is 5 feet whereas 15 feet is required, the lot size is % of an acre whereas 2 acres are required . The new construction will not cause any further encroachment of the side yard . He asked the applicants to describe the project . Mr. Gould stated they purchased the cottage late last summer. It was a seasonal cottage they intend to use year round. There was a small porch on the West side of the house; they put a small addition on the house for the furnace, water pump mechanical type things . They though it looked better to have the roof go over the length of the house. The extended roof also gave them space to store firewood . Mr. Tselekis stated it squared off the house by adding the roof. He asked the size of the porch . Mr. Gould stated that was correct. The size of the porch is 9 feet by 12 feet . 3 Mr. Tselekis asked if there were any comments/questions . Mr. Rachun stated this project came in under two phases ; one was the foundation which he issued the permit for. The second phase was for a total renovation of the house . They did have on the plans a porch going across . He missed this on the plans . What he thought was half of the building having a porch and the other half having a deck was not correct. The zoning which they have now, even though it is a nonconforming lot if they met the setbacks they would not be here . The line follows the creek it may encroach more, the porch is the same width of the house. He did issue a permit however he had to go onsite and inform them this was not valid . Mr. Glasner stated in the packet there was a discussion of a piling as well . Is this part of the variance? Mr. Rachun stated no , the only variance is for the Southwest end of the house to add a porch. Mr. Glasner stated this variance would not make the lot any more nonconforming. Mr. Rachun stated it would not. There is a neighbor here, but he could not state due to the property line not being straight. Mr. Gould stated according to the property line the property has a seasonal stream that changes . But according to the property map the house is 5 . 4 inches from the property line. Mr. Tselekis asked if there were any other questions . Mr. Glasner asked if the neighbor was for or against . Mr. Kerness stated he was neutral . Ms . Bristow made the MOTION, seconded by Mr. Glasner Whereas, there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, and Whereas, there is no detriment to nearby property resulting from the requested variance, and Whereas, the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative method other than an area variance, and Whereas, the variation is not substantial in comparison to the requirement, and Whereas, the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and Whereas, the alleged difficulty was not self-created, Be it therefore resolved that the Town of Ulysses Zoning Board of Appeals approve an area variance to construct a porch to Peter and Sarah Gould, 111 Maplewood Road, Ithaca, NY, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel 28. - 1 -20. Chairman Tselekis called the vote : Ms . Bristow Aye Mr. Coogan Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye The vote was unanimous . Variance was APPROVED i .. __ r .. , [YWrarir�a�.�.gfl •..�,..,�.—mss..-----. 4 Mr. Tselekis stated the last item on the agenda is for another porch. The property is owned by Susan Tyczinski, located at 3044 Taughannock Park Road . He asked the applicant to describe the project. Ms . Tyczinski stated she is asking for two porches on this property. She purchased this property about a year and a half ago , it is next to her current home thus she is a neighbor. It had a porch on the side of the house on the Taughannock Park Road. The setback is 50 feet however the house sets about 35 feet. The porch will not come out any further however she is extending the porch the length of the house . The side porch is being added to a side door. Mr. Tselekis stated he reviewed the plans . Ms . Tyczinski stated the front porch is 16 x 6 feet, the side porch would square off the house. Mr. Tselekis asked if there were comments from the audience . There were none offered . He asked if there were any correspondence . Ms Carlisle Peck stated none had been received . Mr. Tselekis stated no correspondence had been received there were no neighbors present, the house is preexisting. He asked if there were any motions from the Board. Mr. Coogan made the MOTION, seconded by Mr. Glasner Whereas, there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, and Whereas, there is no detriment to nearby property resulting from the requested variance, and Whereas, the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by a feasible alternative method other than an area variance, and Whereas, the variation is not substantial in comparison to the requirement because there is no additional encroachment to the setback, and Whereas, the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and Whereas, the alleged difficulty was not self-created, Be it therefore resolved that the Town of Ulysses Zoning Board of Appeals approve an area variance to construct a porch to Sarah Tyczinski 3044 Taughannock Park Road, Trumansburg, NY, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel 13 . -4. -8. Chairman Tselekis called the vote : Ms . Bristow Aye Mr. Coogan Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye Ms . Carlisle Peck stated they had the minutes of 03/ 18/09 to be approved. Mr. Tselekis noted that the only members present were Mr. Glasner and himself There is nobody here present to second the motion. Ms Geldenhuys stated even though a member was not present they can approve the minutes . Mr. Glasner made the MOTION, seconded by Ms . Bristow to approve the minutes of 03 / 18/09 . Motion passed, MINUTES approved . o==lt 5 Ms . Bristow Aye Mr. Coogan Abstained Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Tselekis Aye Mr. Tselekis noted they have a new member; he introduced Mr. Coogan to the other members . Mr. Coogan stated the Town Board had appointed him last night . Mr. Glasner made the MOTION to adjourn, Ms . Bristow seconded the MOTION. Meeting adjourned at 7 : 55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Zoning Typist