Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-21-BZA MINUTES TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 03/21 /12 APPROVED 04/18/12 PRESENT : Acting Chairman Andy Glasner, Barbara Bristow, Carl Mann., Environmental Planner Darby Kiley Applicants : Don Smith, George and Pauline Cameron, Carl Lupo Sr. , Darius Preikstas Public : Dave Kerness, Don Shardlow, Cheryl Fletcher, Carol and John Wilson, Frank White, Robert Whitaker Excused : Dick Coogan, George Tselekis Mr. Glasner called the meeting to order at 7 : 30pm. The legal notices had been made and neighbor notices had been sent out. He stated they have 4 variances to be reviewed on the agenda. The first item is the minutes of 11 /02/ 11 . Ms . Carlisle Peck noted that the minutes were for a variance for Barbara Bristow. She had to recuse herself from that meeting . There are not enough members present to approve the minutes without Ms . Bristow. Mr. Glasner stated they would table the minutes until the next meeting. The first appeal on the agenda is an appeal of Don and Jenny Smith, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XX, Section 20 . 3 "Alterations" and Article VII, Section 7 . 6 "Lot Area and Yard Requirements" of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law to be permitted to add an enclosed room over an existing patio, where the existing house received an area variance, and the Zoning Law restricts alterations or extensions to nonconforming buildings . The addition would be located within the rear setback, where 50 feet is required. The property is located at 1329 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel Number 28 . - 1 - 13 . 1 , R1 -Rural Residence District . Ms. Kiley provided the following information regarding the project. In order to build the current 3 ,678 sq ft house, in 1999 variance were granted that included the following : a building lot less than an acre, less than a 200 ft diameter circle of usable area, and a rear lot setback of less than 35 feet (the lakeshore as the rear lot line) . While the applicant ' s proposed addition does not increase the footprint of the building, it does increase the cubic content by approximately 170 sq ft and is located within the rear setback, which is 50 feet along the lakeshore. Mr. Smith stated this home has existed for 12 years. They replaced a three bedroom house with a new three bedroom house . They would like to enclose the patio for an additional room. It was nonconforming and this would not increase the footprint of the building . Mr. Glasner asked if there were any comments from the public, none were offered . He asked if they had received any correspondence . Ms . Carlisle Peck stated no correspondence had been received He asked the Board if they had questions or comments, none were offered. He asked if a Board member would like to make a motion. Mr. Mann made the motion, seconded by Ms . Bristow the following : Whereas, there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to the nearby properties resulting from the requested variance, and 1 Whereas, the benefit sought by the applicant can not 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 alleged difficulty was self created however the impact to the neighborhood would be minimal , Be it Therefore Resolved, that an area variance be granted to Don and Jenny Smith, 1329 Taughannock Blvd. , Tax map # 28 . - 1 - 13 . 1 , from the requirements for 50 feet rear setback, and restriction of alterations or addition to nonconforming building for the purpose of adding an enclosed room over an existing patio. The vote was taken : Ms . Bristow Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Motion approved-variance granted. Mr. Glasner stated the next appeal is for George and Pauline Cameron, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XXI, Section 21 . 9 "Accessory Buildings" of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law to be permitted to construct a storage barn that will exceed the height limit for accessory buildings . The property is located at 3111 Van Dorn Corners Rd, Tax Parcel Number 34 . - 1 -21 , R2-Moderate Density Residence District. Ms . Kiley provided the following information regarding the project. The applicant provided a narrative that explains the height of the proposed accessory building and cupola. The proposed location of the accessory building meets the front, side, and rear s. setback requirements . Mr. Glasner asked the Cameron' s to present their project. Mr. Cameron stated they would like to have a building to store their RV . They had initially looked at a pole barn but realized they could have a more attractive, wood barn that they preferred. Unfortunately, the gambrel-roof and the cupola take the height to 28 feet which is over the zoning . The second floor will provide additional storage which will enable long-term reduction in outdoor and offsite storage . The cupola is an esthetic addition to the building it is also functional and will passively reduce summer heat. They had spoken to all four of their neighbors and all are supportive of this project and 2 offered to sign a letter if necessary . The neighbors feel this is a more attractive addition vs . the standard pole barn to the neighborhood. Mr. Glasner asked if there were any comments from the public, none were offered. He asked if they had received any correspondence . Ms . Carlisle Peck stated they had received a letter of support from Dan and Monica Pritchard. Mr. Glasner read the letter of support from Dan and Monica Pritchard. He asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public, none were offered . He asked if the Board members had any comments or questions, none were offered . Mr. Glasner noted the barn would be 175 feet from front setback and 75 feet from side setback which exceed zoning regulation. He asked if a Board member would like to make a motion. Ms. Bristow made the motion, seconded by Mr. Mann the following : 2 . : - _. Whereas, there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood in fact the addition would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood and no detriment to the nearby properties resulting from the requested variance, and Whereas, the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by a feasible alternative method other than an area variance, and Whereas, the variation is not substantial in comparison to the requirement, height requirement of 20 feet vs . this building which would be 27 ' 10- 1 /2" to the top of the cupola, and Whereas, the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the physical conditions of the neighborhood, and Whereas, the alleged difficulty was not self created, Be it Therefore Resolved, that an area variance be granted to George and Pauline Cameron, 3111 VanDorn Corners Road, Tax map# 34 . - 1 . 21from the requirements for height requirement of 20 feet for the purpose of building an accessory storage barn height of27 ' 10 '/2" . The vote was taken : Ms. Bristow Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Motion approved-variance granted Mr. Glasner noted the time for next review was not scheduled until 7 : 55pm. He would like to commence with the next review. He asked Mr. Lupo if he would stay until after 7 : 55pm so they provide the public the opportunity to speak. Mr. Lupo stated he was in agreement and would appreciate proceeding on a timely basis . Mr. Glasner stated the next Appeal of Carl Lupo, Sr, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV , Section 14 . 5 "Lot Area and Yard Requirements" of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law to be permitted to construct an addition to an existing house within the side yard setback and to construct a detached garage within the front yard setback. The property is located at 1653 Trumansburg Rd, Tax Parcel Number 34 . - 2-9 . 2, IL-Light Industry District Ms . Kiley provided the following information about the project. The applicant' s residence is currently located seven (7) feet from the side property line . With the proposed addition, the setback to side property line will be approximately 2 feet in one location and 4 feet in a second location. The IL-Light Industry District requires a 25 foot side yard setback. The applicant is also proposing a detached garage . The plans do not show the distance from the road right-of-way, but the applicant measured the distance and reported that it would be approximately 20 feet from the ditch, which would be less than the 50 foot required setback. Mr. Glasner asked Mr. Lupo to present his project . Mr. Lupo described his project and presented pictures of the property lines and where he would like to build. Ms Bristow stated she has concerns regarding the encroachment of the property line . Mr. Lupo stated he had approached the current owner multiple times about purchasing the lot. She has no interest in selling but when she does he would purchase it. 3 Mr. Glasner noted that the lot is already out of compliance, the setback is 7 feet; and this would take the lot more out of compliance by 5feet in one area. Mr. Lupo stated this was true, however he had spoken to the neighbor on the next lot and she stated she did not have a problem with him building there . He showed on the map that the area next to where he is building is very wet with drainage running through this area. The lot next door would not build anywhere near this due to this . Mr. Glasner asked why he could not build on the left side of the house . Mr. Lupo stated he cannot build there as that is where the septic system is located. Ms . Kiley stated the proposed garage was also not conforming in that it should be a 50 feet front setback and this would only be 25 feet. Mr. Maim asked why they could not move the garage further back to meet the setback . Mr. Lupo indicated on the map the leach field which prevents building back further. In addition, there is a shed so if he positioned the garage further back it would make this building unusable . He has built many houses around the area. They are all well built and very nice homes, he realizes this is non-conforming but it would be attractive and well built, he would like to do this for himself and his family . Mr. Glasner clarified that this request is for two variances one for the house that would make the property less in compliance than previously, and for the garage which would also be out of compliance due to the front setback. Ms . Kiley confirmed this is correct. Mr. Glasner asked if there were comments from the public, none were offered. Ms . Kiley stated there was a letter in the file received from a neighbor. Mr. Glasner read the letter from Mr. Timothy Maguire of Route 96 Storage and he is the neighbor across the street . Mr. Maguire is supportive of this project and commended Mr. Lupo on the maintenance as well as upkeep of the lot. Mr. Glasner noted that the property owner who would be most impacted by this variance had been duly notified and did not attend nor provide any negative feedback to this project. He asked if the Board had any other comments or questions . Mr. Mann noted that while this is substantial in being non-conforming, due to the inclined location, septic and leach field, he does not see any alternative . Ms . Bristow stated she was in agreement with Mr. Mann and cannot see any alternative, she appreciates the applicant contacting the neighbor. No objection has been communicated to the Board thus she is accepting of this . Mr. Glasner asked if a member would like to make a motion. Mr. Mann made the motion, seconded by Ms Bristow the following : Whereas, there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to the nearby properties resulting from the requested variance, and Whereas, the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by a feasible alternative method other than an area variance, and Whereas, the variation is substantial in comparison to the requirement, side setback not met for house and front setback not met for garage, and 4 k Whereas, the variance requested will not have an adverse impact on the physical conditions of the neighborhood, and Whereas, the alleged difficulty was self created not but not at the time of purchase, Be it Therefore Resolved that an area variance be granted to Carl Lupo , Sr. , 1653 Trumansburg Road, Tax map #34 . -2-9 . 2 from the requirements for side and front yard setback for the purpose of adding additional rooms to an existing house and adding a detached garage . The vote was taken: Ms . Bristow Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Motion approved-variance granted Mr. Glasner repeated the request that Mr. Lupo stay at the meeting to provide any public members a chance to express their opinion of the project. Mr. Lupo agreed and remained at the meeting . Mr. Glasner stated the next order of business would be Mr. Preikstas ' appeal . He stated they would follow the same proceeding as Mr. Lupo ' s in that they would proceed but have to honor the time for public members to comment. Mr. Preikstas stated this would be fine . Mr. Glasner stated the next appeal of Darius Preikstas, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VII, Section 7 . 6 "Lot Area and Yard Requirements" of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law to be permitted to subdivide an existing 2 . 8+/- acre lot into two lots where the proposed lots do not meet the minimum required lot area of two acres, and the widths at the front lot line do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 feet. The property is located at 3039 Garrett Rd, Tax Parcel Number 18 . -3 - 8 , R1 -Rural Residence District. Ms . Kiley provided the following information regarding the project the applicant' s residence is currently located on a parcel that is approximately 2 . 8 acres with approximately 384 feet of road frontage . He is proposing to divide the parcel into 2 lots . There has not been an official survey yet but given the lot area and dimensions, neither lot will meet the 2 acre minimum area requirement, and neither lot will meet the required 250 foot width at the front lot line . The survey in your materials (from 1993 ) shows the approximate proposed subdivision line as a dotted line highlighted in orange ; however, the applicant has some flexibility on the exact location . (Also included for informational purposes is a screen capture from the tax parcel maps . There are a couple discrepancies between the tax parcel information and the survey map : ( 1 ) the lot area on the tax parcel map is 2 . 60 acres and the survey shows 2 . 82 acres ; and (2) the width at the front lot line on the tax parcel map shows 542 feet and the survey shows 384 feet. ) Mr. Glasner asked Mr. Preikstas to present his project. Mr. Preikstas stated he would like to build this small house 24x24 on his property, his son or himself would live in the small house . He approached NYSEG about adding a utility pole and they informed him would cost $ 8000 to $ 10000 unless a separate lot was made . He stated this is in tune with the character of the neighborhood. He noted there is a discrepancy with the survey and the tax map . Ms . Kiley stated this is an R1 zone that allows 2 principal buildings on 1 lot as long as they are 30 feet apart, 2 acres lot and have 250 road frontage . This lot as it currently exists is in compliance . 5 Mr. Glasner asked for comments from the audience . Mr. White stated he resides in Lansing but owns property on Garrett Road. He is very concerned with this subdivision . He had spoken to Mr. Whitaker who did not receive notice of the hearing and he asked him to come . He is concerned why this would be approved, the zoning requires 2 acres, he accepts this and cannot understand why the rules would be changed. Mr. Glasner stated their job is to review appeals based on an individual basis. They look at requests as people purchased a home prior to the zoning and are not compliant yet may have a project that needs to be done . They are not here to change zoning but review on an individual basis as they are presented . Mr. Whitaker stated he is concerned regarding the project; there is already a building on this property which he questioned whether there had been a permit. He does not feel this is a good project for this neighborhood. Mr. Shardlow stated he is representing Mr. Hickman who received notice but is out of state . Mr. Hickman resides at 3055 Garrett Road and is very concerned as this would not meet 2 acres and 250 feet of road frontage . Garrett Road limits building due to two ravines that run through it. This further limits buildable area on the lots . There is a two story accessory building already onsite that is being used for non-conforming use. An additional lot in this area would increase water and septic for this area. Garrett Road has a history of water problems . He appreciates people doing what they want on their property ; however zoning was passed to protect neighbors as well . He is against this project. Mr. Mann noted the project 24x24 building is under the minimum required . Ms . Fletcher asked if he would be renovating the third building already on this property . Mr. Glasner asked Mr. Preikstas if this building is already onsite . Mr. Preikstas confirmed it is . Mr. Glasner asked Mr. Preikstas to come forward and indicate on the map where the building is located. Mr. Preikstas came forward and showed the building on the map . The building was added to the official application map as well . Mr. Mann asked if this building was ever given a permit to be built. Ms . Kiley stated she was unaware of the building onsite and was not sure if a permit had been issued. Mr. Mann made the motion, seconded by Ms . Bristow the following : Whereas, the applicant already has a 24x24 building onsite at the property, and Whereas, a permit cannot be confirmed for this building, Therefore Be it Resolved, the variance is denied . The applicant may not submit a new application until all buildings onsite are proved permitted. The vote was taken : Ms. Bristow Aye Mr. Glasner Aye Mr. Mann Aye Motion approved-variance DENIED . 6 o . . . •F'. :1 Mr. Glasner noted it was 8 : 05 pm. He asked if anyone had comments or concerns regarding Mr. Lupo ' s appeal . No comments or concerns were offered . The variance for Carl Lupo, Sr. stands . Mr. Mann made the motion to adjourn, Ms Bristow seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 10pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Zoning/Planning Secretary J 7 E.