Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-20-BZA-PHTOWN OF ULYSSES ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL 11/20/13 Approved 4/16/14 PRESENT: Chairman George Tselekis, Board Members Barbara Bristow, Richard Coogan, Carl Mann, Environmental Planner Darby Kiley Excused: Andy Glasner Applicant: Karen Meador, Jonathan Ferrari Mr. Tselekis called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He stated they are here for a Public Hearing to consider an appeal by Robert and Karen Meador for area variance(s) under Article VII Section 7.6 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law.This is for the purpose of the construction of a second single-family residence on the property, where it will be approximately 20 feet from the lakeshore, and 50 feet is required. The property is located at 1617 Taughannock Blvd, Town of Ulysses. The Tax Parcel Number is 16.4-16. He asked the applicant to present the project. Mr. Ferrari introduced himself as the architect for this project. He grew up in Aurora and established a building firm with his brother. He was recommended to Ms. Meador by an electrician he had worked with before. Their firm is environmentally friendly; he built his home by a grist mill and mitigated any damages that might happen. Their firm is LEED certified and participate in the Green Homes program. They believe in local sourcing, non toxic and no chemical coating; this is especially important for this lake area. Another concern would be having small children in and around these buildings. Ms Meador stated she is very cognitive of their surroundings and would have any building be lake friendly. She also grew up in this area and was a lifeguard in the State Parks around here. She stated she became interested in building a small cottage closer to the lakefront. They have a driveway cut through the shale however there are no facilities on the lakeshore. She has elderly parents that come to visit but have difficulty getting up the hill for bathroom facilities, etc. She and Mr. Ferrari reviewed the options if they go closer to the cliff they would have to remove trees; this could create instability of the cliff. She stated this was the former site of the Cayuga Inn. The water and septic are designed to handle the inn. They would pump the septic up from the cottage to the current system. Mr. Tselekis asked for questions or comments. Mr. Coogan stated he has concerns with the setbacks. He stated this is an excessive setback, a fragile cliff side lot. There is a high risk if the septic fails for this site. In addition, the risk of stormwater to the home is very high. Board of Zoning Appeals 2 November 20, 2013 Ms. Meador stated they have not had any problems with stormwater for over 5 years. They are planning on mitigating to continue to not have any issues. The septic should not be an issue as they are designed to handle an inn. They would have an ejection lift system, an alarm triggers before failure. This would be a low use vacation residence, never a full time residence. The technology they have presented would be adequate to handle all of their concerns. She does not feel this is a risk to the environment. The difference of 50 vs. 20 is not significant. Their boat dock has a green roof, they have had a Great Blue Heron nest there for two years. They have an Osprey that has nested in a tree on their property for the third year. Removing this tree would be damaging to the environment. She bought this property for her friends and family to enjoy the lake. She has a friend with MS that loves to come visit; she has hard time getting around and has had accidents by not getting to the facilities in time. It is embarrassing for her as well as others. Mr. Coogan stated she had purchased this property after the zoning was passed. She was aware of the limitations when purchased; the owners are physically fit and can traverse the hill. He felt there were other options that should be explored. Mr. Ferrari stated he disagrees, he felt this is the best option for this site. Mr. Tselekis stated minimizing digging into the bank would be a benefit; in addition, this does fit into the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Coogan stated he feels it is irresponsible to put a house in the flood zone. It does not make any sense to him. Ms. Meador stated this plan allowed for the least amount of disturbance to the lot. Mr. Mann asked how high the clearance of the building would be. Mr. Ferrari stated it would be elevated on columns. Wheelchair access would be from the road cut. Stairs to the front with a BBQ area in the front are included in the design. He reviewed the pictures, plans and layout with measurements with the Board. Mr. Tselekis noted there were houses nearby with less setbacks. Ms. Bristow asked where else they could locate the building on the lot. Ms. Meador stated this is in her opinion, the best location. They have room for people to stay with them on the top of the hill. She stated they are aging themselves and would like to be able to use their property in the elder years as well. They own 599 feet of lakefront; the addition would still leave them with 90% unused. Mr. Ferrari stated the elevated columns would allow them to store kayaks and boats off season. Board of Zoning Appeals 3 November 20, 2013 Mr. Tselekis asked if there were any questions or comments. It was noted legal notices had gone out and no correspondence were received. He asked if a member had a motion. Mr. Mann MADE the MOTION, Ms Bristow SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Petitioners, Robert and Karen Meador, 1617 Taughannock Blvd, seek the following variance: Setback: The setback of the Proposed Building from the lake is 20 feet. The required setback is 50 feet from the lake (Town of Ulysses Zoning Law §7.6). The ZBA reviewed the record and weighed the benefit to the Applicants against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the setback variance is granted by considering the following five statutory factors. Benefits sought by applicants are to have a second residential structure on the property located along the lakeshore so that the waterfront can be enioved without driving or walking up to the existing residential structure for use of facilities (restroom, cooking, sleeping): I. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance. No. There is an existing accessory building in the approximate location where the proposed second residence would be built. The proposed structure would not be visible from neighboring properties. The Town's Zoning Law allows for two single-family residences on a parcel. There is no evidence that the proposed structure will produce an undesirable change. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There is some doubt because of excavation, and there is not another way to achieve what they desire. The applicant would like to build a second residential structure on the — 5.8 -acre property, which has a high cliff that drops off to the lake. There is limited space where a structure could be located along the lakeshore. To meet the 50 foot setback, vegetation would need to be removed, the cliff would need to be excavated, and those activities could cause erosion and stability issues. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Yes, it is very substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Board of Zoning Appeals 4 November 20, 2013 Do not believe it will. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Yes it was. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, even though the setback variance is substantial and difficulty to the applicants is self-created, the benefits to the applicant referred to above if the setback variance is granted are not outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. For the reasons set forth above, and upon the evidence, law and facts, it is the opinion of the BZA that the application for setback variance is granted. The vote was taken as follows: Ms. Bristow AYE Mr. Coogan NAY Mr. Mann AYE Mr. Tselekis AYE The variance is approved. Mr. Tselekis stated they had minutes from 09/18/13 to approve. Mr. Coogan MADE the MOTION, Mr. Mann SECONDED the MOTION to approve the minutes of 09/18/13. The vote was UNANIMOUS, minutes APPROVED. Mr. Tselekis adjourned the meeting at 7:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Robin Carlisle Peck Administrative Assistant