HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-20-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
Tuesday, 1/20/2016
7:00 p.m.
Approved: March 16, 2016
Present: Chairman George Tselekis, and Board Members Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, David
Means, and Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley.
Excused: Steve Morreale
Public Present: Edwin Smith, and Juston and Chelsea Smith.
Call to Order: 7:01 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal by Edwin Smith for area variance(s) under Section 212-29 Lot
Area and Yard Requirements of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of a
two -lot subdivision, where one parcel would have 160 feet of width at the front lot line and 400
feet is required in the A1 -Agricultural District. The intent of the land subdivision is to create an
approximately 2.32 acre parcel in the wooded portion of the property, and the front lot width
variance would allow the agricultural field to remain intact. The property is located at 4032
Waterburg Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 23.-3-10.
Ms. Smith told the BZA that she and Juston Smith are newly married and hope to build a home.
The lot to be developed is overgrown and wooded, is 2.32 acres and has 160 feet width of
frontage. Unfortunately, there is no other option for the Smiths than to seek a variance since the
northern property is owned and the southern property, owned by Edwin Smith, Juston3ffDXFLML
currently under lease with Pine Ridge Farms. The land to the south has been farmed for more
than a decade, and the applicants want to avoid developing the farmland and prefer building a
house on the wooded lot. This past summer, the couple cleared out overgrown brush on the
property, leaving as many trees as possible, and determined where a roughly 1,400 -square foot
house could be built. The proposed house would be more than 1,000 feet from the Perry City and
Waterburg roads intersection[E033WBRP B3�iYW DLtZR❑CR]IR)ffiR4IIDI�M
them when pulling in or out. Currently, the wooded lot is used for hunting and was gifted to the
couple by Edwin Smith in hopes of subdividing it and building a home.
Ms. Kiley reported receiving no correspondences from neighbors.
Mr. Means asked how far back from the road the proposed home would be. Edwin Smith said
that has not been determined yet. They cannot go too far back since a swamp is located toward
the back of the property. They also need to do a dig test. Juston Smith cited the Rogers home ❑a
neighboring house Land said the Smith house would probably be just as far back as that.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2
January 20, 2016
Mr. Howarth said he did not want to seem unaccommodating but the Town Board spent
significant time determining the 400 -foot frontage requirement figure. The front-line requirement
was recommended at 500 feet in the Town Comprehensive Plan, and the Town Board held two
public hearings at the time, voting unanimously for 400 feet of frontage. The Town Board
wanted to retain the rural look of the Town and preserve farmland. He noted the proposal makes
use of a wooded parcel and attempts to preserve farmland, but the request is a slippery slope. If
the BZA were to approve the variance, there would be no way to ensure that nearby land would
remain as farmland, he said. Mr. Howarth said he would be happier if the applicants could
incorporate some of the farmland into the wooded lot but retain it for agricultural use. Edwin
Smith said he would lose some of his acreage to get the wooded lot to meet the 400 -foot
requirement.
Juston Smith said retaining the ag land is of the utmost importance. If it was not, the Smiths
would not be requesting a variance. Mr. and Ms. Smith both said the family has a long history of
owning and maintaining land for farming and has no intention of breaking tradition.
Mr. Tselekis said a Town Steering Committee and consultants are currently discussing changes
to the Zoning to better preserve ag land. Also, he said, in March 2014, the BZA completed ethics
training with Town Attorney Mariette Geldenhuys, who circulated a handout advising the Board,
among other things, that it is their task to consider the subdivision request as proposed and not
possible future uses.
In response, Mr. Howarth said the BZA is being asked to make a substantial diversion from
Town Zoning and believes deliberations should be based on current Zoning law and Town
documents, including the Comprehensive Plan, the Ag and Farmland Protection Plan from 2014,
and public hearing minutes.
Mr. Hillman felt the Smiths could meet the 400 -foot frontage requirement by simply
incorporating enough of the farm land. The land would remain in agriculture, and the land lease
could still be maintained, he said.
Edwin Smith said there would then need to be two different leases, one of which for only 2 acres.
Plus, Juston and Chelsea do not want the additional ag field.
Ms. Thompson asked the Smiths if they have enough room for septic and a water well, to which
the Smiths replied yes.
Mr. Tselekis called the variance request substantial. That said, the point of the Comprehensive
Plan is to retain the rural character of the Town, and extending the wooded -lot parcel by another
couple of acres into the ag field could make it more unlikely the ag land would remain for
farming use in the future. Unless you add a stipulation into a contract, Mr. Howarth said in
response. Mr. Tselekis advised the Board to keep in mind that this is a young family seeking to
move to the Town. It is a noble purpose to try to encourage and accommodate them as much as
possible.
Board of Zoning Appeals 3
January 20, 2016
Ms. Thompson said she thought the variance request was reasonable at first glance but noted that
by subdividing the wooded lot as proposed, the adjacent farmland could be sold and developed,
possibly accommodating two additional homes. Mr. Howarth said he disagreed with Mr.
Tselekis Flit is critical for the BZA to consider how the proposed subdivision could affect future
land use.
0 UID L S(FDOM�SWVEEFSUfTB U 1<E7 have good intentions, respect
farming and understand the importance of preserving ag lands.
0 V1:1 1OFF1R WffDXK CZ Il6 P INKVS'LRSFLVOM9U3GTLRE1ff HRRXCRVrWere are
many possible arrangements to subdivide the land off. There could be flag lots, she said.
Ms. Thompson said she likes the plan and the location looks like a good place for a family. She
is leaning toward approving the variance. Mr. Hillman called the variance request substantial,
saying the proposed frontage is not even half the requirement.
Mr. Howarth felt the issues were pretty clear: the BZA must weigh the significance of the
variance versus the current zoning. Ms. Thompson asked if a provision could be added, possibly
to the variance resolution, that puts in writing that the farmland is to be preserved. Mr. Howarth
called the suggestion ideal but could be awkward, since there are two landowners from the same
family.
Ms. Kiley thought the request was beyond what the BZA can do, saying Ms. 7 KRP SWET�
suggestion usually involves a conservation easement, which could take years to finalize. It would
be a long, legal process, she said.
Mr. Tselekis recalled making a similar request regarding another subdivision in which two
houses could have potentially fit on a single lot. He had suggested the BZA make a stipulation
limiting the lot to a single house, but the Town Attorney said such a stipulation is very difficult
to do, and the request could be lost over time. Ultimately, the Town Attorney did not like the
idea, he said. Added Ms. Kiley, conservation easements have to be checked each year, and the
Town does not have any mechanism in place to do that. Mr. Howarth felt an inspection would
not be all that difficult, but Ms. Kiley said beginning the process is not a road the Town wants to
be on without careful consideration. Mr. Tselekis said worrying about development on a future
ONBLIRW BXLJMdU1❑❑ NSQ3&E FIREB93L. IIID ❑❑lynot allowed to take it
under consideration.
Responding to Ms. 7 KRP SV=IIF❑3M ELlX LJ -IS D_\SCAND33 UQ -U
Edwin Smith said it is not difficult, but the Stephensons would have to write up two different
agreements for each of the properties.
A brief discussion of ag assessments ensued, followed by continuing deliberations regarding the
variance request. Mr. Means said he would be hard-pressed to vote for the variance if the
subdivision cut into farmland, but it does not. Ms. 6P OFO RDOaORDAUCE
developing the ag land, and they have no future plans to subdivide in the future.
Board of Zoning Appeals 4
January 20, 2016
Edwin Smith questioned what the process would be if the proposed subdivision were not located
ID14M AM4FV4NNEIT 1111 ATrepidation in approving the variance request a matter of location
or preserving the farmland? In classifying districts in Zoning, Mr. Howarth said in response, the
7 RZ EXIMMESUMLYFFNU RZ IiRF)4e
is a lot of land, Edwin Smith said. Ms. Smith told BZA members the house will be used as
equity, and building on the proposed lot makes the most financial sense for them.
Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to approve the variance request, and Mr. Means
SECONDED the MOTION as follows:
The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicant against the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted
by considering the five statutory factors. Benefit sought by applicant is to subdivide the
property and create a lot with less than the required width so that the agricultural field
remains intact:
1. 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.
There is no evidence that the subdivision and subsequent house construction in the
wooded area of the parcel will produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood. The remaining parcel includes an agricultural field that would be
negatively impacted as described in point 2 if the residential lot included the entire 400
feet of road frontage.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other
method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance.
The applicant could meet the lot width requirement, but by doing so, upwards of 3 acres
would be separated from the main ag parcel and therefore may be less likely to remain in
agricultural use.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
The variance for the lot width is substantial.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
With or without the variance, the applicant could build an additional house on the
property. With the variance, the newly created lot would be wholly in a wooded part of
the parcel and would not encroach on the agricultural field. ,VBnAKE ❑❑ ® understanding
that this would make it easier to keep the field in agricultural use in the future. It is not
likely that the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood.
Board of Zoning Appeals 5
January 20, 2016
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is requesting to create a lot where the
lot width requirement could be met by adding farmland to the proposed parcel.
6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning
Appeals concludes as follows, there are other methods to meet the zoning requirements,
the variance is substantial, and difficulty is self-created, however the variance will not
create an undesirable change in the neighborhood, nor would it negatively impact the
physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. By granting the variance, the
applicant would be able to create a lot that does not negatively impact the viability or
value of the agricultural land; therefore the benefits to the applicant outweigh 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 appeal for an area variance be granted.
Prior to voting on the resolution, two amendments were offered and accepted by the Board,
including changes in wording in points 1 and 2.
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Tselekis AYE
Mr. Hillman AYE
Mr. Howarth AYE
Mr. Means AYE
Ms. Thompson AYE
Result: Variance approved.
Meeting Minutes Review (12/16/2015)
Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to accept the December 16, 2015 meeting minutes, and Mr.
Means SECONDED the MOTION. The motion carried, 4-0, with Mr. Hillman abstaining from
the vote.
Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Means SECONDED the
MOTION. The motion was carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on January 28, 2016.