HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-21-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, 9/21/2016
Approved: October 19, 2016
Present: Chair George Tselekis, and BZA members Andy Hillman, Robert Howarth, David
Means and Steve Morreale; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley.
Absent: Cheryl Thompson
Public in Attendance: James Anderson, Kathleen Lamarre, and Pam Peabody.
Public Hearing: Appeal by James C. Anderson for area variances under Article V, A1 -
Agricultural District, Section 212-29 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The existing lot with
two single-family residences is 3.29 +/- acres with 570 +/- feet of lot depth, and 242.53 +/- feet
of width at the front lot line, which is an existing nonconforming lot width. The applicant would
like to subdivide the parcel so that the existing houses would be on separate lots. After
subdivision, Parcel A with house number 5130 would have a width at the front lot line of 114.58
+/- ft where 400 feet is required. All other dimensions for Parcel A meet the zoning
requirements. Parcel B with house number 5128 would have a width at the front lot line of
127.95 +/- where 400 feet is required, and a lot area of 1.23 +/- acres where 2 acres are required.
The side yard setback for the house, 23.7 +/- feet where 30 feet is required, and the side yard
setback for the accessory building, 9.8 +/- feet where 24 feet is required, are existing
nonconforming setbacks. The property is located at 5128 and 5130 Iradell Rd, Tax Parcel
Number 34.-1-28.
Mr. Anderson introduced himself and provided a brief history of the properties at 5128 and 5130
Iradell Road. Many years ago, a property line existed that separated both properties. However,
over the years and prior to Town Zoning, the two properties — each with a residence on the lot —
were combined into a single parcel. Mr. Anderson said he lives in Florida now, and it has
become increasingly difficult to make the drive back to Town and do maintenance on his house.
His sister-in-law lives in the other house and is unable to pay the $5,000 annual taxes for both
parcels. Instead, he'd like to subdivide and liquidate his share of the property. He hopes to do a
quick claim deed to his sister-in-law, he said. Each house has its own well, septic, electric, and is
heated by natural gas, he said.
The Town did not receive any correspondences in regard to this variance request, Ms. Kiley said.
Asked how old the homes are, Mr. Anderson said one home was built in the 1990s and the other
was built long ago. Ms. Kiley added that the assessment records do not go back far enough to
determine when the two lots were combined.
Mr. Howarth noted that, under the Town's current zoning, each fragmented lot would be allowed
to build a second home if the single lot were subdivided. He would hate to do that if the project
Board of Zoning Appeals 2
September 21, 2016
included new construction. Both parcels are non -conforming, but there will not be a change in
use. He specified that he did not want to see second homes on each subdivided lot. Ms. Kiley
said she anticipated the Board would have concerns about this. The Town Attorney has advised it
is reasonable for the BZA to apply to its resolution a condition prohibiting second homes on the
subdivided lots. Mr. Howarth and Mr. Means said they would be fine with the variance request,
so long as such a condition is applied to the resolution.
Mr. Morreale expressed concern about the small size of Parcel B, which would be roughly 60
percent the size of what the Town requires. That is substantial and would change the nature of
the neighborhood. He also said he was concerned with the possibility of two more houses being
added to those small lots. Four homes total would be extremely unacceptable. He would not vote
in favor of the variances without a condition in place. Mr. Tselekis agreed with Mr. Howarth in
that the BZA would not want to encourage new construction on the lots, and a condition is
reasonable.
Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to approve the variance request, and Mr. Howarth
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 variances are granted by considering the
five statutory factors. The benefit sought by applicant is to subdivide the parcel so that each
existing house would be on separate lots:
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 variances.
The subdivision is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood because the houses are already on the property. The zoning board
will assure that the neighborhood will not change in the future by stipulating that no
additional residential dwellings are permitted on either lot.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances.
The existing lot is just over 3 acres, and any subdivision would create at least one lot
under the two acre minimum. The road frontage of the existing lot is less than the
required 400 feet so any subdivision would require variances for both.
3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.
The area variance for lot area for Parcel B —1.2 acres versus 2 acres - is substantial;
and the road frontage for both lots is substantial — both are less than 130 feet where
400 feet is required.
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 3
September 21, 2016
The variances will not likely have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood, because there are two existing
houses on the property. The zoning board will assure that the neighborhood will not
change in the future by stipulating that no additional residential dwellings are
permitted on either lot.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
The lot width is an existing nonconforming condition. The need for any variances is
self-created because the applicant is applying for a two -lot subdivision instead of
keeping both houses on the same lot.
6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals
concludes as follows, the subdivision will not create an undesirable change to the
neighborhood nor have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions. The lot area and lot width are substantial variances. The difficulty is
self-created. Therefore the benefits to the applicants 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 area variances be granted on the condition that no additional
residential dwelling is permitted on either lot at the address 5128 and 5130 Iradell Road.
Mr. Howarth offered a friendly amendment to add the following line to Nos. 1 and 4: "The
zoning board will assure that the neighborhood will not change in the future by stipulating that
no additional residential dwellings are permitted on either lot"; and, further, to add similar
language to the closing paragraph of the resolution.
Mr. Means agreed to the friendly amendment.
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Tselekis
AYE
Mr. Hillman
AYE
Mr. Howarth
AYE
Mr. Means
AYE
Mr. Morreale
AYE
Result: Variances granted
Public Hearing: Appeal by Joseph and Kathleen Lamarre for area variance(s) under Article V,
Al- Agricultural District, Section 212-29 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the
purpose of a two -lot subdivision. The parcel was originally subdivided in 2004, under previous
zoning, and the two parcels were consolidated in March 2016. By now requesting a
Board of Zoning Appeals 4
September 21, 2016
resubdivision, one of the lots would have 189.97 +/- feet of width at the front lot line, where 400
feet is required. The property is located at 6056 Brook Rd, Tax Parcel Number 23.-1-8.1.
Ms. Lamarre explained she is attempting to reestablish a previous property line on her lot. Her
family purchased the original lot in 2004 and, three years ago, purchased the adjacent property.
In March, the applicant consolidated both lots into a single parcel for tax -savings purposes.
Recently, her family made a real estate investment in the Village of Trumansburg, and now she
would like to reestablish the previous property line — reverting back to two separate parcels.
Portions of the full, consolidated acreage are currently leased for farming, she said. A potential
buyer has expressed interest in purchasing the property and maintaining it for ag use.
Mr. Morreale initiated a discussion regarding the possibility of a flag lot. Ms. Lamarre said they
were simply looking to reestablish the original line because it seemed like the easiest option with
the least impact.
Ms. Kiley said the Town did not receive any correspondences in regard to the variance request.
After receiving more information about the project, Ms. Peabody a neighbor — said she had no
problem with the proposal.
Mr. Morreale said road frontage and acreage are two criteria within zoning that he considers
extensively when weighing variance requests. The road frontage for the house lot — referred to as
Parcel A — is far below the required minimum, and he would tend to find it unacceptable.
However, it has only been six months since the two lots were consolidated, and the BZA would
essentially be returning the property back to its original two -parcel configuration. With that said,
he is okay with the proposal.
Mr. Howarth said he agreed with Mr. Morreale; he is also adamant on upholding zoning
particularly in regard to road frontage and acreage. At this time, Ms. Lamarre clarified an error in
the zoning packet that suggested Parcel B would have roughly 800+/- feet of road frontage; road
frontage for Parcel B, after the subdivision, would actually be roughly 600 feet. That makes a
substantial difference, Mr. Howarth stated, since 800 feet of road frontage could potentially
mean Parcel B could be subdivided again without a variance. But, at 600 feet, the parcel could
not be subdivided without a variance. Mr. Howarth said this influences his decision to vote in
favor of granting the proposed variance.
Mr. Tselekis noted that, by granting the variance, it would be less likely that a future owner of
Parcel B would need to install a bridge to traverse a stream that divides both parcels. Mr. Means
thought it would be best to leave the creek alone. He was in favor of the current proposal.
Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to grant the variance request, and Mr. Morreale 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 variances are granted by considering the
Board of Zoning Appeals 5
September 21, 2016
five statutory factors. The benefit sought by applicant is to resubdivide the parcel to separate the
house from the vacant lot:
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 variances.
The subdivision is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood. The applicants consolidated the parcels in March 2016 and
would like to reestablish the same lot lines.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances.
In order for the house parcel to have the required 400 feet, a little more than 200
feet could be removed from the adjacent parcel but that limits a future owner from
accessing the property because of the stream bank for Taughannock Creek. The
location of an existing culvert on the vacant parcel dictates the parcel boundary line.
The opinion is based on current zoning that would not allow any further
subdivisions of the two new lots due to insufficient road frontage.
3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.
The area variance for road frontage — about 190 feet where 400 feet is required — is
substantial, however the house has been on the property for over 100 years, and the
property is adjacent to the Waterburg hamlet district where required lot width is 50
feet.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
The area variance will not likely have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions of the neighborhood, because proposed subdivision line
follows one that was established in 2004.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
The lot width was an existing nonconforming condition prior to the lot consolidation
earlier this year. The land was previously subdivided under different zoning. The
difficulty is self-created in that the applicant is choosing to follow the same
boundary line but changing the line would limit access to the vacant lot.
6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals
concludes as follows, the subdivision will not create an undesirable change to the
neighborhood nor have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions. The lot width variance is substantial, but it is the only variance needed.
The difficulty is self-created, however the subdivision line follows the boundary
Board of Zoning Appeals 6
September 21, 2016
before consolidation. Therefore the benefits to the applicants 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 the lot width area variance be granted.
Mr. Howarth offered a friendly amendment to add the following language to No. 2: "The opinion
is based on current zoning that would not allow any further subdivisions of the two new lots due
to insufficient road frontage." Both Mr. Hillman and Mr. Morreale agreed to the additional
wording.
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Tselekis
AYE
Mr. Hillman
AYE
Mr. Howarth
AYE
Mr. Means
AYE
Mr. Morreale
AYE
Result: Variances granted
Meeting Minutes Review (8/31/16)
Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to accept the August 31, 2016 meeting minutes, and Mr.
Morreale SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the
MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on September 22, 2016.