Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-10-19-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, 10/19/2016 Approved: February 15, 2017 Call to order: 7 p.m. Present: Chair George Tselekis, and BZA members Robert Howarth, David Means, Steve Morreale, and Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Andy Hillman was excused, and Ms. Thompson was made a voting member in his absence. Public in Attendance: Nicholas and Amanda Robertson, and Dan and Sue Smith. Public Hearing: Appeal by Nicholas and Amanda Robertson 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 constructing a 32 ft by 42 ft accessory building, which would be located approximately 15 feet from the rear property line, where 60 feet is required for an accessory building in the A1 -Agricultural District. The property is located at 3060 Mekeel Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 24.-2-8.31. Mr. Robertson told the Board he and his wife have outgrown the existing two -car garage. The current lot was the result of a previous variance for a subdivision. Given the layout of the parcel, and if complying with Town Zoning standards, Mr. Robertson said the new proposed garage would sit in the middle of the backyard, creating the most visual impact and likely lowering the property's value. Also, the property has a large septic system and leach field, and he wants to ensure the new building is not built close to it. He has taken a number of factors into consideration when determining placement of the new building, like location of existing driveway and property grade. Ms. Kiley reported the Town received no correspondences regarding the project. Mr. Smith, a neighbor, asked which side of the Robertson property the garage would be built. When informed the new building would be on the side opposite his property line, Mr. Smith said he had no issue. A discussion ensued among Mr. Robertson and the Board regarding orientation of the building and location in proximity to the existing driveway. One suggestion was to shift the building farther off the property line and establish a greater setback, but, as Mr. Tselekis pointed out, that strategy comes at the cost of design and aesthetics. Mr. Howarth noted the neighboring property is owned by a member of the applicant's family and did not see an issue with the proposal if the neighboring relative is okay with the encroachment. However, he felt the encroaching building could have a negative impact on the value of the relative's neighboring property. Mr. Morreale Board of Zoning Appeals 2 October 19, 2016 agreed, adding that the neighbor being a relative creates a more amenable situation in regard to the variance request. Mr. Robertson added the new garage will have 10 -foot high walls and a roof with a 4x12 pitch, bringing the total height in at about 16 feet. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to grant the variance request, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION as follows: The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefits to the Applicants against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance is granted by considering the five statutory factors. The benefit sought by applicants is to build an accessory building 15 feet instead of 60 feet from the rear property line: 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 variances. The accessory building is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There are no houses that would be impacted by granting the variance; there is currently no active agriculture on the property to the north, and the property to the north is owned by the same family. 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. If the accessory building is built to meet the setback requirements, it could impact the septic system or be located in the path of a drainage structure. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The area variance for the rear yard setback - 15 ft vs 60 ft - is quite substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It is not likely that the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The proposed location avoids impacting drainage flow. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to build the accessory building. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the accessory building will not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions, though the proposed rear yard setback variance is substantial, and difficulty is self-created, the location of the septic Board of Zoning Appeals 3 October 19, 2016 system and drainage limit the potential building sites. 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 an area variance be granted. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Variance granted Meeting Minutes Review (9/21/2016) Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to accept the September 21, 2016 meeting minutes, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously approved, 4-0, with Ms. Thompson abstaining from the vote. At this time, Mr. Smith addressed the board. He is a full-time farmer in the Town of Ulysses and said the evening's appeal is the second one in the Al zone in the last few months. Having once served on the Town Planning Board, he is aware the BZA is not the controlling body but expressed his opinion that the zoning process is nothing more than spot zoning. Anyone can come in, request a variance and get it, he said. The way zoning is written for the AI, it does not preserve ag land. Mr. Tselekis, who serves on the Town's Steering Committee for Zoning Updates, asked Mr. Smith if he felt the zoning law should be stricter or more flexible in the Al zone. Mr. Smith said a lot of what is in the A 1 zone now should not be there. When he purchased his Mekeel Road property, he had to carve into part of his farm field in order to subdivide off the house and comply to lot size requirements. To save ag land, you do not require large lot sizes. Mr. Howarth said he appreciated Mr. Smith's input but disagreed with his thoughts concerning spot zoning. The BZA's job is not to create zoning law, but to review appeals as they come. Citing his professional work, Mr. Howarth said there are good reasons to have larger lots around ag areas in order to protect water wells. He added Town Zoning could be better, but it has improved from what it once was. Mr. Smith expressed concern over the perception among farmers of what the Town of Ulysses is doing with zoning updates. Conventional farmers are the villains, he said, while small, organic CSAs are viewed favorably. He felt Ulysses is not a farmer -friendly town. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Tselekis SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried unanimously. Board of Zoning Appeals October 19, 2016 Meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on October 20, 2016.