Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-04-19-BZA-FINAL (2)TOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, April 19, 2017 Approved: May 17, 2017 Present: Chair George Tselekis, and board members Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, David Means, Steve Morreale, and board alternate Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. Public in Attendance: Heather and Bill Hughes, David Blake, and Phil and Nan Colvin Call to Order: 7:03 p.m. Public Hearing: Appeal by David Blake and David Wren for area variances under Section 212- 122.F.10 Standards for Signs of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The prior hearing was canceled due to weather and the proposal has been modified. This is for the purpose of replacing the existing freestanding sign at the Halsey House bed and breakfast. The existing sign is 11.6 square feet, the proposed sign is 13.3 square feet, and the zoning allows for a maximum of nine (9) square feet. The sign will be in the same location and use the existing posts and lighting. The property is located at 2057 Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 13.4-2.3. Mr. Blake said the bed and breakfast's sign is 11 years old and rotting away. It measures 11.6 square feet, though the Industrial zone — in which the establishment resides — allows for a maximum square footage of 9 feet. The inn's Route 96 location at the foot of a hill combined with the speed of traffic necessitates a larger sign, Mr. Blake said. He has had concerned guests and delivery drivers drive passed the inn, having not seen the sign. Complicating matters is an additional Taughannock Park sign located on the property. Owned by State Parks and Recreation, the sign rotted and fell over roughly a year and a half ago, and the Parks has recently said it plans to reinstall a new sign closer to the roadway. Mr. Blake is concerned the new Parks sign will block the inn's. He noted additional businesses in the inn's vicinity — Seedway, Maguire and ShurSave — have recognized the need to showcase their businesses along the busy roadway, and have accordingly made use of the allowable 24 -square foot signs. The proposed new inn sign will use existing poles and electric lines; no significant amount of soil will be disturbed; there is no impact on the neighborhood. The Town did not receive any correspondences from neighbors about this project, Ms. Kiley reported. Questions from Board members concerned the height and footprint of the new sign. Though the sign area is larger than the original, Mr. Blake said the height and footprint will not change. Resolution Board of Zoning Appeals 2 April 19, 2017 Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to grant the variance, and Mr. Howarth 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 replace an existing nonconforming sign of 11.6 square feet with a sign of 13.3 square feet, where nine (9) square feet is the maximum sign size: 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 sign replacement is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed sign will use existing sign posts and will not be much of a visual change from the existing sign. 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 applicants could install a sign that meets the zoning requirement of nine (9) square feet but the design would need to be different from what is proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The area variance — 9 ft vs 13.3 ft - is substantial, but is only slightly larger than the existing sign, and the footprint will be nearly identical. 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 and there will be minimal impact on the view of those traveling on Trumansburg Rd because the sign will use the same sign posts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to replace an existing nonconforming sign; however other uses in the Light Industrial District are permitted to install signs that are much larger. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the sign replacement will not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions. The proposed variance is substantial, but not substantially larger than the Board of Zoning Appeals 3 April 19, 2017 footprint of the existing sign; the difficulty is self-created, however 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. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Result: Variance granted Public Hearing: Appeal by Heather and William Hughes Jr. for area variances under Section 212-29G Lot Area and Yard Requirements for the A1 -Agricultural District of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of constructing a 910 square foot addition on the east side of the existing residence. The addition will be in line with the front of the house, which is 30 +/- feet from the road right of way. A 60 +/- square foot porch will also be added and is five (5) feet closer to the road, or 25 +/- feet from the road right of way. In the A1 -Agricultural District, 75 feet is the required setback. The property is located at 2346 Kraft Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 19.4-17. Ms. Hughes said she and her spouse have been working with an architect for the past year to craft drawings for a home addition, which would entail a new garage and second -floor master bedroom and bathroom. The home's east side was the best location for the addition to tie in with the existing structure. Mr. and Mrs. Colvin said they are neighbors and support the proposal. Mr. Howarth noted the proposed addition is located over a well, to which Mr. Hughes said the well is old and not in operation. Asked if they considered the addition on the backside of the house, Mr. Hughes noted that the septic field is located there. A brief discussion ensued regarding setbacks, with Ms. Kiley saying anything that is not roofed does not need to meet setback requirements. Resolution Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to grant the variance, and Mr. Morreale 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 Board of Zoning Appeals 4 April 19, 2017 five statutory factors. The benefit sought by applicants is to construct a 910 square foot addition that would be 30 feet from the road right of way and a 60 square foot porch that would be 25 feet from the road right of way, where 75 square feet is the required setback: 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 addition and porch are not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. The addition will be in line with the existing house, which dates back to 1900. 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 addition location is preferred because of the current layout of the house, and if the garage was built on the back of the house, a longer driveway would be needed and would also interfere with the septic. Any new porch on the front of the house would require a variance. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The area variances of 25 and 30 feet instead of 75 feet are substantial. The existing house is 30 feet from the right of way. 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 variances will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There is lawn at the location of the addition and there are no waterways that would be impacted by the addition. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to build the addition on the east side instead of the rear of the house. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the addition and porch will not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions. The proposed variance is substantial; the difficulty is self-created, however 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. Board of Zoning Appeals 5 April 19, 2017 The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Result: Variance granted Minutes Review Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to accept the March 29, 2017 meeting minutes, and Mr. Morreale SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to accept the February 15, 2017 meeting minutes, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried, 4-0, with Mr. Hillman abstaining from the vote. At! Zoning Discussion Mr. Howarth requested the three resolutions he drafted be considered. Introducing resolution I — on density -based zoning in the Ag/Rural zone — he said he liked the idea of proportional zoning put forward in the proposed zoning draft. His proposal is an 80/20 split at the time of subdivision, a concept that would allow development on 20 percent of the parent parcel and prohibit housing development on the remaining 80 percent. Guiding his proposal were comments expressed by Chaw Chang at a recent Ag Advisory Committee meeting in which Mr. Chang noted that the draft zoning, as written, does not protect ag land because there is no maximum lot size. Mr. Howarth said he tried to craft a proposal that was not too much of a burden administratively and that was relatively simple to understand. A lengthy discussion of Resolution 1 ensued, with questions asked regarding number of allowable subdivisions based on lot size and several other parameters. Under terms of the resolution, the 80 -percent allocation for preservation would be deed -restricted in perpetuity. Ms. Kiley noted the deed restriction could be removed if the zoning were changed again in the future. Mr. Tselekis said while appreciating Mr. Howarth's work, he does not believe 2 -acre minimum lot sizes, spreading out houses and larger frontages help anyone. Taking 80 percent of land for preservation and doing so permanently is asking too much. Mr. Tselekis then recused himself from the vote since he is a member of the Zoning Update Steering Committee. The difficulty in developing a one -acre lot was part of the reason the current zoning — passed in 2005 — stipulates 2 -acre minimum lot sizes, Mr. Howarth said. Ms. Thompson suggested a minimum lot width of 200 feet, since the current 400 feet takes up more road frontage. After a discussion, the Board reached a consensus to lower the minimum lot width to 200 feet in Mr. Howarth's Resolution 2. Board of Zoning Appeals 6 April 19, 2017 Resolutions 1 and 2 Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to endorse the edited resolutions 1 and 2, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Resolution #1: Density -Based Zoning in the A/R zone: We commend the Zoning Update Steering Committee for proposing a density -based approach to zoning (§ 212-29.1), which is one of the major recommendations in the 2013 report from the Agriculture and Farmland Protection Committee. However, as currently proposed, the draft zoning would not necessarily result in protection of land, since a parent lot could be divided into large sub -lots, with each of those developed for housing. One approach to solving this would be to set a maximum lot size; we do not favor such an approach, and instead recommend for consideration by the Zoning Update Steering Committee and the Town Board the following language to substitute for the current proposed language for § 212-29.1, including Sections A, B, C, and D: § 212-29.1 Limitations on subdivisions of parent tracts. In order to protect agricultural uses, to preserve the agricultural value of land, to provide for the retention of tracts of sufficient size to be used reasonably for agricultural purposes, and to preserve the open space and natural conservation features of the Town, creation of non- agricultural parcels or non -open space parcels via the subdivision into fragment parcels from parent tracts shall be limited in the Agricultural/Rural Zone. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the minimum lot sizes set forth above, the following additional requirements shall apply to the land within the Agricultural/Rural Zone: A. For the purpose of this section, any tract or parcel of land in common contiguous ownership shall be identified as the parent parcel at the time of adoption of this Zoning Law, and ownership shall be determined by deed recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office as of the date of adoption of this Zoning Law. All lot area requirement calculations established in the Zoning Law of the Town of Ulysses shall be based on the parent parcel. Hereafter, a parent parcel may only be subdivided according to the following guidelines, based on the area of the parent parcel. Two types of sub -parcel lots are defined: "residential lots", in which residential housing is allowed (including new construction, as well as housing existing at the time of subdivision); and "protected lots", in which no residential housing is allowed and the land is permanently protected for agricultural, conservation, or open -space use. The parent parcel shall cease to exist at the time of subdivision. Any existing houses at the time of subdivision must be located in a residential lot created by the subdivision. Residential parcels must comply with the lot area and yard requirements specified in 212-29. The guidelines for subdivision are: i) no subdivisions are allowed on parent parcels that are less than 4 acres in size; ii) for parent parcels that are 4 or more acres, but less than 14 acres in size, a maximum of two of the new sub -parcels may be residential lots; creation of a protected lot is allowed but is not required. Iii) for parent parcels that are 14 or more acres in size, subdivision requires the creation Board of Zoning Appeals 7 April 19, 2017 of at least one protected lot; the minimum area for the protected lot or lots is determined by subtracting 4 acres from the area of the parent parcel and then multiplying the larger lot area by 0.8. The remaining area of the parent parcel may be subdivided into one or more residential parcels. The applicant shall record the determination of the Zoning Officer or Planning Board in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office and cross-reference it to all deeds for the original parent parcel and the fragment lots created in the subdivision, and shall provide a recording receipt to the Town. Restrictions against residential use in protected lots shall be permanently recorded as part of the deed. B. Clustering of lots is permitted in accordance with § 212-142 O. Cluster subdivisions. C. Future further subdivision of residential lots created under this provision may be permitted by submission or resubmission of the subdivision plat and approval of modifications by the Planning Board in accordance with § 212-140 B (4). Such further subdivision a residential lot shall require no additional creation of protected lots, but the prohibition against residential housing in protected lots shall remain permanently. The applicant shall record the determination of the Planning Board in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office and cross-reference it to all deeds for the original parent parcel and fragment lots created in the subdivision, and shall provide a recording receipt to the Town. E. The following statement shall be included in the deed of newly created protected parcel(s): "The approval of the subdivision of the parcel described in this deed by the Town of Ulysses Planning Board, by resolution dated (or, for simple subdivisions, by determination of the Zoning Officer dated ), is conditioned on no further subdivision of this parcel. Further, no residential housing is permitted on the protected parcel. This restriction shall be enforceable by the Town of Ulysses, and shall remain in effect unless the restriction is no longer required in a future amendment of the Zoning Law. The owner of the protected parcel may apply to the Zoning Officer for a determination whether the restriction is still in effect under the then -current Zoning Law. Such determination shall be recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office by the applicant." Resolution #2: Lot area and yard quirements: Current zoning as adopted for the A-1 district in the 2007 zoning law specifies that lots be at least 2 acres in size. The Zoning Update Steering Committee has proposed lowering this to one acre, as well as reducing other requirements for yard and building sizes. We do not agree with these proposed changes, in part because the smaller lot area will make proper siting of wells and septic systems more difficult. We urge the Zoning Update Steering Committee to use the following language: § 212-29 Lot area and yard requirements. A. There shall be no more than two residential buildings on any residential lot in the A/R — Agricultural/Rural Zone. B. Minimum lot area shall be two acres. Board of Zoning Appeals 8 April 19, 2017 C. Minimum lot width at front lot line shall be 200 feet. D. Minimum lot depth shall be 200 feet. E. Minimum front yard setback shall be 75 feet. F. Minimum side yard setbacks shall be 30 feet. G. Minimum rear setback shall be 75 feet. H. Maximum building height for any nonagricultural building or structure shall be 32 feet. I. Maximum lot coverage shall be 5% of the lot area. J. Maximum footprint of a non-agricultural building shall be 5,000 square feet. K. Maximum footprint of an agricultural building shall be 20,000 square feet. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis RECUSED Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolutions endorsed Resolution 3 A brief discussion ensued regarding minor edits to Resolution 3, regarding CAFOs, animal -waste storage facilities, and animal -processing structures. Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to endorse amended Resolution 3, and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Resolution #3: CAFOs. animal -waste storaize facilities. and animal-orocessiniz structures: Under the current zoning law, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), animal -waste storage facilities, and animal processing structures are allowed only by special permit from the Town Board. The Zoning Update Steering Committee has recommended relaxing this control and allowing such facilities to be subject just to site plan approval by the Planning Board. We disagree with this proposal and strongly believe that the operations should be allowed only by special permit from the Town Board. We note: • The 2007 zoning was passed unanimously by the then Town Board, which included two farmers amongst the five members; this super-maj ority vote allowed the regulation of CAFOs, animal -waste storage facilities, and animal -processing facilities despite concerns from the State Department of Agriculture and Markets. Agriculture and Markets has not contested the current zoning. • New York law allows local governments to regulate farming activities in the interest of protecting public health; abundant evidence indicates that CAFOs can pose a public Board of Zoning Appeals 9 April 19, 2017 health risk, due to contamination of air (ammonia gas, ammonium aerosols, hydrogen sulfide gas), surface water (phosphates and nitrates which can lead to harmful algal blooms, pathogenic bacteria such as E. coli, parasites such as Giardia), and groundwater (nitrate, bacteria, parasites). These agents pose many risks including heart disease, cancer, and developmental abnormalities. • In 2014, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced new rules for managing CAFOs, acknowledging that the regulations in place for the previous 25 years did not adequately protect the environment and public health. New York State Department of Conservation (DEC) acted on the new guidelines, releasing new CAFO rules for the State only in January 2017. These new guidelines rely heavily on guidelines from Cornell University that were released in December 2015. It is not apparent that the new guidelines are being applied to all CAFOs, or in fact that they are now adequate to protect the public health. The Town has a legitimate interest in minimizing public health risks from CAFOs and therefore regulating their processing and storage of wastes. • In the past, CAFOs needed to have manure and nutrient management plans; these could be reviewed by the State, but were considered confidential documents. In order to comply with recent federal court decisions, the new DEC guidelines specify that the "public is given an opportunity to comment on the farm specific elements" of manure and nutrient management plans (page 5, Fact Sheet for Permit No. GP -0-16-002, January 2017). However, the only mechanism provided by the DEC is for concerned citizens to request farm -specific reports through the Freedom of Information Law process, which is a slow and cumbersome process. It is our belief that the limited use of manure as a fertilizer by organic farmers in the Town of Ulysses presents little or no public health risk. On the other hand, for CAFOs in New York, manure is often produced in excess of any agronomic need for growing crops associated with the CAFO, and spreading of manure on farmland is sometimes driven more by the need to get rid of the manure waste. We do not suggest that the Town regulate manure handling practices, but we do propose the following addition to our zoning with the goal of greater transparency. For addition to § 212-28, Uses allowed by special permit, under the section on Confined or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO): For any CAFO operating in the Town of Ulysses or for any CAFO subject to the regulations of the State of New York that is spreading manure in the Town of Ulysses, the owner and/or operator of such CAFO shall file with the Ulysses Town Clerk copies of any documents submitted to the New York State Department of Conservation (DEC) that are relevant to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). Such copies shall be filed with the Town within 3 days of submission to the DEC. These copies are public documents and shall be made available by the Town Clerk to any resident of the Town upon request. The vote was as follows: Mr. Tselekis RECUSED Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Board of Zoning Appeals 10 April 19, 2017 Mr. Morreale AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Resolution endorsed Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on April 27, 2017.