HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-02-15-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Approved: April 19, 2017
Call to order: 7:00 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: John and Brenda Longstreet, Bert Fortner.
Public Hearing: Appeal by John and Brenda Longstreet for area variances under Section 212-54
Lot Area and Yard Requirements of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of
constructing a 27 ft by 4 ft addition on the south side of the existing house, which would be
located approximately 9.5 feet from the side property line, where 15 feet is required in the LS -
Lakeshore District. In addition, the property owners would like to add a 16 ft by 10 ft covered
porch to the north side of the house, which would be located approximately 29 feet from the
property line parallel to the lakeshore, where 50 feet is required. The property is located at 1199
Taughannock Blvd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 30.-3-5.
Mr. Longstreet addressed the board and stated that he and his wife bought the property in 2004
as a weekend home and they would like to turn it into a permanent residence for use when he
retires in the future. The house is a small cottage and they need a little more space. By squaring
off the south side of the house, they can install a proper kitchen and expand the living space.
They will change the furnace from kerosene to propane, thereby removing the existing tank and
chimney and improve the look of that side of the house. The house does not have a covered
porch so that would be added on the north side of the house. It will not be enclosed or screened.
The house is on a bluff and the neighbors to the south are all at lake level. The yacht club
property is on the north side, and the property was separated from the yacht club years ago,
which might explain the odd lot lines. The neighbors wrote supportive letters and saw the project
as improvements to the property.
Mr. Tselekis stated that there were no members of the public in the audience and asked the board
if they had any questions.
Mr. Morreale asked about the acreage of the property. Mr. Longstreet stated that the parcel is
about 1.4 acres. Mr. Morreale asked about the porch construction. Mr. Longstreet and Mr.
Fortner responded that the porch would be on posts and not a slab, and added that the porch
would be built over an existing gravel driveway.
Board of Zoning Appeals 2
October 19, 2016
Mr. Morreale asked about trees and the applicant responded that no trees need to be removed for
the project. The board members and Mr. Longstreet then reviewed aerial photos and discussed
the house location.
While not part of the BZA's considerations, Mr. Howarth recommended that the applicant
consider heat pumps in lieu of propane. Mr. Longstreet responded that they would be using heat
pumps for the air conditioning and some heating but the existing heating system uses a boiler so
they will be replacing that.
Mr. Howarth made the motion, 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 variances are granted by considering the
five statutory factors. The benefit sought by applicants is to construct a 27 ft by 4 ft addition on
the south side of the existing residence, where the side yard setback would be 9.5 feet and 15 feet
is required; and to construct a 10 ft by 16 ft covered porch on the north side of the residence,
where the setback to the property line parallel to the lakeshore would be 29 feet and 50 feet is
required:
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.
Neither addition is likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
The addition on the south side of the residence will square off the house to match a portion of the
house that is already 9.5 feet from the side property line. The proposed covered porch on the
north side of the house would follow the line of the front of the house, and not be any closer to
the lake.
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.
Because of the location of the house on the parcel, any addition to the south, east or north side
could require area variances.
3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.
The area variance for the side yard setback on the south side — 9.5 ft vs 15 ft - is substantial;
however the house is already 9.5 feet from the property line and the addition would follow the
same line and not interfere materially with hydrology. The area variance for the setback to the
line parallel to the lakeshore — 29 ft vs 50 ft — is also substantial; however considering that the
lakeshore is an additional 43 feet from the house, it is not significant in its impact on the
neighborhood. A cliff is located between the house and the property boundary line and below
that is a gravel area adjacent to the lakeshore.
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
October 19, 2016
It is not likely that the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood and minimal impact on local hydrology. The proposed additions
would be located on previously disturbed areas.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to construct the additions,
however any additions on three sides of the house could require variances.
6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals
concludes as follows, the additions will not have a negative impact on the character of the
neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions. The proposed variances for the
side yard setback and the setback to the property line parallel to the lake are substantial; however
the additions will not pose a significant impact to the environment or neighborhood. The
difficulty is self-created, however the existing house encroaches on the side yard to the south.
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.
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Tselekis
AYE
Mr. Howarth
AYE
Mr. Means
AYE
Mr. Morreale
AYE
Ms. Thompson
AYE
Result: Variances granted
Meeting Minutes Review (10/19/2016)
Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to accept the October 19, 2016 meeting minutes with one
word edit, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously
approved, 5-0.
Draft zoning discussion
Mr. Tselekis introduced the next item on the agenda — the review of the draft ag/rural zoning.
Mr. Howarth stated that he reviewed the draft and saw some positive and negative aspects and
was puzzled by some parts. Mr. Means said he had a few minor issues. Mr. Howarth added that
the Comprehensive Plan addresses rural character and that should be reflected in the zoning. He
likes the proportional development, but not the language that states after 25 years a parcel could
be developed. He is in favor of keeping the existing 400 ft road frontage and 2 acres. Mr.
Board of Zoning Appeals 4
October 19, 2016
Howarth added that a majority of the land farmed is not owned by the farmers, which is unique
in New York State, and those landowners are not well represented.
Mr. Means thought that based on the variance appeals- the 400 feet requirement is too much.
People want smaller lots and smaller homes.
Mr. Howarth added that the proposed one acre lot size could be an issue for septic systems and
wells, so the zoning would be setting the landowners up for failure.
Mr. Morreale and others thought the clustering is appealing.
There was discussion on the 20 acre/25 year agricultural subdivision.
Mr. Thompson asked about whether the town could encourage cluster subdivisions by building
roads. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Howarth if 200 ft road frontage and 1.5 acre minimum lot size
would be preferred.
Mr. Howarth had other issues with the draft including the approval process for animal waste
storage and CAFOs. Mr. Tselekis stated that the town is limited by state law, and Mr. Howarth
disagreed and he is opposed to relaxing regulations on agriculture.
The BZA agreed to share comments via email and continue the discussion on March 15.
Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Means SECONDED the
MOTION. The motion was carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Darby Kiley on February 16, 2017