Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-20-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, September 20, 2017 Approved: October 18, 2017 Present: Board members Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, David Means, Steve Morreale, and Cheryl Thompson; Environmental Planner Darby Kiley. The Town Board appointed Ms. Thompson as a voting member in place of Chair George Tselekis, who resigned from the BZA. Public in Attendance: Kyle Koskinen, Bert Fortner, Jack Lewis and Tim Fallon. Call to order: 7:00 p.m. Privilege of the Floor: No one addressed the Board at this time. With the news of Mr. Tselekis’s unexpected resignation, the BZA did not have an appointed chair, and the Town Attorney has advised the BZA to appoint an interim chair until the Town Board formally makes a decision on BZA leadership. Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to nominate and select Mr. Morreale as Board chair for the evening, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. The vote was unanimously carried, 5-0. Public Hearing: Appeal by Kyle Koskinen for area variances under Section 212-29C Lot Area and Yard Requirements for the A1-Agricutural District of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of a boundary line change, which is classified as a simple subdivision. The current house lot includes 8.87 acres with 434.69 +/- feet of road frontage. The undeveloped lot east of the house lot includes 4.55 acres with no road frontage. The proposal is to create a flag lot with 50 feet of road frontage and to adjust the property lines. The resulting flag lot would have 9.45 +/- acres and 50 feet of frontage, and the house lot would have 4.22 +/- acres and 384.69 +/- feet of road frontage, which is less than the 400 feet required. The properties are located at 4252 Waterburg Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Numbers 23.-3-12 and 23.-3-11.21. Mr. Koskinen provided a brief project overview. He said agricultural land located north and south of the considered parcel is family-owned, and the family does not want to adjust property lines or encroach on the ag land. At this time, Ms. Thompson recused herself from Board deliberations and from any formal vote, citing her association with the proposed project. Mr. Koskinen said he has owned the back lot – the proposed flag lot – since 2010. It has not been farmed for some time, and it is too wet for tractors. Mr. Morreale noted that, if the variance is granted, the new flag lot could potentially have two allowable homes built on it. The existing Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2017 2 parcel could also legally accommodate a second house. Mr. Koskinen said the existing house is a two-family house, so he cannot have a second home built there. The Town received no written correspondences concerning this project. Mr. Means 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 Applicant 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 applicant is to provide road frontage and access to a landlocked parcel by creating a flag lot but the resulting road frontage for the existing house lot would not meet the 400 foot road frontage requirement and instead have 384.69 feet.: 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 reduction in road frontage is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. There is an existing lot, but it does not have road frontage. If a house is built on the proposed flag lot, it would be located behind an existing house. 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 the current house lot has 434.69 feet of road frontage, in order to provide road frontage access to the eastern, landlocked parcel, the road frontage of either the current house lot or the flag lot would need a variance. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The area variance of 384.69 feet instead of 400 feet is not 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created in that the landlocked parcel is not buildable without road frontage, and in order to provide road frontage access, either the existing house lot or flag lot would require a variance. Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2017 3 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the proposed boundary line change will not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions, a variance would be required for the landlocked parcel to have road frontage, and the variance is not substantial. The difficulty is self-created, however 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, the BZA hereby grants the area variance requested by the applicant for a lot with 384.69 feet of road frontage. Prior to the vote, Mr. Howarth said he tends to be a stickler about abiding by road frontage parameters, but this project would result in a small change in frontage, just a 4-percent decrease. He would be more concerned if the applicant were taking quality agricultural land out of production for the flag lot. The vote was as follows: Mr. Morreale AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Ms. Thompson RECUSED Result: Variance granted Public Hearing: Appeal by Seven Maplewood, LLC for area variances under Section 212-54F Lot Area and Yard Requirements for the LS-Lakeshore District of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of constructing an elevator with a 39 +/- square foot footprint and 20 +/- foot height. The elevator would be located 5 +/- feet from the southern property line, where 15 feet is the required side yard setback. The property is located at 7 Maplewood Point, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 29.-1-15. Mr. Fortner, the project architect, said Mr. Lewis requires a less strenuous way to reach the second floor of his home. Mr. Fortner, along with Mr. Lewis and the original architect of the house, reviewed potential locations for the interior elevator and tried to find a better spot for it, but ultimately the proposed location is best. When the house was built in the early 2000s, it required a side yard setback variance, Ms. Kiley noted. Mr. Fortner said a 6-by-6-foot elevator was the smallest they could find to fit onto the side of the house. Its proposed location would give Mr. Lewis easy access to the master bedroom. Mr. Fallon, a neighbor, acknowledged that the 5-foot setback is tight. However, it is not unusual in the neighborhood, where – he added – property owners get along well. He has no problem with the proposal. Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2017 4 The Town received no written correspondence from neighbors, but a letter from Mr. Lewis’s doctor, encouraging him to add an elevator to his home, was included in the BZA’s packet. Ms. Thompson expressed concern over fire safety, considering the houses are so close. Mr. Lewis claimed he spoke with his nearest neighbor – Mr. Gorsky – about the elevator, and Mr. Gorsky expressed his support. Some Board members expressed that they would prefer to have heard from Mr. Gorsky personally before making a decision, but Mr. Lewis said Mr. Gorsky recently suffered a stroke. The BZA and Mr. Fortner discussed alternative locations for the elevator, like on the other side of the house, but he said installing an elevator there would require demolishing the porch. Plus, the house stairwell is located there, creating a major logistical challenge. As to fire concerns, Mr. Fortner said the entire south-facing wall of the house would need to be essentially fireproofed due to the home’s close proximity to Mr. Gorsky’s home. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to grant the variance, and Mr. Hillman 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 construct an elevator on the south side of the existing house. The elevator would be 5 +/- feet from the side yard line where 15 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 elevator addition is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. A privacy fence and arborvitae trees are on the property line, reducing the impact to the adjacent neighbor, and the shaft will be shorter than the existing house. 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 layout of the house, this location is preferred so that the resident has access to the first floor family areas and second floor master bedroom. Other locations are less desirable considering the layout of the house. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. The area variance of 5 feet instead of 15 feet 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. Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2017 5 It is not likely that the variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There are steps and a landing in the location where the elevator would be located. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty is self-created because the applicant is adding the elevator on the south side where the house is already within the side yard setback. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals concludes as follows, the elevator will not have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions, and the proposed location is the most feasible to accomplish the goal of the project. The proposed variance is substantial; the difficulty is self-created, however 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, the BZA hereby grants the area variance requested by the applicant for an elevator to be constructed 5 feet from the south property line. The vote was as follows: Mr. Morreale AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Means AYE Ms. Thompson AYE Result: Variance granted Meeting Minutes Review (8/16/2017 and 8/22/2017) Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to accept the August 16, 2017 meeting minutes as amended, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Mr. Means MADE the MOTION to accept the August 22, 2017 meeting minutes, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was carried, 4-0, with Mr. Hillman abstaining from the vote. Upcoming meeting with the Zoning Updates Steering Committee Chosen by his fellow BZA members as its liaison to ZUSC, Mr. Howarth gave a brief overview of the upcoming Thursday meeting between stakeholder groups and ZUSC, which has circulated an updated draft of the ag zoning document. However, the draft is pretty similar to what ZUSC had in February, he said. The biggest change from the February draft involves how ZUSC has Board of Zoning Appeals September 20, 2017 6 proposed determining how many subdivisions are allowed per parcel: divide the total parcel acreage by 10 and round up. He reminded the BZA of its previously passed resolution to ZUSC, proposing a plan that would permanently protect 80 percent of a parcel at the time of the first subdivision. Residential development would be prohibited on 80 percent of that land, leaving the remaining 20 percent for possible development. Mr. Howarth also noted there is no maximum lot size, and he would like to see one established in the latest ag zoning draft. A lengthy conversation ensued over the major elements of the draft, namely minimum lot sizes and road frontage. The BZA was in consensus agreement that a 1-acre minimum lot size was a bad idea, and while the BZA had previously recommended lowering the minimum road frontage from 400 to 200 feet, some thought that change would actually prove harmful to the goal of preserving farmland. “I would like to hear why the 80-percent/20-percent proposal is not a good idea,” Mr. Howarth said. Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on September 20, 2017.