Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-16-BZA-DRAFT2DRAFT MINUTES TOWN OF ULYSSES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 04/16/14 PRESENT: Chairman George Tselekis, Board Members-Andy Hillman, Bob Howarth, Carl Mann, Environmental Planner Darby Kiley Excused: Andy Glasner Applicant: Rudy Nunez, Norbert Nolte, Carl Lupo Public: Ronald Poley Mr. Tselekis called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. He noted the members present. Mr. Tselekis stated that the first order of business is the Appeal of James Curran for area variances under Article XVII, Section 17.5 of the To wn of Ulysses Zoning Law. The property includes two existing buildings (Ithaca Antiques Mall and Howl Studios), and the proposal is to subdivide the property so that each building is on a separate parcel and to create a third parcel, which is currently vac ant. The distance between the buildings is not sufficient for the proposed lots to meet the required setbacks; in addition the proposed lots exceed the maximum lot coverage requirement of 50 percent. Area variances from the lot area and yard requirements (including front and rear setbacks and lot coverage) of the Article XVII, Section 17.5 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law will be needed. The property is located at 1607 Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number 33.-1-8.12. Rudy Nunez was present, representing Mr. Curran. Nunez is current manager of Howl Studios. He plans to buy the building from Mr. Curran. It is being split up into three lots. Mr. Tselekis referred to several zoning issues at the property. The front yard set back for Parcel A is one foot where a minimum of 50 feet is required. Similarly, the rear yard set back on Parcel C is 10.5 feet where a minimum of 35 feet is required. Additionally on Parcel C, its side yard setback is 19.4 feet where a minimum of 25 feet is required. Parcel C has rear yard setback of 10.5 feet and should be 35 feet. Parking lot coverage exceeds the maximum for both Parcel A and C. Under the proposal, paved parking would cover 53 percent while Parcel C would cover 60 percent. The maximum allowable lot coverage is 50 percent. The property is located within Light Industrial Zone. There were no comments from neighbors. Board of Zoning Appeals April 16, 2014 2 Mr. Howarth asked about the intentions for Parcel B. Mr. Tselekis said the parcel would be put up for sale. Ms. Kiley said this proposal would need to go through the Planning Board for Subdivision Approval. Mr. Curran had requested a rezoning for the lot because it is located in the R2 district while the buildings are located within the Light Industrial Zone. On March 11, 2014, the Town Board denied Mr. Curran’s request since the larger area is being considered for zoning changes. The Town Board felt it premature to grant any zoning changes to a specific lot until a more comprehensive review of the surrounding area could be carried out. Mr. Nunez said it is unclear as to the future of Parcel B. He would like to purchase it and keep it zoned as R2. Responding to a question from the board, he said no one is living in the studio building, which is utilized by a variety of artists, bands and musicians. He recently updated the alarm systems, electric and sewer. There are three septic tanks. Ms. Kiley said if the property is in different ownership, it would need separate septic systems. Mr. Tselekis asked about a cable running from the front building to the back building and whether it supplied electricity. Mr. Nunez said there are old phone lines running between the two buildings, but he is not sure if there are any active electric lines running from one building to the other. Mr. Tselekis said that although variances are substantial, having two buildings in separate ownership makes more sense. He does not see any reason for the BZA to stand in the way. Mr. Nunez said he believes most of the septic system and its three tanks are located on Parcel A. BZA members further discussed the location of septic systems and which property owner would oversee the ownership of the septic tanks. There was confusion among Board members regarding property lines and how utilities will work for the two separate property owners. Mr. Mann MADE the MOTION to table the discussion until May 28, 2014, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION. Mr. Tselekis AYE Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Mann AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Result : Discussion tabled until next meeting. Board of Zoning Appeals April 16, 2014 3 The next order of business is the Appeal of Carl Lupo and Norbert Nolte for a use variance under Article XVII, Sections 17.2 – 17.4 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The property includes an existing structure that was built in 1865 and has been vacant for a number of years. The IL-Light Industrial District was created with the 2005 Zoning Law, and the current list of permitted uses does not include any residential uses. The applicants seek a use variance to convert the existing structure to a four-unit residence. The property is located at 1635 Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number 34.-2-7.2. Mr. Lupo gave a brief overview of the project and his vision for the 39-acre property. He said the back portion of the property is zoned for residential – which is preferred – while the front portion is zoned for Light Industrial. He would like to have the entire property zoned for residential to accommodate a four-unit residence. A long-term goal would possibly include further development for more housing. Neighbors have been notified, and there were no correspondences received by the Town. Mr. Poley of 1634 Taughannock Road, a neighbor, said he is excited that something is happening to the house. He had questions about the definition of four-units and whether or not that meant apartments. Mr. Lupo said the units are to be considered apartments for working families and retired people. The project is not low-income housing. Mr. Tselekis reviewed four tests for a use variance, and the Board focused on the fourth criteria regarding self-created hardship. Ms. Kiley explained that the hardship is self- created because the property owners knew that the property was zoned for Light Industrial prior to purchase. Mr. Lupo said he bought the property with the idea that zoning would be changed to residential. It was looked at years ago to change, but it was never changed. It should have been changed in 1995. Mr. Kiley said the Light Industrial Zone was created in 2005, and there had been an earlier business district but that had been confined to the Van Dorn Road area. The Planning Board is actively working to amend uses within Light Industrial until a more extensive zoning change can be made for that entire area. Mr. Lupo said the housing units could bring in further business, like offices for doctors or dentists. There is not enough business there currently to bring customers. His project aims to bring people there first, then perhaps other businesses will follow. Other towns in Tompkins County are allowing similar housing projects. Mr. Tselekis agreed that the proposed project would be an improvement over the dilapidated house that currently sits on the property. Mr. Howarth said the BZA has been advised to take its time and review the use variance. Board of Zoning Appeals April 16, 2014 4 Mr. Lupo said he bought the property to develop housing units. The house is only going to get worse the longer it sits, so the sooner he can begin, the better. Asked about the BZA’s timeline, Mr. Tselekis said use variances are difficult to get and require a thorough review process. Mr. Lupo said he has done the necessary work to inform the BZA of his intentions. Mr. Howarth felt a rezoning from Light Industrial is a task for the Town Board. The BZA does not have the power to grant what Mr. Lupo has proposed because state law ties the BZA’s hands. Mr. Lupo had tried to sell the property for industrial use but had no luck. The BZA agreed that the project does not meet all the criteria for a use variance and requested the Town Board to make a decision on zoning uses with Light Industrial. Mr. Tselekis MADE the MOTION, and Mr. Howarth SECONDED the MOTION to deny the use variance request because it does not meet all criteria for issuance. The vote was taken as follows: Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Mann AYE Mr. Tselekis AYE Result: Use variance denied. Resolution to Town Board to Fix the IL-Light Industrial District Mr. Tselekis MADE the MOTION to approve the resolution urging the Town Board to allow some residential use in the Light Industrial District and Mr. Hillman SECONDED the MOTION as follows: WHEREAS, the Town of Ulysses Board of Zoning Appeals believes that the allowed land uses in the light industrial district are too restrictive for the property owners to earn a reasonable return; and THEREFORE, we urge the Town Board to expand the allowable uses to include among others some residential use. The vote was taken as follows: Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Board of Zoning Appeals April 16, 2014 5 Mr. Mann AYE Mr. Tselekis AYE Motion Approved UNANIMOUSLY The next item is the review of the Appeal of Steve Clapp for area variances from the lot area and yard requirements (including front and rear setbacks and front lot line width) of the Article VIII, Section 8.6 of the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. The property is located at 3078 Dubois Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number 32.-2-12.2. Mr. Howarth MADE the MOTION to deny the variance, and Mr. Mann SECONDED the MOTION as follows: Petitioner, Stephen Clapp, 3078 Dubois Road (Tax Parcel Number 32.-2-12.2), seeks the following area variances from Town of Ulysses Zoning Law §8.6: Minimum Lot Width for Parcel B (155.62 feet instead of the required 160 feet); Minimu m Lot Depth for Parcel A (105.87 feet instead of the required 200 feet); Front Yard Setback for Parcel A (which is an existing nonconforming structure) and for Parcel B (22.0 feet instead of the required 50 feet); Rear Yard Setback for Parcel A (22.0 feet instead of the required 35 feet). The BZA reviewed the record and weighed the benefit to the Applicants against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the area variances are granted by considering the following five statutory factors. Benefits sought by applicants are to subdivide the parcel in order to create two parcels on which each will have a principal building/single-family residence: 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 variance. Not likely, the house and cottage are existing structures. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. No, any option for subdividing the property would create two lots that cannot meet all of the lot area and yard requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial. Of the four area variances requested, the Front Yard Setback of Parcel B is substantial (56% variance), and the Lot Depth variance of Parcel A is substantial where the depth is the narrowest (47% variance), but the lot depth increases Board of Zoning Appeals April 16, 2014 6 through the lot. The Minimum Lot Width of Parcel B is not substantial (3% variance). The Rear Yard Setback of Parcel A is not substantial (22 ft instead of required 35 ft is a 37% variance). 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Both residential structures are existing, and no additional construction or land disturbance are planned at this time. However, any future increase in impervious surface could impact existing drainage issues. A stream runs through the center of the road access for the proposed flag lot. Installation of a driveway for the cottage would be difficult. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Yes, the applicant was aware of the zoning requirements when the elder cottage was constructed. 6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals co ncludes as follows: at least two of the area variances are substantial, the alleged difficulty is self-created, and the benefits to the applicant if the area variances are granted are outweighed by 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 request for area variances is denied. The vote was taken as follows: Mr. Hillman AYE Mr. Howarth AYE Mr. Mann AYE Mr. Tselekis AYE Result: Variance request denied. The board unanimously approved Meeting Minutes for October 16, 2013, November 20, 2013, February 19, 2014 and March 5, 2014, with minor edits to the March 5 minutes. Mr. Tselekis adjourned the meeting at 9:05 pm. Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro on February 11, 2015.