HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-12-20-BZA-FINALTOWN OF ULYSSES
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Approved: January 17, 2018
Present: Board Chair Bob Howarth, and members Andy Hillman, David Means, Steve Morreale,
Cheryl Thompson; alternate member Jonathan Ferrari; Town Planner Darby Kiley.
Public in Attendance: Steve Heslop, Mr. and Mrs. Philip Smith, and Michael Boggs.
Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.
Public Hearing: Appeal by Steve Heslop for an area variance under 212-167A of the Town of
Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of adding three three-foot cupolas to a proposed
accessory building. At the November 15, 2017 meeting, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a
height variance for the accessory building to be 24 feet 8 inches, where twenty (20) feet is the
height limit for accessory buildings. The applicant would like to add three cupolas with a height
of three feet each, and a total building height of 27 feet 8 inches. The property is located in the
R1-Rural Residence District at 4011 Dubois Rd, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 27.-3-
17.5.
Mr. Heslop gave a brief overview of his project, saying the three cupolas will look beautiful and
will keep with the surrounding area’s rural aesthetic.
There were no written correspondences in regard to this proposal.
Mr. Morreale said he was sold on Mr. Heslop’s previous presentation in requesting 4 additional
feet above the maximum height, but not on a full 7 feet. He asked why the change to add
cupolas? In talking with those close to him, Mr. Heslop said they all seemed to think the barn
should have cupolas. At the time of his proposal, he had not thought much about them. He plans
to add weather vanes to each of the three cupolas, which are strictly decorative. A recently
rebuilt neighboring barn has three cupolas on it, he said. It seems unusual to return for another
variance so soon, Mr. Howarth said. Asked if he could do without the cupolas, Mr. Heslop said
he would get over it if the BZA were to deny the request.
Speaking as an architect, Mr. Ferrari said he has a client in the village of Aurora who sought to
build a carriage house, but it exceeded the village’s low maximum height. The village has a very
strict policy toward maintaining a traditional look, yet its height limits prevented an applicant
from building an accessory structure to that aim. The village’s review board members were
reluctant to set a precedent even though it was contradictory to their desire to have a traditional
look. Ultimately, the client connected the carriage house to the main house. It is silly to restrict
someone from adding a building that maintains the very character the municipality wants, he
said. They should have the right to design something that keeps with the historic trend. For a
barn, there should not be a height restriction unless there is a clear burden. Ms. Kiley noted there
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 20, 2017
2
is no height limit for barns built for agricultural purposes. Mr. Means agreed with Mr. Ferrari: if
cupolas or other historic features add character, he is fine with it.
Mr. Howarth said the goal of the BZA is not to redo zoning, but to enforce it. Mr. Morreale said
the current zoning is recent and was well thought out by concerned people. This is not an
arbitrary height restriction. He agreed with Mr. Howarth in that it is not the BZA’s purview to
rewrite the zoning. I do not know if aesthetics are a good enough reason for a variance, he said.
To Mr. Hillman, the request was slight in both the benefit to the applicant and to the detriment to
the neighborhood. It comes down to whether or not the request is substantial.
Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to approve the resolution, and Mr. Means SECONDED the
MOTION.
Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the number of cupolas from
three to two. Visually, two would be less impactful. Ms. Thompson proposed a friendly
amendment to the resolution, allowing for two cupolas, and Mr. Means seconded the proposal.
However, Mr. Hillman did not accept the friendly amendment. Further discussion ensued.
Mr. Morreale disagreed with some of the resolution’s language regarding impact to the
neighborhood. Three sizable cupolas are a lot of volume above the maximum height limit. It may
not have an impact on the corner of Dubois Road, but it goes against the zoning.
Mr. Hillman requested the Board reconsider Ms. Thompson’s friendly amendment, who
proposed it again. This time, Mr. Hillman consented, and the BZA voted unanimously to accept
the friendly amendment, which changes the allowable number of cupolas from three to two.
Ensuing discussion touched on the variance’s impact on the surrounding community and any
likely impact on viewsheds.
The Board then returned to the motion to approve the now-amended resolution, which reads 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 the applicant is to add two cupolas to an accessory
building bringing the total height to 27 feet 8 inches where 20 feet is the height limit for
accessory buildings.
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.
Adding cupolas to the accessory building are not likely to produce an undesirable change
in the character of the neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. On
November 15, 2017, the BZA approved a height variance for the accessory building stating
that the neighbors’ view would not be negatively affected by the difference in a building
height of 20 feet versus 24 feet 8 inches. By adding two cupolas with a height of three feet
each, again the view would not be impacted.
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 20, 2017
3
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 accessory building was granted a height variance last month and the only alternative is
to not add the cupolas; however, the applicant prefers the aesthetic of adding the cupolas.
3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.
The height variance of 27 feet 8 inches feet instead of 20 feet is substantial. It was
substantial with the previous request and more substantial with this request.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
The addition of cupolas on the accessory building is not likely to have an adverse impact on
the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Yes, the difficulty is self-created because the applicant is choosing to add two cupolas on a
building that was already granted a height variance.
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. The cupolas are not
necessary for the function of the building; the proposed variance is substantial; and 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 to construct two cupolas on an
accessory building where the total height would be 7 feet 8 inches higher than the 20 foot
limit.
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Howarth NAY
Mr. Hillman AYE
Mr. Means AYE
Mr. Morreale NAY
Ms. Thompson AYE
Result: Variance granted
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 20, 2017
4
Continuation: Appeal by Philip Smith for area variances under 212-47 F and H and 212-48 of
the Town of Ulysses Zoning Law. This is for the purpose of constructing a single family
residence with a front yard setback of approximately 10 feet where 50 feet is required and a rear
yard setback of approximately 30 feet where 35 feet is required. In addition, the residence would
not meet the 50 foot stream setback requirement and is proposed to be located approximately 15
feet from the top of the stream bank. The property is located in the R2-Moderate Density
Residence District at 2125 Lake St Extension, Town of Ulysses, Tax Parcel Number is 13.-2-16.
Mr. Smith said he was asked to check with Town, Village and the County assessment office in
regard to his new home. A large majority of the house will reside on the Town side of the
property, which means he will not have to pay village taxes on the new house. There was
concern about the location of the driveway, he said, but he thought that the BZA agreed that
siting it as Mr. Smith planned is okay. Details have been worked out considering the septic
system, and he is in discussions with a contractor to tear down the existing house. The new house
will measure 28-by-30 feet.
The Board received no further written correspondences, only those submitted prior to the BZA’s
November meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding siting of the house. Mr. Smith said the existing leach field has to be
moved because it would be too close to the new house. Further, he wants to site the house so that
it sits primarily on the Town of Ulysses side. The existing bank was also identified as an
impediment to locating the new house further west.
Ms. Thompson MADE the MOTION to grant the variance, and Mr. Means SECONDED the
MOTION.
Mr. Means asked if it was within the BZA’s authority to require clean-up of a pit and collapsed
garage located on the property. Consideration was given to language additions to the resolution
that would require such a clean-up effort, with proper measures to prevent erosion and pollution
of the nearby stream. A friendly amendment was proposed, adding such language, and Ms.
Thompson accepted the amendment. The amended resolution is written 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 variances are granted by considering the
five statutory factors. The benefit sought by the applicant is to construct single family residence
with a front yard setback of approximately 15 feet where 50 feet is required and a rear yard
setback of approximately 32 feet where 35 feet is required. In addition, the residence would not
meet the 50 foot stream setback requirement and is proposed to be located approximately 17 feet
from the top of the stream bank, which is further from the stream bank than the current house.
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.
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 20, 2017
5
The residence is not likely to produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood nor be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed residence will be
built about 100 feet west of an existing residence that will be demolished.
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 building could be built on the footprint of the existing house and a variance would not
be required, but that location is right on the stream bank. Because of the narrow width of
the lot, any other building location would require a variance.
3. Whether the requested area variances are substantial.
The front yard setback of 15 feet instead of 50 feet is substantial. The stream setback of 17
feet instead of 50 feet is also substantial. The rear yard setback of 32 feet instead of 35 feet
is not substantial, but the rear yard line is the centerline of the stream.
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 existing house has a septic system, but
that may need to be changed and is subject to health department approval.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
The difficulty is self-created because the applicant could build in the same footprint
without a variance.
6. Considering all of the statutory factors set forth above, the Board of Zoning Appeals
concludes as follows, the single family residence will not have a negative impact on the
character of the neighborhood, nor on the physical or environmental conditions. The
proposed variances are substantial; and 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 variances requested by the applicant to construct a single family residence
that would have a front yard setback of 15 feet instead of 50 feet, a rear yard setback of 32
feet instead of 35 feet and a stream setback of 17 feet instead of 50 feet; subject to the
condition that the collapsed garage on the eastern boundary of the lot be removed before a
building permit is issued for the new house, and that the existing house be demolished and
all building materials from the house and pit (southwest of existing house), except stone
material, be removed from the site before a final certificate of occupancy is granted for the
new house. Final grading should include slope stabilization and appropriate measures to
prevent erosion.
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 20, 2017
6
The vote was as follows:
Mr. Howarth AYE
Mr. Hillman AYE
Mr. Means AYE
Mr. Morreale AYE
Ms. Thompson AYE
Result: Variance granted
Meeting Minutes Review (11/15/17)
Mr. Morreale MADE the MOTION to accept the amended November 15, 2017 meeting minutes,
and Mr. Means SECONDED the MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried.
Training needs for 2018
Mr. Howarth reminded Board members that they are to inform Ms. Kiley of any training or
related workshops they attend. He felt much of the training offerings are not typically relevant to
the BZA. However, he noted the State BZA provides a thorough outline of what powers a town’s
BZA has. He urged members to review the document; doing so should be considered part of
training for participating Board members. Mr. Howarth also said it would be helpful to have the
Town Attorney attend a meeting and review areas like ethics, best practices, recusals, and
conflicts of interest.
Discussion on draft zoning
Mr. Howarth provided a brief recap regarding the Town Zoning Update Steering Committee’s
(ZUSC) zoning update. The Ag Committee is not happy with ZUSC and has sent two memos;
the Planning Board recently passed a resolution, requesting ZUSC do more. The BZA passed
resolutions on zoning recommendations back in February. The question now is, what – if
anything – does the BZA want to do as a board?
Mr. Ferrari asked if ZUSC or consultants had examined Oregon’s land-use planning, which is
well respected and has been successful in maintaining ag land. ZUSC has not, Ms. Kiley said.
Mr. Howarth called the pushback from the Planning Board and Ag Committee misplaced. They
seem totally focused on the rate of development in the last 10 years; it is not most pertinent.
Look at what has been lost in Lansing and the encroachment of West Hill right up to the Town
boundary, he said. Mr. Morreale said the request for further data analysis is backward thinking;
we are talking about the future, not the past. The Town needs to be wise to what is happening
and set up restrictions. That is forward-looking.
Mr. Boggs, a member of ZUSC since last February, was in attendance at the previous night’s
Planning Board meeting, and it seemed to him the resolution the Planning Board passed was
Board of Zoning Appeals
December 20, 2017
7
coming from one person. There have been a couple of vocal opponents, but it does not seem they
have taken time to read the proposal, he said, adding that he feels the consultants have done a
good job.
Mr. Howarth said it is still unclear just how much Town ag land is owned by actual Town
farmers. Estimations from work done by the Ag and Farmland Protection Plan committee, on
which he served, were anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of Town farmland is owned by non-
farmers who then rent it to farmers. He noted the current Ag Committee membership does not
include any farmer who lives in the Town’s A1 District.
Ms. Kiley said efforts are underway to move the zoning draft comment deadline back two weeks,
which would allow the BZA to meet and craft any additional zoning-related resolutions or
comments. Mr. Ferrari said he would research zoning in Oregon.
Mr. Hillman MADE the MOTION to adjourn the meeting, and Mr. Means SECONDED the
MOTION. The motion was unanimously carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Louis A. DiPietro II on January 10, 2018.