HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2014-11-17 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday November 17, 2014
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members: Christine Shaw, Chris Jung, Bill King,John DeRosa
and Alternate George Vignaux
Staff: Bruce Bates, Direct or Codes; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town
Rescheduled to December-Appeal of Kenneth and Diane Schmidt., owners, requesting a
variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-70 "Height Limitations"of the Town of Ithaca
Code, in order to construct a 25' tall detached garage, located at 1205 Trumansburg Rd, Tax
Parcel No. 26.4-37, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Mr. Rosen announced that the applicants had agreed to reschedule for the following month
due to a second type of area variance being needed and the need to advertise for that.
Board members had questions about the measurements and drawings submitted and asked Mr.
Bates to convey that to the applicant. Members stated that they had conducted site visits and
the height of the house appears to be 30 feet but the applicant describes it as 40 feet, and the
submitted drawings show the house looking much shorter than the proposed garage but it
seems the house and the garage will be about the same height. The application also stated that
the neighboring houses are 40 feet high and they don't appear to be. The cross section shows
two different heights also. Mr. Bates will talk to the applicant.
Mr. Rosen announced that the appeal has been postponed to the next meeting to allow for a
change in the legal advertisement.
Appeal of William and Susan Lesser, owners, requesting a variance from the requirements of
Chapter 270-73C, Lot A and Chapter 270-73 B & C, Lot B in order to subdivide one lot into
two lots where one lot will lack the required width at the setback line and the other lot will
lack the required width at the street line and setback line, located at 403 Coddington Rd, Tax
Parcel No. 52.4-20, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
Mr. Lesser gave the history of the property stating that he and his wife purchased this property
which is across the road from their residence and they are looking to upgrade the property for
rental,purposes. In looking at options, most options would leave most of the property unused so
they hought to subdivide it. They thought it would be beneficial to the town as fill-in because
there is public water and sewer and the property meets all the requirements except the two
regarding width at the setback line and width at the street. He added that the proposal was
approved by the Planning Board last month including a neg-dec on SEQR. In order to move
ahead, they need the zoning variances for road frontage and width at the setback line and they
will also need to comply with the planning board requirement that there be a shared driveway
which would belong to Parcel B with a permanent ROW for Parcel A.
1
The road frontage is now 103 feet with a 60 foot minimum at the road and 100 foot minimum at
the setback so subtracting from that to make the two lots necessitates the variances.
Mr. Rosen asked if he was planning on tearing down the existing house and putting up a duplex
and Mr. Lesser stated that he wasn't planning on tearing it down but a duplex is planned for the
other lot if the subdivision variances are approved.
Mr. Rosen asked if they would tear it down if it wasn't approved and Mr. Lesser responded that
if they did anything they would make a duplex by attaching an addition to the existing property,
saying they have already invested in new windows and painted it.
Mr. Rosen stated that he was skeptical about the need for so many variances that would be
needed to come into play for a lot that is already conforming with a use that is already
conforming. He thought that it would create a back lot type of situation and make
nonconforming lots for no particular reason.
Mr. King agreed, saying that it seems to be a change to the character to the neighborhood to stick
a house back there which feels like it is in somebody else's backyard in a medium density
residential zone (MDR); it seems packed in.
Mr. Lesser responded that Lot B meets all the other requirements except one, lot frontage. It
meets all the other lot requirements for MDR.
Mr. Vignaux asked how big the lot to the east was and Mr. Lesser responded that he thought it
was about 80 acres.
Mr. Rosen stated that he thought the character of the neighborhood is that there are a lot of old
farmhouses. He stated that it changes dramatically a few blocks towards town, where it gets very
dense with student housing,but this area has a lot of old farm houses and large lots.
Mr. Lesser responded that he lives in one of those houses, an 1840 farmhouse so he is right,
however, Northview itself was split off from the property in question and it is a much more
traditional suburban development and he thought that in the way it was divided, it is odd shaped
because of the way the Northview Rd subdivision was structured so to some extent he is dealing
with a residual of that subdivision.
Mr. Rosen stated that Mr. Lesser had mentioned that he bought the property a year ago and Mr.
Lesser agreed, stating that they bought it last spring. Mr. Rosen went on to say that then he was
aware of the zoning, and that we have had people come in and seek a variance before they buy a
property so they know what they can or can't do with it. Mr. Lesser responded that he was a
member of the Town Planning Board for 7 years and then a member of the Town Board for 7
years so he is very familiar with the code and he understood from the beginning that it was this
board's discretion whether or not to grant the request.
Ms. Brock stated that we have to do SEQR before the public hearing is opened but Mr. Rosen
could ask the public if anyone had comments specific to the environmental impact.
2
Mr. Rosen asked the public if anyone was here to speak to the SEAR.
Public
Rich DePaolo, Northview Rd addressed the board stating that the SEQR form, Part 1, 8c is about
whether there are pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the area and he proposes that the answer
should be no. Coddington Rd doesn't have any shoulders and there is no official access to the
South Hill Recreation Way in that area except to go through somebody's backyard so given that,
it is questionable that the answer yes is true.
The Board agreed with that suggestion and Ms. Brock had some minor changes to the SEQR
form also.
ZBA Resolution 2014 - 021: SEAR Determination, 403 Coddington Rd Subdivision
Proposal, TP 52.4-20
Mr. Rosen moved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance
in regard to the appeal of William and Susan Lesser, requesting a subdivision that would result in
two parcels where one parcel will lack the required width at the setback line and the other will
` lack the required width at the street line and setback line, based on the information in Parts 1 and
2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by John DeRosa
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King,Jung, Decker and DeRosa Unanimous
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:28p.m.
Rich DePaolo, Northview Rd
Mr. DePaolo noted that he is a current member of the Town Board and will be addressing the
board as a resident initially and then switch hats and will speak as a board member.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he knows the applicant and has worked with him on an issue and on
opposite sides for another issue and he wanted to say that this isn't personal and it is unavoidable
in a town this size that you are going to know people in a situation like this.
As a resident, he stated that he wanted to explain how the application fails on the merits and then
switch hats and explain why he thinks there are implications for other properties in the area and
how this property could adversely affect the other properties in the area.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he has made his feelings known to the Planning Board about the whole
idea of deferring decision to this body but the reason he thinks the application fails on the merits
is the whole notion that Mr. Lesser inherited this hardship. He thinks that the hardship is entirely
created by the fact that he wants to subdivide the property and he believes that someone with his
level of experience on the Planning and Town Boards is certainly aware or should have been
aware through the due diligence process of what would have been required to subdivide the
3
property without the need for variances. As stated in his application, this is an investment
property and the Northview subdivision couldn't possibly have envisioned that somebody would
want to invest and create 2 nonconforming lots 60 years later. The subdivision left intact a
conforming lot and it is entirely the choice of the Lessers to pursue their investment opportunity
by subdividing this property so the hardship is entirely self-imposed in this case. He also thinks
that if the variances are not granted they still have an investment opportunity, as he is already
fixing up the property and could continue to do so with success.
Mr. DePaolo switched "hats" and talked as a town board member saying that the reason he
thinks this property shouldn't be granted variances has to do with the character on South Hill as
it relates to student housing. He thinks that when you look at the market there, there is not a hot
market for single family, owner-occupied houses being built on South Hill. What is happening
now is that invariably houses are either being bought and demolished or converted into student
housing. The Town has done, frankly, a miserable job at managing or overseeing rental
properties and directing where it wants students to live. He thought that the Town has a
responsibility to define those areas more clearly, to engage the colleges in trying to participate in
that process.
He went on to say that what happens is that if this property is subdivided now, there are other
properties in the immediate area, one in particular that is considerably larger, for which there was
an inquiry earlier in the year about subdividing, so if this body sees fit to grant substandard lots
to this property, then other applicants will come in and say well, this is what you did here so this
is why you need to do it again and invariably what happens, anybody who had been on South
Hill has seen the type of development that happens there, landlords will come in and build cheap
housing and pack them full of students and we will be unable to regulate who lives there and
whether there are occupancy regulations that are being adhered to.
Mr. DePaolo stated that until the Town adopts a more rational oversight policy and system, he
thinks that this board and the Planning Board, his personal feeling as a policy maker, that the
Planning Board and this board more strictly interpret the zoning that we have to prevent the kind
of creep into existing, long-established neighborhoods of housing that may be deleterious to
those neighborhoods. Thank you.
Mr. Lesser responded that he and his wife have lived in this town for 40 years and they take a lot
of pride in their property and they bought the property to try and maintain and protect it. They
plan on doing a nice job in upgrading and maintaining the property, in fact, one of the bidders on
the property was somebody who is well known for building student housing and they don't
intend to rent to students although he said that they and anybody has the right to do so and the
town is not in a position to legislate against student housing. He added that he is an academic
and he knows there are some problems with it but on the other hand it is a very dangerous
situation when you start talking about codifying things like that to avoid a particular population
and construing that the problem with doing something of this nature is because you can't
maintain density or occupancy levels or something like that and computing all of those things.
He thought that was a troubling issue as far as he was concerned and he makes no claims about a
hardship or anything of that sort; but he found it extremely troubling to be almost accused that
we are going to mislead or misuse this property and asked that the board make a decision on its
4
merits and not impute some sort of nefarious motivation on their part. He would appreciate that.
Mr. DePaolo stated for the record that he is not accusing anyone of anything; what he is saying is
that a subdivision to two nonconforming lots, even though in this case it may be used to generate
the type of house that Martha Stewart would be proud of,he thought it sets a precedent for
unscrupulous landlords to do the same thing and he was not saying that the Lessers have any ill
intent and for the record, he thought the town had more legislative capability to regulate student
housing than perhaps some people realize, and he thinks that we preliminarily have investigated
that and he intends to look into that in the future as well but he is not casting aspersions on
anyone's intentions but he thinks that it sets a bad precedent for the type of people who might
want to come in and exploit substandard lots for the purpose of building housing that might not
be desired by residents in a particular neighborhood.
Mr. Rosen responded that he did not think that the board was going to consider who was going to
be renting or buying these properties at all, and they would just be considering whether the
variance is justified.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m.
Ms. Brock addressed Mr. DePaolo's remark about the Planning Board and noted that they are not
allowed,by law, to consider the fact that variances are required, so the fact that the lots would
not meet the requirements of the Code is not in their jurisdiction to look at. So they were looking
at other issues to determine whether or not to grant subdivision approval and that is why their
approval was conditioned on the ZBA granting the variances. She went on to say to the board
that they should not assume anything either way,pro or con, for this project by the fact that they
approved this. They did not look at the fact that variances would be needed and whether or not
they thought they should be granted.
Mr. Rosen thanked her for the comment and added that he appreciates that the applicant is an
experienced developer and has come to seek a variance and is not alleging difficulty or financial
hardship,but his opinion is that this is obviously self-created and that this is a significant
variance and sets a very bad precedent. He went on to say that the Code wants people to have
street frontage and it is the way our Code is set up and organized and he did not see the need for
this and all things equal, things should stay conforming.
Mr. King agreed, saying that there are three items on the list of criteria that he felt the appeal
does not meet; there will be an undesirable change to the neighborhood,the request is substantial
and the difficulty is self-created.
Ms.Jung added that Lot B would be substantially smaller than nearby lots so it wouldn't match
the character and Ms. Brock stated that it would meet all the other minimums in the MDR zone
so that is not an issue.
Mr. Rosen stated that it seems the board is leaning towards denying the motion and the motion
was discussed.
5
Mr. Rosen started by saying that the benefit of subdividing this lot cannot be achieved by any
other means than subdividing this lot and Mr. DeRosa noted that the applicants don't lose the
benefit entirely because even without the subdivision, there is the opportunity to expand the
current building or demolish it and build a new duplex.
Mr. Rosen restated as the benefit of subdividing cannot be achieved by any other means other
than granting 3 variances, but the benefit of converting the property from a single family to a
duplex can be achieved without the variances, so some benefit can be achieved.
Mr. Rosen continued with the Board finds that it would cause an undesirable change to the
neighborhood character, and
The request is substantial with 3 variances needed and going from 100 feet of road frontage to 18
feet and Ms. Brock noted that the zoning requirements are 60 feet at the street line and 100 feet
at the 50 foot setback line, so Mr. Rosen amended it to:
The request is substantial with 3 variances needed, and going from 60 feet to 18 feet at the street
line and from 100 feet to 18 feet at the setback line. Ms. Brock clarified that both lots would be
deficient at the 50 foot setback line which requires 100 feet width, one lot would be 85 feet wide
and the other lot would be 18 feet wide;
There are no effects on the living environment in particular and;
The difficulty is entirely self-created in that the applicant purchased the property with the
existing zoning and being in full awareness of the existing zoning.
Mr. Rosen returned to the undesirable change and stated that the proposed lot is much smaller
than all the other lots and Ms. Brock reminded him that it meets the zoning requirement for
minimum lot area so that would not be correct, and Mr. DeRosa added that the subdivision,
among other things, results in the location of a lot that is entirely inconsistent with the layout of
the neighborhood,so in his view, it doesn't so much go to dimension as it does to layout and
location and that is the major problem with it not fitting in with the neighborhood. Mr. Rosen
added that it is behind other houses and in their backyard.
The applicant spoke from the audience saying that you could look at it another way and say those
houses are in the current house's backyard because the current house has been there longer than
the houses the board is referring to. Mr. Rosen responded that those houses have road frontage
so the issue is not the same.
Ms. Brock suggested: This proposal would create a flag lot and there are no other flag lots in the
immediate neighborhood and Mr. DeRosa added that if the second lot were to be built upon it
would result in an unusual cluster of buildings relative to the rest of the neighborhood.
The request is substantial with 3 variances needed, and with 60 feet required at the street line,
one parcel would have 18 feet and both would be deficient at the setback line, one severely.
6
ZBA Resolution No 2014—022: Area Variance,403 Coddington Rd,TP 52.4-20
Moved that this Board denies the appeal of William and Susan Lesser requesting a variance from
the requirements of Chapter 270-73C for Lot A and Chapter 270-73 B&C for Lot B in order to
subdivide into two parcels where one parcel will lack the required width at the setback line and
the other will lack the required width at the street line and setback line with the following
FINDINGS
1. The benefit of subdividing cannot be achieved by any other means other than granting 3
variances, but the benefit of converting the property from a single family to a duplex can
be achieved without the variances,so some benefit can be achieved, and
2. That there would be a detriment to the character of the neighborhood in that this proposal
would create a flag lot and there are no other flag lots in the immediate neighborhood and
were that second lot to be built upon it would result in an unusual cluster of buildings
relative to the rest of the neighborhood, and
3. The request is substantial with 3 variances needed and going from 60 feet to 18 feet at the
' street line and from 100 feet to 18 feet at the setback line on one lot, and from 100 feet to
85 feet at the setback line on the other lot, and
4. That there are no effects on the living environment in particular and this board made a
negative determination of environmental significance, and
5. That the difficulty is entirely self-created in that the applicant purchased the property
with the existing zoning and being in full awareness of the existing zoning.
Motion made by Rob Rosen Seconded by Bill King
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King, DeRosa,Jung and Decker Unanimous
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Rosen noted that the minutes of June July and August needed to be approved.
Mr. King seconded, unanimous.
Meeting schedule
The Board discussed options around the 3 holidays.
ZBA Resolution No.2014- 023, Set Meeting Schedule for 2015
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca's Zoning Board of Appeals adopts the following schedule for
their meetings for the Year 2015:
7
Meetings are generally the third Monday of the month and held at Town Offices at 215 N. Tioga
Street beginning at 7:00 p.m.
January 26
(third Monday is Martin Luther King Day)
February 23
(third Monday is President's Day)
March 16
April 20
May 18
June 15
July 20
August 17
September 21
October 19
November 16
December 14
(third Monday is close to Christmas)
A vote on the matter results as follows:
Ayes—Rosen, DeRosa, King, Decker and Jung Unanimous
Next Meeting
Mr. Bates told the Board that the next meeting would have 4 or 5 appeals on it.
Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 7:57p.m.
Submit
Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk
8
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca,
Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of
the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official
newspaper, Ithaca Journal:
O ADVERTISEMENT
O NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Board of Appeals November 17, 2014
0NN, Mi.)
ondbyhwrfmr� r �
LT°,a"f�rarfrf+'Ttaatda �, '
_�itlrr -
lggQ RIM, f
Apapr d of Kenuledl WW'DURM
sschrrok t.,aura erg„m�aaguarav�p 49
a w&u�ia 1"ws',hpal the r(,')gWrq"'
,nentra of Chapter 270,701
Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Heigh "'° `"pati°"' of tfv'
fma�urr�r9r#tumo: wsrft^,,fur aurefr 9
Town Clerk's Office r r qs,,'k 4` M 10,0 '
�r!r�tw��a�,�0�ruat�m8�V i��6
Pb
215 North Tio a Street rr�""° °�"� tri°� ,k�eb� " '
g No.kSf.•iN�;�7> irasuVti+ap»I-,
� Ithaca NY 14850h��f.M-:
�n� t rate � �orm
L�aa' umnaorz m�egwa ,� ��a
ROM,,the 100
Date of Posting: WednesdayNb5 2014 rtha" r 9/7 3r
g November s I�I` �dmrapkaaY 9/70-73 ti p
C,Ua�# 4,�rr tri �
vdhe vutdrca wmf}u�eapta 4rrfa ,
Date of Publication: Friday, November 7, 2014 ored at'tr", � ”
Y ��Irraak Thr tri.tdiv,xr�i�Ytr�ts I
�AkerwN**,.tf1x�,t
req t �a+
o 401-81;the„0 p
? poli linea uk1)6%oppp d 1
BifMV Tm 0
p�r,cOV➢fra,51-f-20,WAa"
F
De$nor er i+ ptla,
Lori Kofoid PTA=W,omp's,
Dircotorof"todaa I
Deputy Town Clerk En4tae°lwat,
BO 2,73-1 0
tfiat4
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS:
TOWN OF ITHACA)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this "m" day of
m
2014
Not ry Public
Debra DeAugisun
Notary Public-state of New York
No.01DE6148035
oualified in Tompkins county r
My commission Expires June 19,20 !�
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
I,Lori Kofoid,being duly sworn, deposes and says,that deponent is not a party to the actions,is over 21 years of age with a professional
address of 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca,New York.
That on the 5`h day of November,2014,deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners of the following Tax Parcel Numbers:
1205 Trumansburg Rd.,Tax Parcel 26.4-37,Area Variance
AHC Purchaser Inc Betty Jane Berggren Candlewyck Park LLC
6737 W Washington St 2300 119 Williams Glen Rd 92 River Rd
Milwaukee,WI 53214 Ithaca,NY 14850 Summit,NJ 07901
Aleksandra Filipczyk&Lev Perelman Holochuck Homes,LLC Poe&Paw Htoo
1201 Trumansburg Rd 7 Brightside Ave 108 Bundy Rd
Ithaca,NY East Northport,NY 11731 Ithaca,NY 14850
Bradley Kasiske Nancy Liguori&Lynn Baker Christine&Brian McNeal
112 Bundy Rd 1210 Trumansburg Rd 1215 Trumansburg Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
?urphy Properties of Ithaca Nancy Peckenpaugh Richard Perry&
1212 Trumansburg Rd 1216 Trumansburg Rd Mary Louise Perry Trust
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 1130 Trumansburg Rd.
Ithaca,NY 14850
Kenneth&Diane Schmidt David Schmitt Seventh Day Adventists
4425 16"St 17841 SW 109'Ave 1219 Trumansburg Rd
Naples,FL 34120 Miami,FL 33157 Ithaca,NY 14850
William VanDyke&Mariellen Brown
1213 Trumansburg Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850
403 Coddington Rd,Tax Parcel 52.4-20,Area Variance
Ithaca College Matthew Cicchetti Deborah Wuest
953 Danby Rd,PRW 322 202A Northview Rd W 201 Northview Rd W
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Natalya&Ivan Bazarov David&Theresa Bulatek Jennifer&Joshua Jones
204 Northview Rd W 205 Northview Rd 206 Northview Rd W
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 1485Q
R
Paul&Francenia Yarbrough Dwight&Linda Bowman Emily&Stephen Snyder
392 Coddington Rd 396 Coddington Rd 502 Coddington Rd
aca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Rebecca Golding James Reynolds Kathryn&Ronald Prouty
107 Rich Rd 109 Rich Rd 512 Coddington Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Raymond Terepka&Nancy Stewart Michael&Linda Duttweiler Mitchell Weiss&Martha Hamilton
509 Coddington Rd 345 Coddington Rd 137 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY-14850
Am"N'
Affidavit of Service by Mail Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 11/17/14
Arnold&Margaret Albrecht Non-nan&Mary Rollins Kathleen Beserner
143 Northview Rd 139 Northview Rd 141 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Diane Gayeski Robert Constable William&Susan Lesser
407 Coddington Rd 343 Coddington Rd 406 Coddington Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Ralph Robinson&Bridget Bower Paul Timothy Adams Patricia&Richard Clark
145 Northview Rd 147 Northview Rd 149 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Shelia Singh&Jeffrey Holmes Richard Essen Dennis Bubel
151 Northview Rd 241 Homan Ave 101 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 State College,PA 16801 Ithaca,NY 14850
Sirathorn Balakula&Angsana Pancharoen John Lathwell Leslie Jenney&David Davidson
107 Northview Rd 130 Northview Rd 132 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Felician&Christina Foltman Willard&Jane Bryant Christopher&Serena Savino
140 Northview Rd 144 Northview Rd 106 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
Eduard Shalchzadyan&Susanna Babasyan Andrew&Tamara Kobziar
110 Northview Rd 108 Northview Rd
Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850
By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper,in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office
Department within the State of New York.
Lori Kofoi Deputy Tow Tow Cler
Town of Ithaca
Sworn to before me this 5th Day of November 2014.
No4Public
Debra DeAuglstine
Notary Public-State of New York
No.01 DE6148035
Qualified in Tornpkins County
MyCornmission Expires June 19,20
2