HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2013-08-19
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, August 19, 2013
Present: Kirk Sigel, Chair; Members Bill King, John DeRosa, Christine Decker and
Chris Jung
Bruce Bates, Director of Codes and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
There is no audio for this meeting and the official minutes consist solely of actions taken
in the form of resolutionsas allowed by law.
APPEAL of John Rancich, owner, requesting Special Approval per Chapter 270-
28, of the Town of Ithaca Code, to continue the gravel mining operation on a
portion of the property for an additional 10 years, located on the north side of
Mecklenburg Road (NYS Route 79), Tax Parcel No. 27.-1-14.2, Agricultural Zone.
ZBA Resolution No. 2013-024, Special Meeting
Mecklenburg Rd, Tax Parcel # 27.-1-14.2
August 19, 2013
Motionmade by Kirk Sigel, seconded by John DeRosa
Resolved, that a special meeting be held tomorrow evening at 8pm where we
anticipate taking action on the appeal of John Rancich.
Vote
Aye: Sigel, Decker, Jung and DeRosa
Nay: None
Motion passed unanimously
Appeal of Joost Monen, owner and the Town of Ithaca, acting as agent on behalf
of the owner, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-71, “Front Yard Setback”, of
the Town of Ithaca Code, to maintain a home with insufficient front yard setback,
located at 150 Whitetail Dr., Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-163, Medium Density Residential
(MDR).
ZBA Resolution No. 2013-025, Area Variance
150 Whitetail Dr, TP# 44.-1-163
August 19, 2013
Motionmade by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved, that this board grants the appeal of Joost Monen, owner and the Town of
Ithaca, acting as agent on behalf of owner, a variance from Chapter 270-71, Front
Yard Setback”, of the Town of Ithaca Code, to maintain a home with insufficient front
yard setback, located at 150 Whitetail Dr., Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-163, Medium Density
Residential (MDR), with the following:
Conditions
1.That the setback be no less than 17 feet, and
2.That there is no further construction within the required setback.
And the following:
Findings
That this board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically:
1.That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be met by any
other means feasible given the fact that the house was already built and the
only way that the house could remain as is would be the granting of this
variance, and
2.There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the nearby
properties due to the home’s existence in its present location for many years
and that other nearby homes have similar setbacks, and
3.The request is substantial but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant
outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community,
and
4.That the requestwill not have adverse physical or environmental effects as the
granting of the variance will not involve any construction, and
5.That the alleged difficulty is not self-created because of previous errors being
made by someone prior to Mr. Monen.
Vote
Ayes:Sigel, King, DeRosa, Decker and Jung
Nays: None
Motion passed unanimously
CONTINUATION OF THE APPEAL of Rod Howe and Mark Pedersen, owners,
requesting a special approval from Chapter 270-69(B) of the Town of Ithaca Code,
to have a second dwelling unit ina building other than the principal building and
a variance request from Section 270-70 “Height Limitations” for second dwelling
to exceeed the 15’ ft limitation, located at 126 Judd Falls Rd., Tax Parcel No. 66.-5-
14, Medium Density Residential (MDR).
ZBA Resolution No. 2013-026, Special Approval
126 Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel #: 66.-5-14
August 19, 2013
Motionmade by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Chris Jung
Resolved, that this board grants the Special Approval of Rod Howe and Mark
Pedersen, owners, requesting a special approval per Chapter 270-69B, to have a
second dwelling unit in a building other than the principal building, located at 126
Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel No. 66.-5-14, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR)
with the following:
Conditions
1.that the structure be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by
the applicant to this Board on August 5, 2013, and
2.that the exterior design be as proposed and represented by the applicant that
it will have a stucco appearance and the architecture will be the same or
similar to the main house, and
3.that the garage be utilized by the primary residence, not by the occupants of
the second dwelling, and
4.that this approval is conditioned upon the receipt of a height variance;
and the following:
Findings
1.That the applicant has met the requirements for special approval under 270-200
subsections A –L, specifically meeting each of the criteria:
a.That the health, safety and morals and general welfare of the community
in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter are being promoted,
and
b.that the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that
all applicable setbacks will be met by the proposed structure; and such will
fill a neighborhood or community need given the presumed need for rental
properties within walking distance of a large university, and
c.that the proposed use and the location and design of any structure is
consistent with the character of the district in which it is located, based on
the fact that the proposed building does meet the required setbacks, is not
as tall as many buildings around it and is located on a lot that is relatively
large in the district in which it is located, and
d.that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenityor
neighborhood character in amounts sufficient todevalue the neighborhood
property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants, and
e.that operations in connection with the proposed use will not be
objectionable to nearby properties by reasonsof noise, fumes, vibrations,
illumination or other potential nuisance and that any permitted uses in the
particular zone given the fact that the proposed use is a residential use
and that residential uses are allowed in this zone none of the above
mentioned objectionable actions would be anticipated, and
f.that finding that the community infrastructure can service this including but
not limited to protective services, roadways, garbage collection, schools
and water and sewer facilities are currently or will be, adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed use, and
g.that the proposed use, building, design and site layout does comply with
all provisions of this chapter and to the extent considered by the reviewing
board and other regulations and ordinances of the town that the building
code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations and the
town’s comprehensive plan, that the finding is true with the exception of
the necessary height variance that will be considered by this board if the
special approval is granted, and
h.that the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safe
to design and the site layout has adequate access for emergency
vehicles, based on the advice of town staff, this board finds that this
condition is met,and
i.that the general effect of the proposed use on the community as a whole
including such things as traffic, load upon public streets and load upon
water and sewer system is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community, again this is a residential neighborhood
and an addition of one small dwelling unit would not be expected to make
a negative impact on any of those items, and
j.that the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for
the proposed use and the access, parking, and loading facilities are
adequately buffered to minimize the impact, the board finds that there is
adequate allowance for parking for both the occupants of the main home
and the occupant/s of the second dwelling unit, and
k.that the natural surface water drainage is adequately managed according
to good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable town
or local law or ordinance and existing drainage basins are not adversely
affecting the properties, this board finds that before building permits are
issued that they will have to submit plans to the town showing that those
requirements have been met, and
l.that to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the reviewing Board, the
proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site
plan review set forth in this chapter, assuming that a site plan would not
be required.
2.The applicant has met the criteria for special approval under Section 270-69B, a
second dwelling unit in a building other than the principal building, specifically
meeting each of the criteria listed:
a.the location of the second dwelling and the building in which it is located
does not adversely affect in any significant manner the adjoining property
and neighbors. This condition is met given the fact that the dwelling unit
which is being built is only 600 sq feet, and while the building height is
higher than the allowed 15 feet that it is well below the allowed height of a
normal residential structure, and
b.the distance from the proposed structure to the south property line is over
24 feet and the distance from the proposed structure to the north property
line is 15 feet and, so the building containing said second dwelling is
located at least 15 feet from any side boundary of the lot and is not
constructed in any required front yard, and
c.there is adequate off street parking for the proposed number of occupants
in the principal building and for the building in which special approval is
sought; this board finds that this criteria is met,and
d.the floor area of the second dwelling unit inclusive of all floors dedicated to
such dwelling, does not exceed 50% of the floor area of the primary
dwelling; this board finds that this criteria is met, and
e.The second dwelling is located in a building that is an accessory to the
principal dwelling. This board finds that because the first floor of the
building will be utilized as a garage for the primary residence that the
requirement that it be accessory to the principal dwelling is being met, and
f.the building containing the primary dwelling does not contain more than
one primary dwelling, and
g.This board finds that there are no elder cottages or other buildings on the
lot containing dwellings other than the building containing the primary
dwelling and the building for which the special approval is being sought.
Vote
Ayes: Sigel, Decker and Jung
Nays: King and DeRosa
Motion passed 3-2
ZBA Resolution No. 2013-027, Height Variance
126 Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel #: 66.-5-14
August 19, 2013
Motionmade by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved, that this board grants the appeal of Rod Howe and Mark Pedersen,
owners, requesting a variance from Section 270-70 “Height Limitations” for a second
dwelling to exceed the 15 ft limitation, located at 126 Judd Falls Rd, Tax Parcel No.
66.-5-14, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR) with the following:
Conditions
1.that the structure be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by
the applicant to this board on August 5, 2013 and, specifically that the height
of the structure does not exceed 27 feet,
and the following:
Findings
1.That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the community, specifically that the benefit that the
applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible
given the applicant’s desire to rebuild their garage and include a second dwelling
unit above the garage and the height variance above 15’ would be required to
meet that goal and further given the applicant’s desire to reflect the architecture
of the main house, it requires a steeper roof and therefore a higher height and,
2.That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties given the fact that there are other homes along Judd Falls road
with a similar distance from the road that are larger than the proposed structure,
finding that this structure will not appear out of character with other nearby
properties and,
3.That while the request issubstantial allowing 27 feet where only 15 feet is
allowed that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the
detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community and,
4.The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects; and
5.Finally, that while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant’s desire to
build this proposed structure again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh
any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Vote
Ayes:Sigel, Decker and Jung
Nayes: King and DeRosa
Motion passed 3-2
_______________________________________
Submitted by Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk