The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Packet 2019-11-12Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, November 12, 2019 @ 6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga St. 0012-2019 Appeal of Sanjeev Bhojraj, owner of 1031 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel No. 21.- 1-19, is requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code, section 270-205 A, Nonconforming structures, to be allowed to change the roof line of their boat house. Section 270-205 A, states no such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. Bruce Bates Director of Code Enforcement ZBA 2019-11-12 (Approved 11/13) Pg. 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, November 12, 2019@ 6:00 p.m. Minutes Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members Bill King, Chris Jung, Caren Rubin, George Vignaux and Alternates David Squires and David Filiberto Staff: Bruce Bates, and Marty Mosely, Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Lorraine Moynahan- Schmitt, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m. Item 1 0012-2019 Appeal of Sanjeev Bhojraj, owner of 1031 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel No. 21.-1-19, is requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code, section 270-205 A, Nonconforming structures, to be allowed to change the roof line of their boat house. Section 270-205 A, states no such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity. Mr. Bhojrai gave a brief overview stating that the boat house currently has a flat roof and he would like to have a gabled or sloped roof to help with snow load and the aesthetics of the structure. There will not be any additional useable space or change in use. The increase is size is approximately 4’ feet taller when including the existing base for the roof. Mr. Rosen stated that this boathouse has sides which are no longer allowed which makes this a legally non-conforming structure which needs a variance to increase the height of it. Mr. Vignaux began the discussion saying he visited the site and having a roof as described would definitely improve the look of the structure and therefore the neighborhood aesthetics. He did not believe the increase was significant and the variance would be a benefit to the applicant and the neighbors. Mr. Filiberto agreed, saying he is a boater and sloped roofs are much more attractive. Ms. Ruben said the height extension is negligible at approximately 2-4 feet, so it is minimal and attractive. Ms. Jung also agreed with the others, saying overall it is an insignificant change and gables are better than shed-type roofs and will make the boathouse look more like a boathouse than a shed. Mr. King agreed also, saying the variance is not substantial and will improve the aesthetics of the property. ZBA 2019-11-12 (Approved 11/13) Pg. 2 Mr. Rosen stated that it is an insignificant increase to the building’s volume and an improvement in the aesthetics and only necessitated by the non-conformity which is related to the sides of the boathouse. Mr. Squires said he has no objections to the variance. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. There was no one present, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Schmitt stated that this is Type 2 and no SEQR required. ZBA Resolution 0012-2019 Area Variance 1031 Taughannock Blvd TP 21.-1-19 LF Appeal of Sanjeev Bhojraj, owner of 1031 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel No. 21.-1-19, is requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code, section 270-205 A, Nonconforming structures, to be allowed to change the roof line of their boat house. Section 270-205 A, states no such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Caren Rubin Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Sanjeev Bhojraj, owner of 1031 Taughannock Blvd, Tax Parcel No. 21.-1-19, is requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code, section 270- 205 A, Nonconforming structures, to be allowed to change the roof line of their boat house. Section 270-205 A, states no such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity with he following: Conditions – that the building/roof be built substantially as shown on the application materials, and with the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the heath, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. The benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the applicant whishes to have a sloped or gable roof which cannot be done without a small increase to the height and mass of the structure, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood given that the character or to nearby properties in that the increase is approximately 2’4” feet in height above the existing structure which has been in existence for quite a long time and the increase will not impair the viewshed given that the sides of the structure are already in existence and the change in roof will be aesthetically pleasing compared to the existing roof, and ZBA 2019-11-12 (Approved 11/13) Pg. 3 3. That the request is not substantial given that reasons stated above, and 4. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wants a sloped roof. Vote: ayes – Rosen, Ruben, King, Jung and Vignaux Item 2 Discuss and vote upon a request to rehear Appeal 0009-2019, appeal of Tenzin Pelmo, 1322 Hanshaw Rd, requesting an 8’ foot fence where 6’ feet is allowed and placement within the 10’ ROW. Mr. Rosen began by saying he did not think a rehearing is warranted. He stated that the town has spent a huge amount of time with the applicant trying to explain things to her as well as attorney and board time and for her to now say she didn’t have enough information is simply not true. He added that he doesn’t see how any new information could be there other than what has been discussed and the effect she wants to achieve cannot be achieved. Ms. Ruben stated that it does not seem the applicant has a counter offer to what she was originally asking for and it seems she just wants another chance to try and justify her request and she thought the board understood the request correctly and reviewed and discussed it at length at the meeting. Mr. Bates stated that he thinks there is a language barrier and he did go to the property and there is a significant drop off to the road and even with an 8’ foot fence, 2’ feet of it would be “eaten up” by that drop off. Mr. Vignaux stated that the effect she wants, privacy for her upstairs windows, could be accomplished by curtains and the 8’ foot fence, as discussed, would not get her that privacy effect given the house across the street is higher up than hers. He added that he understood the request fully at the last meeting. Mr. Rosen stated that he did not think any addition information would be “new” or make a difference to the conversation and determination the board previously made. Mr. Bates stated that the information may not be new, but more of it and the applicant felt she didn’t present a very good case and she thought she was giving the board all the information you wanted at the time. She just didn’t understand the process. She would like to negotiate. Mr. Rosen agreed, saying she is trying to negotiate, and we gave her plenty of opportunity to table the appeal and come back, which she refused. Mr. Filiberto said the question would be is she going to change her application or the same scenario, and if it is the same scenario, the board discussed it at length and voted. The board discussed the reasons for denying the appeal at the last meeting and other means feasible to her to gain the privacy she desires; there is a gap in the hedgerow which could be replanted or curtains. Most members had visited the site and did not see the need or desirability of the request and restated the detriments to the neighborhood they felt would occur. Mr. King stated that he does think she was confused about the information she was conveying but there isn't any way she is going to achieve what she wants with the larger height fence. He said he wouldn't object if she wants another hearing though. Ms. Jung stated that she feels like what I am here for is to listen to people and if 1 don't have all the information, I would be open to hearing it. Ms. Ruben staled that since the applicant is not changing what she is asking for, the height and placement, she didn't see what additional information she would have on it that would change the determination of the board. She added that the board did take good deal of time to explain that she could ask for a continuance then and come back with further information if she felt that would help her case and she chose not to. She was not in favor of rehearing the appeal. Mr. Vignaux staled that he did go to the property but was then unable to attend the original hearing and he would therefore like to recuse himself from this vole to rehear. Mr. Squires stated that he could see no Justification in the appeal because there were ways to solve the hardship and rehearing the appeal would set a terrible precedent. Mr. Rosen called for a vote. Determination to rehear the appeal - Ayes - King and Jung, Nays - Ruben, Filiberto and Rosen Motion failed. Meeting was adjourned upon motion and a second at 6:33 p.m. Submiu^^y Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk ZBA 2019-11-12 (Approved 11/13) Pg. 4