HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2020-08-11Town of Ithaca
Public Hearing Notice
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 11, 2020 @ 6:00 p.m.
215 N Tioga St.
0007-2020 - Appeal of Parker and Calene Gennett, applicants, for property located along
Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel Number: 21.-1-5, are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca
Code section, 270-17 B. (Yard regulations) to construct a new single family dwelling unit.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-17 B. requires a building to have a rear yard setback of 200
feet. The proposed rear yard setback is approximately 50 feet, measured from the western
property line to the intended single family dwelling unit. The current property is located in the
Conservation Zone District.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of Appeals will
not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 202.1. The
meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The meeting can be accessed
and you can provide comments during the public hearing by going to www.zoom.us - Join
Meeting - Meeting ID 944-393-1973. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting by telephone at
+1 (929 436 2866) to listen to the meeting and provide comments during the public hearing. You
can also provide comments via email before and during the meeting to Town Clerk Paulette Rosa
at clerk@town.ithaca.ny.us. For more information on how to access the meeting and project
application/meeting materials, or how to submit a comment before or during the meeting, please
visit the Town of Ithaca’s website and click on Meeting Agendas. If there are any questions
pertaining to this public hearing, contact Marty Moseley at mmoseley@town.ithaca.ny.us or
273-1721 option # 2.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 1
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 11, 2020 @ 6:00 p.m.
Minutes
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members Bill King, Chris Jung, George Vignaux, David Squires
and Alternates David Filiberto and David Williams.
Staff: Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town.
Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
Item 1
0004-2020 Appeal of Parker and Calene Gennett, applicants for property located along
Taughannock Boulevard, TP 21.-1-5, Conservation Zone, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca
Code section, 270-17 B. (Yard regulations) to construct a new single family dwelling unit which
requires a 200’ foot rear yard setback and the proposed setback would be approximately 50’ feet.
Mr. Rosen stated that there has been a last-minute development where Counsel has determined
that the neighboring property owner, the State Parks Department, was not properly notified of the
public hearing. We will therefore hold the discussion portion of the meeting, but we cannot hold
the public hearing or vote on the appeal until they are properly notified. We will reschedule the
public hearing for next month’s meeting, September 8, 2020.
Mr. Rosen asked the applicant to give an overview of the project.
Ms. Gennett stated that she and her husband are from Binghamton and come to Ithaca a lot and
had a house in Oak Harbor which they recently sold, but there boat is still here and they found
this property and love it.
She said they love the Black Diamond Trail and used it before it was an official trail, so when we
found this property that was close to it, we were very excited.
Ms. Gennett said they are looking to build a very small, under 1,000 square feet, house with a
minimal footprint. We don’t have an exact plan, but we know we want to be small and we are
looking into a cantilevered style home, which would make the footprint even smaller.
Mr. Parker said the request is because the lot is 157’ feet deep and requires a variance. She added
that they would need a variance for anything at all given the size of the lot and it will be very
different from the homes further up from them. He said they are aware of issues with ingress
and egress, but they would follow DOT for ingress and maybe egress and have the driveway as
far back as we can get it. The home will be aesthetically pleasing and blended into the woods,
we will be using stone, and wood and glass. It would not be this large, white, modern structure.
Again, a minimal footprint, taking in mind the streams and the erosion there.
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 2
Mr. Parker said they have walked the property dozens of times and are aware of the erosion
issues and we have placed the house as far away as possible. The biggest concern is the
highway, and we wanted to put the house as far back as possible for noise and safety for their son
and their dog.
He added that they are looking in natural building magazines such as Dwell, and they have
spoken to architects to mimic some of those styles and they actually really like the one off to the
west of Cass Park that was recently built, but smaller.
Mr. Rosen asked the applicants if the seller indicated that a zoning variance would be needed to
build anything on the lot or if they found out on their own afterwards?
Mr. Parker responded that they found out on their own; it was not listed that way.
Mr. Vignaux asked about plans for a driveway and parking, saying that the plans seem to
indicate a 90 degree entry from Rte. 89 as opposed to a slow, gradient ingress and he wanted to
know what the plan was for parking.
Mr. Parker responded that he has a patient that is the head of DOT for road construction and
bridges and he just retired from NYS and is now working for a third party that the State hires to
investigate and plan projects. There is an entire manual or book on how to do this properly. His
friend did say that it probably should be more of a slope, but it is good that they (DOT) can plan
the ingress and install it, which is fine with them.
Mr. Parker stated that they wanted it to be slanted, but a little bit longer, and we would like to
have the separate egress as well for safety, given that the property is long and narrow, like a
bandage, and this property seems to lend itself to that type of ingress/egress.
Mr. Vignaux asked about a crescent style driveway where you go in an out on the same.
Mr. Parker responded that they looked at that, but if we were pulling an RV or something like
that, it could be 60’ – 70’ feet or more and it would be very difficult to back up and make that
same angle out. He added that they have tried maneuvering and checking that out and it is very
difficult to do that and that is why they think a separate egress would be safer all around and they
had spoken with DOT specifically about this.
Mr. King said that when he did a site visit, the place where the driveway would go is a very steep
bank that is quite high from the highway and then the hill proceeds up from there. He asked the
applicants how they would deal with that steep bank and still keep the driveway very short?
Mr. Parker responded that you would come in at an angle, but the driveway would parallel the
road and then egress out; it is actually steep all along the whole length and the driveway would
be cut into it and then we would put those large, natural, rounded boulders as an embankment
behind it to stop any erosion.
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 3
Mr. King said that it would be quite a bit of clearing and moving of soil to accomplish that,
correct?
Mr. Parker said yes it would be, just along the driveway, because it is so steep, you have to do
something like that or you would just slide right off of it in the winter.
Mr. Squires asked if the property has access to public utilities such as sewer and water?
Ms. Gennett responded that the utilities are on the east side of the road and they have spoken to
Joe Slater with the Town and someone at NYS DOT about a month ago and they both said that it
is possible to tie in.
Ms. Brock asked the applicants if they own the property right now?
Ms. Gennett responded that the sale is contingent upon ZBA approval; the closing has been
pushed back to allow for this hearing.
(inaudible)
Mr. Rosen turned to the Attorney for the Town to ask if the Board could discuss comments that
have been received even though there is no official public hearing.
Ms. Brock responded that the Board could talk about the comments, and if the Board wants, the
public that is present could also speak. It would not be in the context of a formal public hearing,
but it would get their comments on the record and the Board could consider those.
Mr. Rosen said he would like to do that and use the usual format of the Board discussion
followed by the public.
Mr. Rosen said he is one vote out of five and there are a lot of points of views on this and he has
read the letter from the neighbor, but his thoughts are that this is a legal lot, and the assumption
is that it is a buildable lot. The owner has been paying taxes on it; it has been assessed as a
building lot, and there is a technicality which is a mathematical impossibility, which is what the
appeals process is in place for. He said he thinks there are many other houses on steep slopes
along that road, and it seems that building a house there is reasonable.
Ms. Brock said the Board should not be drawing any conclusions until they have all the
information that might be presented at the public hearing.
Mr. Rosen said he doesn’t know if he was drawing conclusions or not, but it seems to him that
the arguments presented by the applicant have merit. That it is impossible to build a house there
without a variance; that is basically the argument, and I see the merit in that.
Ms. Brock said the Board will go through the variance criteria and weigh and balance all of them
and make their findings after the public hearing.
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 4
Mr. Rosen said he understood that, and he was just starting the conversation and there are four
more members to hear from.
Mr. Filiberto said the variance is for the rear yard setback and asked if the proposed house was
moved forward would it solve the variance issue?
Mr. Moseley responded that it would not, the rear yard setback in the Conservation Zone is 200’
feet so there is no possible way someone could build a structure on that lot without getting a
variance.
Mr. Williams asked if they needed a variance for Conservation lot:
Mr. Moseley explained that the Conservation Zone establishes its own distance regulations and
one of those is the setback criteria, and they would be about 50; feet from that setback as
proposed.
Mr. Williams said, then the Town has a setback requirement of 200’ feet but the Conservation
Zone only has a setback requirement of 50’ feet?
Mr. Moseley responded, no, the Town Conservation Zone has a requirement of a 200’ feet
minimum for a rear yard setback and the applicant is proposing a 50’ foot rear yard setback.
Mr. Rosen added that the whole lot is only 150’ feet from front to back, so you can’t have 200’
feet behind any structure, it is impossible.
Mr. Williams said he misunderstood that they were looking for a setback from the road, rather
than from the Conservation Zone regulations.
Mr. Moseley added that the Board should keep in mind that this is a preexisting, nonconforming
lot of record, so it doesn’t meet the size requirements for the Conservation Zone, so any further
subdivision would have to go through this Board and the Planning Board if that was ever
attempted.
The applicants said they would never consider that.
Ms. Brock added that the Conservation Zone requires 7 acre lots, and this is about 2.5 acres, so it
would seem quite unlikely that any variances would be allowed granting a subdivision of the lot.
Mr. Parker commented that they are very sensitive about the trail there and the nature there, but
the idea is to blend in and to be minimally invasive to the area and be unobtrusive, especially
when you are walking on the trail and the road. We have walked that trail a million times, and
there are definitely some structures we wish weren’t there, and ours will not be like that. He
added that they built a house in Ithaca that was all solar and blended in very well and others and
we would build something that would suit the area and we are proposing a very small home and
structure.
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 5
Mr. Rosen said he wanted to address Ms. Brock’s comment about coming to a conclusion; he
said he was honestly just thinking outloud and he wanted to state a follow up thought, as Chair,
that he can also see the other side of this. We are balancing the benefit to the applicant against
the welfare of the community. The applicant, in this case, doesn’t own the lot and there are
many lots for sale in Ithaca, and the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, to buy a building lot,
can be done many other ways. And I can also see the Board deciding, after hearing all the
evidence, that this is not really a building lot.
Ms. Gennett said that is correct, in that we don’t have to build on it; but we are still eligible to
purchase it and do something else with it.
Mr. Parker said there actually isn’t other land in that area because we are looking to have access
to the trail and the bottom part of the lake where we can walk to the boat, via the trail. So there
really isn’t other properties at that south end of the lake. Yes, there are other lots in Ithaca, but
very few that fit what we want and someone is going to build on this land eventually, and he
would like it to be them because whatever we build will be done so there aren’t any issues with
it.
Mr. Williams asked Mr. Moseley if, without a variance, there is any permitted use of this land?
Mr. Moseley responded that there are some recreational uses that could occur, yes.
Ms. Brock added that timber harvesting, forest resource uses, those are permitted uses in this
zone.
Mr. Squires said when he drove by, there were two “for sale” signs and asked if there was an
adjacent lot for sale which would help with this variance.
Ms. Gennett responded that the lot has a sliver on the other side of the road and there was
another realty sign, but they searched multiple real estate sales sites and called others and no one
could find another parcel for sale next to this.
Ms. Brock asked if there is any screening between the trail and the property.
The applicants responded that there is a little bit, but in the winter and fall, you would be able to
see between. The back of the property is not right on the trail though, there is about 50 feet of
land from the trail to the back line. They said the house would be seen from the trail and they
shared a picture of the idea of the house. With the grade of the lot, they thought the about half of
the height, the top of the house, would maybe be visible. The house would be 900 sqft total,
with the base at 10’ x 20’ feet and cantilevered out and built into the hillside.
Mr. Rosen asked for other comments and summarize the concerns raised so far; screening and
the view from the trail .
Mr. King said his concerns are that there are seven or eight lots in this area of a narrow strip
along this road, and if we grant a variance for this one, the others will also want to build on them.
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 6
That piece of land is a significant buffer between the trail and the highway and lend the feel to
being in nature when on the trail. So how do we allow this variance and not allow them on the
other, especially the size of the variance.
He also said in reading the purpose of the Conservation Zone from the Town Code, Article 5,
section 270-10 (a) : “It is the purpose of the conservation zone to preserve the outstanding
natural features in certain areas of the town as described in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive
Plan” and (b) It is a further purpose of the Conservation Zone to preserve existing areas of
contiguous open space and prevent unnecessary destruction of woodlands.” This is a contiguous
natural woodland area. Under (c) “Certain areas included in the Conservation Zones, in
recognition of their natural and ecological significance, have been designated by the Tompkins
County Environmental Management Council, as Unique Natural Areas. It is for the purpose of
this Conservation Zone, to preserve the natural resources and scenic beauty of the areas to
promote tourism and an important economic benefit to the town of Ithaca.”
The County has designate this area as Unique Natural Area #97 and they have also designated th
soil type where this variance is being discussed, as “highly erodible land” so I am concerned that
if any development occurs there, it is going to be destructive.
Mr. King returned to the Code, and said under Section 270-22, Additional requirements and
restrictions F (7), “Visibility of proposed building or structures from public trails within
Conservation Zones should be considered as to minimize visual intrusion on views from the
public trails.”
Mr. King said when he looks at all of that from the Code and consider the size of this variance, I
have significant concerns about it.
Ms. Gennett responded that, regarding the erosion, there is an engineer willing to do a soil
augmentation and erosion testing and give recommendations on that, which we intend to do;
secondly, from the point of what of what is written there, it is contradictory to other things that
are allowed there. It is not completely protected as implied in that. Other purposes can be more
destructive and if someone else wants to do those things, they would be able to. We love the
outdoors and we propose the least disruption. We are trying to do what is minimally invasive and
put a small house that blends in to the surroundings, that wouldn’t be an eyesore or something
that you walk by and feel like you stepped off the trail into the city. We understand your
concerns, but we are very aware of them and interested in keeping things environmentally
friendly and enjoy the nature we love.
Mr. Parker added that there is no view of the lake from there, people on the trail looking up
towards the parcel would see the highway.
Mr. King said his concern is not with the view of the lake, but with the view of the future house
from the trail.
Mr. Parker responded that he appreciates that, but because it is such a narrow strip of land, you
are either looking at the road, or this small house.
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 7
Mr. King said it is a very narrow strip of land and a very valuable buffer between the trail and
the highway.
Mr. Filiberto said that he was looking at the Ithaca Board of Realtors lists in the Town of Ithaca
and this is the only parcel for sale on Taughannock Boulevard that is currently up for sale or
under contract. If a variance is granted, other parcels may be sold and further interest for
development may occur.
Ms. Jung commented that she was thinking along the lines of Mr. King; this is a precious kind of
thing, the view of the trail and this corridor is precious. This variance is substantial and taken all
together, it is troubling to me. She thought building along this strip would change the character
of the Black Diamond Trail.
Mr. Squires said, in his experience (Tompkins County Finance), he had to foreclose on several
parcels along Route 89 with similar odd lots and the County would always approach New York
State to ask if they would purchase them to cover the cost to the County. This happened to a lot
of property that is now the trail and the ROW along there. There is some concern with other lots
that people have been paying taxes on that technically are not buildable.
Mr. Rosen said yes, there is definitely a situation here that if we grant this variance, it would
logically apply to the other lots that are adjacent. That is my take on that and it is something to
consider.
Ms. Brock responded that in terms of impact on other lots, it depends on whether they are
similarly situated, sized, impact from the trail, etc. You would have to look at all of the
circumstances to determine whether variances would be appropriate for those lots or not. It is not
a foregone conclusion; you have to take each case and look at the particulars that that case
presents.
Mr. Rosen asked if there was anyone from the public wishing to speak; there was no one, and
Mr. Rosen adjourned the appeal to the next scheduled meeting to allow NYS Parks to respond to
the proper notification.
The board discussed scheduling a special meeting. The applicants stated that they will be on
vacation at Yosemite Park and may not have service to attend a Zoom meeting.
Mr. Rosen said he was thankful for the information on the Conservation Zone, and he can see
that there are other uses that allowed on this land and there is some pretty strong language about
what is allowed in Conservation Districts and this deserves some thought.
Mr. Parker said there are other homes there, and we would be setting an example for any future
builders, when they see this, that yes, you can build something aesthetically pleasing and taking
into consideration soils, erosion and views. Honestly, this land has other things that could
happen without a variance and would be so much worse than what we are proposing.
Mr. Rosen responded that that is a good point. There have been a lot of good points raised and
this deserves some thought and we will wait to hear what the Park Department's opinion is on it
and anyone else from the public.
The appeal was adjourned. The appellants reiterated that they did get an extension on their offer,
which is contingent on this action, and they were not sure what that date was. Discussion
followed and September D' was suggested but a member was not available. Mr. Rosen
addressed the applicants and said that if they wanted to expedite this, they could not be present.
Ms. Gennett responded that if they were going to wait for a board member to be present, she
thought the board should wait until they are available to the public, because that would put them
at a disadvantage, not being able to respond to concerns from the public.
Mr. Rosen said he thought everyone should be given the opportunity to be heard and to be
thorough and this is complicated and that the date should remain the next regularly scheduled
meeting of September 8, 2020.
Item 2
Discuss and consider permitting a rehearing of a variance granted in April 2020 on 1036
East Shore Drive.
Mr. Rosen summarized, saying this was an increase in an existing, nonconformity to increase the
size of the structure which we approved, but it turned out that the drawings were incorrect and
the correct drawings show the structure 5' feet closer to the lake. The applicants have requested
a rehearing.
A representative from Major Engineering addressed the board and stated that it was a
miscommunication between the homeowner and himself and part of the project was to take of
the existing enclosed porch and then build out toward the lake and he misunderstood how far the
owner was looking to build toward the lake after the porch was removed. It is approximately the
5' foot footprint of where the existing porch is.
Mr. Rosen commented that he is in favor of granting a rehearing, saying that it seems to be a
simple mistake and after reviewing the notes from the meeting where the variance was granted, it
seems the board would not have considered the extra 5' feet material.
The members agreed to rehear the variance application for a modification.
Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Squires, unanimous.
Meeting \^s adjourned at 7:01 p.m.
^aulHte Rosa, Town Clerk
ZBA 2020-08-11 (Filed 9/29/2020) Pg. 8
TOWN OF ITHACA
215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
www.town.ithaca.ny.us
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND POSTING & PUBLICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
I, Christopher Torres, being duly sworn, depose and state, 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 3^'' day of August 2020. deponent served the within Notice upon the property
owners listed on the attached document, for an appeal for a properly located at:
Tax Parcel #: 21.-1-5
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, and
that the attached notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of
Ithaca on August 4, 2020 and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca
Journal on August 3, 2020. ^
Christopher Torres, Administrative Assistant
Sworn to before me on (2^^, 2020.
Notary Publl
BECKY L. JORDAN
notary public-state of new YORtC
No. 01JO6166381
Qualitled In Tompkins County .
My CommlMton Explf«i April 2®.
Town of Ithacak
Public Hearing Notice
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 11. 2020 ®
6:00 p.m.
215 N Tioga St.
0007-2020 Appeal of
Parker and Caiene Gannett,
applicants, for property lo
cated along Taughannock
Boulevard, Tax Parcel Num
ber: 21.-1-5, are seeking re
lief from Town of Ithaca
Code section, 270-17 B.
(Yard regulations) to con
struct a new single family
dwelling unit. Town of
Ithaca Code section 270-17
B. requires a building to
have a rear yard setback of
200 feet. The proposed rear
yard setback is approxi
mately 50 feet, measured
from the western property
line to the intended single
family dwelling unit. The
current property is located
in the Conservation Zone
District. .
Due to public health and
safety concerns related to
COVID-19, the Zoning
Board of Appeals will not
be meeting In-person. In
accordance with the Gover
nor's Executive Order 202.1.
The meeting will be held
by video conferencing
through the Zoom App.
The meeting can be ac
cessed and you can provide
comments during the pub
lic hearing by going to ww
w.zoom.us - Join Meeting -
Meeting ID 944-393-1973-
You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting by tele-
nKrtr^e at +1 (929 436 2866)
to listen to the meeting
and provide comments dur
ing the public hearing. You
can also provide comments
via email before and dur
ing the meeting to Town
Clerk Paulette Rosa at clerk
®town.ithaca.ny.us. For
more information on how
to access the meeting and
pKiptct appllifti^llshAheAfi^
materials, or how to submit
a comment before or dur
ing the meeting, please vis
it the Town of Ithaca's
website and click on Meet
ing Agendas. If there are
any questions pertaining to
this public hearing, contact
Marty Moseley at mmosele
y®town.ithaca-ny.us or 273-
1721 option # 2.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code
Enforcement
8/3/2020
000«BMI<H
You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a
variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing
via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us
All comments become part of the official record.
Town of Ithaca
Notice of Public Hearing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, August 11, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, the Zoning Board of
Appeals will not be meeting in-person. In accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order
202.1, this meeting will be held by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments.
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE VIRTUAL MEETING: If you have a computer, tablet
or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on
“Join a Meeting”, and entering 944-393-1973 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the
Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866).
0007-2020 - Appeal of Parker and Calene Gennett, applicants, for property located along
Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel Number: 21.-1-5, are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca
Code section, 270-17 B. (Yard regulations) to construct a new single family dwelling unit.
Town of Ithaca Code section 270-17 B. requires a building to have a rear yard setback of 200
feet. The proposed rear yard setback is approximately 50 feet, measured from the western
property line to the intended single family dwelling unit. The current property is located in the
Conservation Zone District.
Marty Moseley
Director of Code Enforcement