Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2020-09-08Town of Ithaca Public Hearing Notice Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 8, 2020 @ 6:00 SP. 215 N Tioga St. 0007-2020 - Appeal of Parker and Calene Gennett, DSSOLFDQWVIRUSURSHUW\ORFDWHGDORQJ 7DXJKDQQRFN%RXOHYDUG7D[3DUFHO1XPEHUDUHVHHNLQJUHOLHIIURP7RZQRI,WKDFD &RGHVHFWLRQ% <DUGUHJXODWLRQV WRFRQVWUXFWDQHZVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJXQLW 7RZQRI,WKDFD&RGHVHFWLRQ%UHTXLUHVDEXLOGLQJWRKDYHDUHDU\DUGVHWEDFNRI IHHW7KHSURSRVHGUHDU\DUGVHWEDFNLVDSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWPHDVXUHGIURPWKHZHVWHUQ SURSHUW\OLQHWRWKHLQWHQGHGVLQJOHIDPLO\GZHOOLQJXQLW7KHFXUUHQWSURSHUW\LVORFDWHGLQWKH &RQVHUYDWLRQ=RQH'LVWULFW 0002-2020 Appeal of Chuck Schwerin, owner of 1036 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-13, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-205(A) (Non-conforming structures), 270-46(C) (Yard regulations), and 270-47 (Building area), for a proposal to build an approximate 17 foot by 20.5 foot addition with a 6 foot by 13 foot 8 inch deck. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-205(A) does not allow for a non-conforming structure to be altered in a way that would increase its nonconformity, where the applicant is proposing an addition that would increase its non-conformity; Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 46 (C) requires that side yard setback from lot lines be a minimum of 20 feet, where 4 feet 5 ½ inches is proposed on the north side of the addition and about 9 feet 4 ½ inches is proposed on the south side of the addition; and Town of Ithaca Code section 270-47 allows for a maximum building area of 10% of the lot area, where the approximate building area is currently about 23% and is proposed to increase to slightly over 31% building area. The current property is located in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Please note that this is a re-hearing of a previously approved variance that was granted on 4/14/20, and an additional 5 feet is proposed in the addition calculation. 'XHWRSXEOLFKHDOWKDQGVDIHW\FRQFHUQVUHODWHGWR&29,'WKH=RQLQJ%RDUGRI$SSHDOVZLOO QRWEHPHHWLQJLQSHUVRQ,QDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH*RYHUQRU¶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¶VZHEVLWHDQGFOLFNRQ0HHWLQJ$JHQGDV,IWKHUHDUHDQ\TXHVWLRQV SHUWDLQLQJWRWKLVSXEOLFKHDULQJFRQWDFW0DUW\0RVHOH\DWPPRVHOH\#WRZQLWKDFDQ\XVRU RSWLRQ Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals September 08, 2020 *Due to Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order(s) related to COVID 19 health and safety measures, the meeting was held via audio conferencing using the ZOOM platform Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members Bill King, Chris Jung, George Vignaux, David Squires and Alternates David Williams and David Filiberto Marty Mosely, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. 007-2020 Appeal of Parker and Calene Gennett, applicants, Taughannock Blvd., TP 21.-1-5, Conservation Zone, legally existing, non-conforming lot, seeking a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270- §17 (B) Yard Regulations, to construct a new single family dwelling unit with a proposed rear yard setback of approximately 50’ feet where 200’ feet is required. Mr. Rosen noted that this is a continuation of the August meeting regarding this appeal. At that meeting the public hearing was opened and left open to allow for notification of the public hearing to the NYS Parks Department. Mr. Rosen asked if there was anyone from the public wishing to speak. Leslie Carrere, Taughannock Blvd stated that they have a gorge that runs by her property and after the Black Diamond Trail went in there have been significant changes and an incredible amount of debris and water load coming down the hill and across the street and it has caused significant erosion to the gorge. They have talked to the Town engineers to see how we could fortify it, but this is an extremely challenging situation. Ms. Carrere said she is very concerned with the vulnerability of the area and any new development up on the hill towards Route 89 causing greater issues and any further damaging impact to the area both above and below her residence. Vincent Mulcahey, Taughannock Blvd, stated that they own a lot on the uphill side of Taughannock Blvd and I believe that all the lots between the trail and the boulevard should be deemed unbuildable. He went on to say that area variances are not unreasonable if they are not significant but this one is a 75% variance which is significant. He said he felt that was unreasonable and side yards do not substitute for back yards Mr. Mulcahey went on to say that we have zoning for a reason, and clearly these lots do not conform and that is not really a bad thing, environmentally. We are in a watershed and there isn’t ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 2 already a house there to be grandfathered in, so it seems quite a stretch to grant such a significant variance in such a sensitive location. Ms. Carrere spoke again, saying that she has met with both her neighbors on either side and both feel very strongly, as she does, against this request. Mr. Filiberto asked the public speakers where they are in relation to the parcel in question. Ms. Carrere responded that she is at 1067 and the others mentioned are at 1061 and 1069. (audio not quite clear) Mr. Mulcahy stated that he and his wife live at 1081 which is immediately north uphill of this lot and they also own the property on the lower side across the road. (audio not quite clear) Ms. Rosa noted for the record that she has not received any emails during the public hearing regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to address the Board and the public hearing was closed at 6:10 p.m. Mr. Rosen began the discussion on the appeal by saying that this has been a very thought- provoking situation and the board had a long discussion last month. He said that Mr. King brought up a good point about the Conservation Zone being to conserve nature and this is in the Conservation Zone. Mr. Rosen said he did have to draw the line at saying that the land is undevelopable, because it is, but any development would be a great hardship. Mr. Rosen stated that he thinks the proposal and variance being asked for is not being sensitive to the neighborhood because they are asking for a huge infringement on the back lot line, which abuts a nature trail of all things, and this kind of significant variance is not justified. He felt there are ways to develop this lot without such a huge infringement and detriment to the neighborhood. People who live there and use the trail are supposed to be seeing nature and not looking into someone else’s backyard. Mr. Rosen asked for comments from the rest of the board. Mr. Filiberto said he concurs with Mr. Rosen, but wanted to say for the record that he felt it would also set a bad precedent for the lots of that section of Rte 89 and the trail if this were granted and further development could occur. Mr. Squires asked about the establishment of the Conservation Zone, saying that it was created long after this parcel was in existence and therefore, what is the legal precedent to allow this denial? This property is not conforming because the zoning came out. Have the courts consistently upheld that? When you change the rules without consent of the parcel owners, is that a legal impediment? ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 3 Mr. Rosen responded that zoning is certainly legal and he is aware that if you make it impossible to use the land, then it is considered a “taking” and the government can’t do that without compensation, but that is why, in his mind, the intent is clear that people can still use the property but the request is just to outrageous. Mr. Moseley added that this is a legally non-conforming lot on record based upon the zoning that has changed, and they can build a single family house, and they could have built one if they met the setbacks. Mr. Moseley noted that there is someone, Paulette Baxter, who had seemed to be having issues with the ZOOM/internet process who is raising her hand to speak. Mr. Rosen said given the issues we have all been having with digital meetings, it is reasonable to reopen the public hearing to allow her to speak. Mr. Rosen reopened the public hearing. Ms. Baxter said she knows there were a few letters sent to the board by property owners that were very important, and she wondered why those are not entered or read into this discussion? Mr. Moseley responded that those letters were distributed to the board when they arrived and are part of the packet of information that goes with this appeal and will be part of the final packet archived. Ms. Baxter stated that she thought they should be referenced during this discussion and easy to find online. Ms. Baxter went on to say that she lives at 1085 Taughannock Blvd and she received the notice on this appeal and she wanted the Board to know that she and her husband are opposed to this variance for the reasons that have been stated by others here tonight as well as the emails sent by her neighbors and family. Ms. Baxter stated that she thinks it is unwise to build on that side of Rte 89 because the traffic is horrible as it is and very dangerous and adding more vehicles entering on that side of the road would be make it even more dangerous. She added that this is a preserve area and should be left alone. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing and turned back to the board. Mr. King said his position hasn’t changed and he is impressed by all the letter we got reinforcing his position. Mr. Williams said he is also opposed to the variance, and in particular, the letter from NYS Parks and their comments and opposition to this variance. It would not be in the public’s best interests to grant this appeal. ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 4 Mr. Vignaux stated that he generally has no problem granting variances for minor things, but when it gets to the level this is, he has to agree with everyone else and he would be opposed to granting this variance. Ms. Jung agreed saying that many neighbors have commented on this as being against this and the Black Diamond Trail is important as is this area. Mr. Rosen asked the applicants if they had any comments to add before the board drafts a resolution? Mr. Moseley said there is a phone number showing, but no one indicating they wanted to speak. Ms. Rosa confirmed she had not received any emails on the appeal during the public hearing or the meeting thus far. Mr. Rosen drafted the resolution and moved it. ZBA Resolution 007-2020 Area Variance Taughannock Blvd., TP 21.-1-5, Conservation Zone September 8, 2020 Resolved that this Board denies the appeal of Parker and Calene Gennet, seeking a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270- §17 (B) Yard Regulations, to construct a new single family dwelling unit with a proposed rear yard setback of approximately 50’ feet where 200’ feet is required, with the following: Findings That the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to build a single family house on this lot, can be achieved by other means feasible given that there is a design that would require a much lesser variance than requested, and 2. That there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties given that it is a Conservation Zone and the intent is to preserve the natural environment and the people using the zone and walking on the nature trail will be impacted by the backyard being so close to the trail, and 3. That the request is substantial, given that a 200’ foot setback is required and 50’ feet is being requested, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced that review is not required under SEQR, and ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 5 5. That the difficulty is not self-created in that this is a legally non-conforming lot and it is impossible to meet the rear yard setback regardless of where they place the house dues to that. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: ayes – Rosen, King, Jung, Squires, and Vignaux 0002-2020 Re-hearing of previous appeal: Chuck Schwerin, owner, 1036 East Shore Dr, TP 19.-2-13, Lakefront Residential (Calculations below include current request of a 5” foot increase from initial appeal.) Seeking a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270, Sections: §205(A) Non-conforming structures, §46(C) Yard regulations, and §47 Building area, for a proposed addition to an existing, non-conforming structure. The proposal is a +/- 17foot by 20.5 foot addition with a 6 foot by 13 foot 8 inch deck. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-205(A) does not permit alterations that increase a nonconformity; Section 270- 46 (C) requires a minimum side yard of 20 feet, where 4 feet 5.5 inches is proposed on the north and about 9 feet 4.5 inches is proposed on the south; and Section 270-47 allows a maximum building area of 10% of the lot, where the current structure is approximately 23% and the proposal would be just over 31%. Chuck Schwerin Engineer, representing the owner was present to answer questions. Mr. Rosen opened the discussion by saying that this is a rehearing of a variance granted in April and agreed to rehear tonight at last month’s meeting by unanimous vote as required. It seems there was an oversight or miscommunication between the contractor and the homeowner was discovered when the plans were reviewed for a filing for a building permit. Mr. Schwerin summarized, saying that the plan presented was a bit smaller of a footprint and that was a miscommunication between himself and the owner regarding how far they wanted the addition to extend toward the lake. The plan at the last meeting was to remove the existing deck and build out about 12’ feet after demolishing the existing porch and that plan did not extend to the end of the existing deck. What is proposed now is to extend to the end of the existing deck which is about 5’ feet further out toward the lake. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m There was no one present wishing to speak. Mr. Mosely noted that he received an email in favor of the proposed change and Ms. Rosa stated for the record that she has not received any emails previously or up to this point in the meeting. Mr. Moseley clarified the change saying that the addition is 5’ feet longer than initially proposed and there is also a deck proposed, a little over 5’ feet from the addition on the second floor, that wouldn’t affect the ground footprint. Mr. Moseley shared his screen showing the revised submitted plan. A1. The second floor shows the 16’ foot addition and the deck of 6’ feet. ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 6 Mr. Rosen said he is satisfied that this is a minor change from the previous plan. Mr. King asked about the lot coverage which is going to now be about 31% and he wondered if others in that area are similar. Mr. Moseley said he could not be precise, but he believes that properties in the area are similar to that percentage. The rest of the board agreed that this is a minor change and they were in favor of granting the request. The Board and counsel reviewed changes to be made to the granted variance and made the appropriate changes. Ms. Brock noted that no SEQR is required as this is Type 2, one or two-family residential structure. ZBA Resolution 0002-2020 Area Variances 1036 East Shore Drive, TP 19.-2-13 September 8, 2020 Resolved that this board rescinds the existing ZBA Resolution 0002-2020 and replaces that with a revised ZBA Resolution 0002-2020 granting the appeal of Chuck Schwerin, owner of 1036 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel19.-2-13, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-205(A) (Non- conforming Structures), 270-46(C) (Yard regulations), and 270- 47 (Building Area), for a proposal to build an approximately 12’ foot by 20’.5 foot addition with the following: Conditions 1. That the project be constructed substantially as submitted to this board in the packet for September 8, 2020. Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that there is an easement for an existing sewer line on one side and a NYSEG easement on another, and any alternative would have required a variance, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or a detriment to nearby properties given that the house fits the character of the neighborhood and the proposed change in the volume of the structure and expansion of the footprint is relatively minor, but is in keeping within the scale of nearby properties, 3. That the request is substantial in that the required side yard setback is a minimum of 20' feet and the north side addition will be 4'feet 5 '/z" inches from the side lot line and on the south side they will be 9' feet 4 1/2" inches and the maximum building area allowed is 10% where currently it is 23% and that will increase to approximately 31%, but nevertheless, this is typical for this neighborhood, and 4. The variance will not have an adverse physical or environmental impact as evidenced by no SEQR being required, and there is no evidence that this will cause such impact regardless of no SEQR being requires, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the owner wishes to expand their house, but nevertheless, this board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux. Vote: ayes - Rosen, Squires, Jung, King and Vignaux Unanimous Mr. Moseley stated that there is an item for next month. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. Submittt *auletle Rosa, Town Clerk ZBA 2020-09-08 (Filed 10/7/2020) Pg. 7 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 24'^ day of August 2020, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document, for an appeal for a property located at: Tax Parcel #21.-1-5 & 1036 East Shore Drive 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 24, 2020 and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal on August 31, 2020. Christopher Torres, Administrative Assistant Sworn to before me on , 2020. Notary Public BECKY L. JORDAN NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01JO6186381 Ouollflea in Tompkins County . My Commlsalon Expires April 28, . .. UWWJbUTS-Ol Town of Ithaca Public Hearing Notice Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 8, 2020 « 6:00 p.m. 215 N Tioga St. 0007-2020 • Appeal of Parker and Calene Gennett, applicants, for property lo cated along Taughannock Boulevard, Tax Parcel Num ber: 21.-1-S, 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 8. 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. 0002-2020 Appeal of Chuck Schwerin, owner of 1036 East Shore Drive. Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-13, is seeking re lief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-205(A> (Non-conforming struc tures). 270-46(C) (Yard reg ulations), and 270-47 (Building area), for a pro posal to build an approxi mate 17 foot by 20. S foot addition with a 6 foot by 13 foot 8 inch deck. Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 205(A) does not allow for a non-conforming structure to be altered in a way that would increase its noncon- formi^, where the appli cant is proposing an addi tion that would increase Its non-conformity; Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 46- (C) requires that side yard setback from lot tines be a minimum of 20 feet, where 4 feet 5 '/a inches is pro posed on the north side of the addition and about 9 feet 4 Vb inches is proposed on the south side of the ad dition; and Town of Ithaca Code section 270-47 allows for a maximum building area of 10% of the lot area, where the approximate building area is currently about 23% and Is proposed to increase to slightly over 31% building area. The cur rent property 'orated -n the Lakefront Residential Zone Please note that this is a re-hearing of a previously approved ^^""lance that was grant^ on 4/14/20. and an adoitior^l 5 feet Is proposed in the addition calculation. Due to public health and safety concerns related to ' COVID-19. .the Board of Appeals vylll not be meeting in-person. Inaccordance with the Gover nor's Executive Order 202.1. The meeting will be held bv video conferencingthrough the Zoom App- The meeting can be ac cessed and you can provide comments during the pub- He hearing by going to wwyfyf zoom.US n Join Meeting - Meeting ID 94^393-1973^ You can also call in to the Zoom meeting by phone at -^l (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. . more information on how to access the meeting and project application/meeting materials, or how to submit a comment before or dur ing the meeting, please vis it the Town of Ithaca swebsite and click on Meet ing Agendas. If there are any questions pertaining ^ this public hearing, contact Marty Moseley at mmoseleyOtown.lthaca.ny.us or ^73-1721 option P 2. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement 8/31/2020 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 V/ to» ii.ithaca.ny.us All comments become part of the official record. Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 08, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga St. Due to public health and safety concerns related to C0VID-I9, 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 smarlphone. 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 feel, 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 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, September 8, 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 smart-phone, 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). 0002-2020 Appeal of Chuck Schwerin, owner of 1036 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-13, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-205(A) (Non-conforming structures), 270-46(C) (Yard regulations), and 270-47 (Building area), for a proposal to build an approximate 17 foot by 20.5 foot addition with a 6 foot by 13 foot 8 inch deck. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-205(A) does not allow for a non-conforming structure to be altered in a way that would increase its nonconformity, where the applicant is proposing an addition that would increase its non-conformity; Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 46 (C) requires that side yard setback from lot lines be a minimum of 20 feet, where 4 feet 5 ½ inches is proposed on the north side of the addition and about 9 feet 4 ½ inches is proposed on the south side of the addition; and Town of Ithaca Code section 270-47 allows for a maximum building area of 10% of the lot area, where the approximate building area is currently about 23% and is proposed to increase to slightly over 31% building area. The current property is located in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Please note that this is a re-hearing of a previously approved variance that was granted on 4/14/20, and an additional 5 feet is proposed in the addition calculation. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement Director of Code Enforcement