Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2011-04-25 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, April 25 , 2011 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Burton S . and Tamara L. Markowitz, owners , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-73B and Section 270-73C "Size and Area of Lof' of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard setback line located at 18 Lisa Ln , Tax Parcel No. 71 . - 1 -9. 6, Medium Density Residential . Appeal of Linda K. Nicholson , owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Sections 270-82A and 270- 82E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted construct a porch within the required front yard setback located at 145 Pearsall PI , Tax Parcel No. 54. -2-7, High Density Residential . Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request. Requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings . Bruce W . Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : April 13, 2011 Published : April 15, 2011 FILE ZONING BOARD of APPEALS DATE Monday, April 25 , 2011 7 : 00 p. m . Board Members Present: Kirk Sigel , Chair; Ron Krantz , Dave Mountin , and Bill King . Excused : James Niefer, Board Member. Staff Present: Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement ; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town ; Carrie Coates Whitmore ; Deputy Town Clerk. Others : Linda Nicholson , Steve Gibian , Joan and David Brumberg . Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 p . m . Appeal of Burton S. and Tamara L. Markowitz, owners, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-73B and Section 270-73C " Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard setback line located at 18 Lisa Ln , Tax Parcel No. 71 .-1 - 9. 6, Medium Density Residential . ® Joan and David Brumberg appeared before the Board on behalf Burton and Tamara Markowitz. Mr. Brumberg explained that the property line , as originally drawn , did not reflect the reality of the land . The Brumbergs recently installed lights along their driveway and it turns out the lights and part of their driveway is not on their property. The new property line follows the line of trees between the properties . Mr. Brumberg referred to the survey provided to the Board in their packet and stated that the survey shows the existing property line as well as the proposed property line . He added that his house is too close to property line . As a result, the property at 18 Lisa Lane needs variances . Chairperson Sigel confirmed that the chord length has been used in the past and not the arc length . Mr. Bates added that he had the applicant submit both lengths with the application . Chairperson Sigel stated that he proposed chord length is 46 . 81 feet at the street line . The original chord length at the setback line is 100 feet and the proposed is 89 .42 feet. Chairperson Sigel then solicited questions and comments from the Board . There were none . Mr. Krantz commented that the application was straightforward . Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 10 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 10 p . m . Zoning Board Minutes April 25 , 2011 Final Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Burton and Tamara to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard setback line located at 18 Lisa Lane , with conditions on minimum lot with at the street line and front yard setback line , and finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr. Krantz seconded the motion . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -024: Area Variance, Burton and Tamara Markowitz, 18 Lisa Ln, Tax Parcel No. 71 . 446 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Burton and Tamara Markowitz requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 73B and Section 270- 73C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard setback line located at 18 Lisa Lane, Tax Parcel No. 71 . 4 -9. 6, Medium Density Residential Zone, with the following. Conditions: ® 1 . That the chord length at the street line be no less than 45 feet; and 2. That the width of the property at the required front yard setback line be no less than 88 feet. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does 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 allow their neighbor to own the portion of the land that they naturally use based on the tree line and the neighbor wishes to have all of the driveway serving 14 Lisa Lane located on the parcel for that address, could not be achieved by any other means; 2. That there will not an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that there is no new construction involved and the use of the property will remain as it is; 3. That the. request is not substantial given the size of the lot and the fact that the property fronts onto a cul-de-sac; 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects; and Page 2 of 7 Zoning Board Minutes April 25 , 2011 Final ® 5. That while finding that the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and King. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Brock mentioned for the record that this project was not subject to SEAR review because the action is Type II exempt . Appeal of Linda K. Nicholson , owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270-82A and 270=82E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted construct a porch within the required front yard setback located at 145 Pearsall PI , Tax Parcel No. 54.=2-7, High Density Residential , Linda Nicholson and Steve Gibian appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel commented that the materials submitted did a good job of explaining the case . He then ® noted that the situation is very unusual given the front yard of the property is located in the City of Ithaca . Ms . Nicholson submitted a letter of support from her neighbors . The letter is one that Ms . Nicholson wrote and the neighbors signed . Chairperson Sigel explained that the problem is the Town treats the property line as the town/city boundary line . The porch meets the 25 foot setback requirement from the front of the lot, but not from the front of the Town tax parcel . Chairperson Sigel then solicited questions and comments from the Board . Mr. Krantz stated that the request seems reasonable . Attorney Brock stated that the Board ' s action would be Type II because it would be granting an area variance for single family house . Public Hearing Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 :20 p . m . Mr. Gibian gave brief presentation about parcels in the area . He thought the houses may have been built as factory housing for National Cash or as veteran housing after World War II . The houses are very small by modern standards , which is why Ms . Nicholson wished to expand her living space . Mr. Gibian referred to a 1948 survey that showed the Pearsall Place subdivision , but it is not until the tax maps of the area are Page 3 of 7 Zoning Board Minutes April 25 , 2011 Final looked at that the town/city boundary is shown . The tax maps of the area show several lots in the area in the same situation as 145 Pearsall Place . Mr. Gibian originally thought that the two tax parcel could be consolidated , but then realized that the parcels are in two different taxing entities and could never be combined . However, the two parcels were created as a single lot and are treated as a single lot. The owner is not able to sell off either lot individually. Mr. Gibian asked the Board to consider the lots as a whole , and not just the parcel in the Town . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 23 p . m . Chairperson Sigel agreed with the sentiment of Mr. Gibian 's statement, but explained that Town Code defines setbacks and such as ending or beginning at the municipal boundary . He noted that the Board has dealt with similar situations involving other parcels in the Town . Attorney Brock questioned the location of the shed . She noted that there are two pieces to the variance request. The first is that the porch encroaches into the required front yard setback. The second piece is that the shed is located in the side yard and accessory buildings are only permitted in the rear yard . ® Ms . Nicholson noted that she signed an agreement with her neighbors that she would move the shed upon their request. She explained that her neighbors were concerned with the potential impact of the shed on the resale value of the neighbor' s home . The neighbors do not have a problem with the shed 's current location , but are concerned with it impacting resale value . Ms . Nicholson agreed to the request; she wondered if that could be incorporated into the Board 's approval . Attorney Brock explained that the Board has to decide whether or not the shed is appropriately located . The Board cannot require the shed to be moved if the neighbor asks for it to be removed ; it would be delegating their function to the neighbor. Attorney Brock asked how far the shed was located from the property line . Ms . Nicholson said that it was pretty close to the property line . Attorney Brock asked if the neighbors have anything located on their side of the property line ; Ms . Nicholson said no . Chairperson Sigel explained that the Code permits the shed to be located in the rear yard , but it would have to be at least 3 feet from the property line . He thought that it may be reasonable to grant a variance to allow the shed to be located in the side yard , but did not see a motivation to grant less than the 3 foot setback. Ms . Nicholson explained that she located the shed in its current location so that she would still have enough room to access the back yard on that side of the house . The other side of the house has the garage . She wants to maintain access to the back yard because she had a solar array installed along the rear property line and wants to be able to have access if there are any problems . Page 4 of 7 Zoning Board Minutes April 25 , 2011 Final Mr. Bates asked how the shed was constructed . Ms . Nicholson answered that it is a skid shed ; it sits on railroad ties and has 4x4 skids . Chairperson Sigel commented that the current neighbor may not mind the location of the shed and it may seem reasonable , but a variance granted by the Board will not be contingent upon the neighbors liking it or not liking it. The Board grants permanent variances that are tied to the property; not property ownership . He did not feel comfortable lowering the 3 foot setback requirement from the property line . Chairperson Sigel asked if Ms . Nicholson thought that the shed was located 3 feet from the property line . Ms . Nicholson commented that the shed is not even close to being located 3 feet from the property line . Chairperson Sigel asked the Board for their thoughts . Mr. Mountin asked Chairperson Sigel where he was moving towards . Was he thinking of leaving the shed in the same location with a 3 foot setback? Chairperson Sigel responded yes . He did not mind the position of the shed in the side yard , but thought it would be reasonable to require the setback since the houses are fairly close together. Mr. Mountin wondered where the shed would be moved to if it had to be relocated to meet setbacks . Chairperson Sigel suggested that it could be moved a couple of feet towards the house or located in the rear yard . Chairperson Sigel stated that the proposed addition would have steps down the side , which is creating a narrow space between the steps and the edge of the shed . He noted that to have any sort of meaningful access to the shed that it may have to be moved towards the rear yard . Ms . Nicholson explained that she has been talking with Mr. Gibian about installing removable steps . Chairperson Sigel commented that it is feasible to move the shed if necessary. Ms . Nicholson agreed and explained that the shed is constructed in two sections and it can be moved individually if necessary. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Linda Nicholson to be permitted to construct porch within the required front yard setback and to maintain an existing shed in side yard with conditions on setbacks of the porch and shed , the construction of the porch , and finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied specifically listing how each criterion was met. Seconded by Dave Mountin . Vote—carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -025: Area Variance, Linda Nicholson, 145 Pearsall Pl. Tax Parcel No. 54. =2-7 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Linda Nicholson requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-82A and Section 270-82 E "Yard Regulations " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a porch within the Page 5 of 7 Zoning Board Minutes April 25 , 2011 Final required front yard setback and to maintain an existing shed in the side yard located at 145 Pearsall Place, Tax Parcel No. 54. =2- 7, High Density Residential Zone, with the following: Conditions: 1 . That the porch addition be permitted to exist with a zero foot setback from the town/city line, but maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from where the City portion of this property meets the street; 2. That the porch addition be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board; and 3. That the shed be located a minimum of 3 feet setback from the side lot line. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . With regard to the porch addition, the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that this is a very unusual lot with the division between the Town and the City in the front yard preventing the applicant from using what is effectively the full buildable area of the lot; 2. With regard to the shed, the benefit that the applicant wished to achieve, which is that of locating the shed conveniently to the home so that it is easy for the applicant to load firewood into the house, that benefit cannot be achieved by anoy other means feasible other than placing the shed in the side yard; 3. That neither aspect of this variance will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that these aspects of the property are in-keeping with other nearby homes in the neighborhood; 4. That the porch variance request is technically substantial given a zero foot setback from the Town of Ithaca boundary, but is actually not substantial when considering the entirety of the lot; 5. With regard to the shed, that the request is not substantial given that the shed will be a minimum of 3 feet from the side lot line; 6. That neither request will have adverse physical or environmental affects; 7. That the alleged difficulty with regard to the porch is not self-created given the unusual split between the Town and the City. That the alleged difficulty with Page 6 of 7 Zoning Board Minutes April 25 , 2011 Final respect to the shed is self-created, but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and King. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Other Business Mr. Bates asked Mr. King if he was willing to serve as a member of the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Mr. King indicated that he was . Chairperson Sigel moved to recommend the appointment of Bill King as the Zoning Board of Appeals representative to the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Ron Krantz seconded . Vote—carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -026: Recommendation of Appointment to Codes and Ordinances . Committee MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board recommends the appointment of Bill King as the Zoning Board of Appeals representative to the Codes and Ordinances Committee. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and King. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT With no further business , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the April 25 , 2011 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 7 : 44 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairman Carrie CoittwEs hitmore , Deputy Town Clerk Page 7 of 7 FILE DATE 1 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =024 Area Variance Burton and Tamara Markowitz 18 Lisa Ln Tax Parcel No. 71 .-1 -9 .6 April 25, 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Burton and Tamara Markowitz requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-73B and Section 270-73C "Size and Area of Lot ' of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard setback line located at 18 Lisa Lane , Tax Parcel No . 71 . - 1 -9 . 6 , Medium Density Residential Zone , with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the chord length at the street line be no less than 45 feet; and 2 . That the width of the property at the required front yard setback line be no less than 88 feet . ® Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does 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 allow their neighbor to own the portion of the land that they naturally use based on the tree line and the neighbor wishes to have all of the driveway serving 14 Lisa Lane located on the parcel for that address , could not be achieved by any other means ; 2 . That there will not an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that there is no new construction involved and the use of the property will remain as it is ; 3 . That the request is not substantial given the size of the lot and the fact that the property fronts onto a cul -de-sac ; 4 . That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental affects ; and 5 . That while finding that the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2011 -024 Page 2 of 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Mountin and King . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 25th day of April , 2011 . L)i�. �. �l� rl�to Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE � . DATE 7 11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION Z13RESOLUTION 2011 =025 Area Variance Linda Nicholson 145 Pearsall PI Tax Parcel No. 54.=2=7 April 25 , 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin . RESOLVED , that this Board grants the appeal of Linda Nicholson requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-82A and Section 270-82 E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a porch within the required front yard setback and to maintain an existing shed in the side yard located at 145 Pearsall Place , Tax Parcel No . 54 . -2-7 , High Density Residential Zone , with the following : Conditions: 1 . That the porch addition be permitted to exist with a zero foot setback from the town/city line , but maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from where the City portion of this property meets the street; ® 2 . That the porch addition be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant to this Board ; and 3 . That the shed be located a minimum of 3 feet setback from the side lot line . Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . With regard to the porch addition , the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that this is a very unusual lot with the division between the Town and the City in the front yard preventing the applicant from using what is effectively the full buildable area of the lot; 2 . With regard to the shed , the benefit that the applicant wished to achieve , which is that of locating the shed conveniently to the home so that it is easy for the applicant to load firewood into the house , that benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible other than placing the shed in the side yard ; 3 . That neither aspect of this variance will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that these aspects of the property are in -keeping with other nearby homes in the neighborhood ; o, - ' ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2011 -025 __ - - Page 2 of 2 i - 47 " That the porch variance request is technically substantial given a zero foot setback from the Town of Ithaca boundary , but is actually not substantial when considering the entirety of the lot; 5 . With regard to the shed , that the request is not substantial given that the shed will be a minimum of 3 feet from the side lot line ; 6 . That neither request will have adverse physical or environmental affects ; 7 . That the alleged difficulty with regard to the porch is not self-created given the unusual split between the Town and the City. That the alleged difficulty with respect to the shed is self-created , but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the healthy , safety and welfare of the community . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin and King . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 25th day of April , 2011 . Deputy Town__berk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ` ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =026 Recommendation of Appointment to Codes and Ordinances Committee April 25, 2011 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Ron Krantz . RESOLVED , that this Board recommends the appointment of Bill King as the Zoning Board of Appeals representative to the Codes and Ordinances Committee . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Krantz , Mountin and King . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 25th day of April , 2011 . Deputy TowrCClerk y Town of Ithaca ® TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , being duly sworn , say that I a 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: ADVERTISEMENT : PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday , April 25 , 2011 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Friday , April 15 , 2011 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board ® 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Date of Posting : Wednesday, April 13 , 2011 Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of April , 2011 Notary Public -_ DEB6f AH KELLEY No'.ary Public, :Stagof New York No- 01_KE6025073 (qualified=+ ri 'Schuyler County,_ Commission Expires May 17, 20 Friday, April 15, 2011 The Ithaca Journal TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, April 25, 2011 i, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7:00 P.M. Appeal of Burton S. and 4 - Tamara L. Markowitz, own- ? e'rs, requesting a variance from the requirements of ; Chapter 270, Section 270- i 73B and Section 270-73C , *Size and Area of Lot' of 4 ithe Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard setback line to catA at 18 Lisa Ln, Tax i Parcel No. 71 .-1 -9.6. Medi - um Density Residential. Appeal of Linda K. Nichol- ; son, owner, requesting a -variance from the require- i Se ' of Chapter .270, • ' Sections 270-82A and 270- , 82E 'Yard Regulations of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted construct a , porch within the required front yard setback located at 145 Pearsall PI, Tax Par. cel No. 54.-2-7, High Den- sity Residential. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs, upon, request. Re- quests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearingsis iZ77 . y ' ` Bruce W. Bates - DirectorofCode Enforcement 607-273-1783 Dated: April 13, 2011 14/ 15/2011