Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2023-02-14Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, February 14, 2023, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. The meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held in -person, at Town Hall, with the option for the public to also attend by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments through the Zoom App. If a member of the public would like to attend the meeting virtually, for viewing purposes only, it is recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube. AGF.NI)A ZBAA-23-1 Appeal of Town of Ithaca, owner; David O'Shea, applicant/agent of 114 Seven Mile Dr.. Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.1 ZBAA-22-56 Appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberly Owen, owners; Andrew P. Melendez, Esq- Crossmore Law Office agent/applicant of 940 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18.-5- 5 • ZBAA-23-2 Appeal of Ronald and Rita Vickr oy; owners; Gary Bush (Spec Consulting), Agent/Applicant of 636 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 49.-1-9.2 INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM: If you have a computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to wwwzc>c>m.us and clicking on "JOIN Meeting", and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929) 436-2866. To join the meeting directly, go to lut ps://us06web.zoom.us/j/85255871576. If joining through the Zoom App, you will be placed on hold until the meeting starts. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY ON YOUTUBE: If you have a computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the meeting by going to The Town's YouTube channel. To join the meeting directly, go to h ips://www yc>u:tube.cc>flz /� h�alaled/IJ("C 9vycXkD61l,Vlil ibC' 7N ./1ie_ Questions about accessing the Zoom video conference should be directed to lkofo d(A)town.nll�ra.ca.n or (607) 273-1783 Public Notice Originally published at ithacajournal.com on 02/06/2023 Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, February 14, 2023 @ 6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga St. ZBAA-23-1 Appeal of Town of Ithaca, owner; David O'Shea, applicant/agent of 114 Seven Mile Dr., Tax Parcel No. 31-2-6.1 is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-61 (Building area) and 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-61 allows the maximum building area not to exceed 10% of the lot area. The existing lot coverage is approximately 52,972 sq. ft. (10.36%), where the installation of a new accessory building would increase the lot coverage to approximately 53,293 sq. ft. (10.42%). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56 C. allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one lot with an aggregate area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet, where the applicant is proposing to have 5 total accessory buildings with an aggregate size of approximately 21,377 square feet. The property is located in a Low Density Residential Zone. ZBAA-22-56 Appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberly Owen, owners; Andrew P. Melendez, Esq- Crossmore Law Office agent/applicant of 940 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-5; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-46(F) (Yard regulations) and 270-205 (Nonconforming structures). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46(F) requires a gazebo to be located at least 25' inland from the ordinary high water line of the shoreline and Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 205 does not allow for a non -conforming structure to be enlarged or altered to increase the non -conformity, where a gazebo has been placed with a setback of approximately 13.6'from the ordinary high water line of the shoreline and the deck has been increased by approximately 32 square feet and enlarges the non -conformity of the existing non -conforming structure. The current property is located in the Lakefront Residential Zone. ZBAA-23-2 Appeal of Ronald and Rita Vickroy, owners; Gary Bush (Spec Consulting), Agent/Applicant of 636 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 49.-1-9.2; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-56 (Permitted accessory buildings and uses), 270-59 (Height limitations), and 270-60 Yard regulations). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56 requires a garage to not exceed a total of 600 square feet, Town of Ithaca Code section 270-59 requires a maximum height of 15for a garage (accessory) building, and Town of Ithaca Code 270-60E requires that accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard, where the existing garage is approximately 672 square feet and approximately 17'2 in height, and the existing accessory building (shed) is located in the side yard of the property. The current property is located in the Low -Density Residential Zone The meeting will be held in -person with the option for the public to also attend 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 852-5587-1576. You can also call into 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 townclerk@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 607- 273-1783. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement 2/6/2023 TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals February 14, 2023 MINUTES Present: David Squires, Chair; Members Chris Jung, Connor Terry, Stuart Friedman, Mark Apker, and Alt. Kim Ritter Marty Mosely, Director of Codes; Becky Jordan, Deputy Town Clerk; Dan Thaete, Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-23-1 Appeal of Town of Ithaca, owner; David O'Shea, applicant/agent of 114 Seven Mile Dr., TP 33.-2-6.1 LDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-61 (Building area) and 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses). Town of Ithaca Code section 270- 61 allows the maximum building area not to exceed 10% of the lot area. The existing lot coverage is approximately 52,972 sq. ft. (1.0.36%), whereas the installation of a new accessory building would increase the lot coverage to approximately 53,293 sq. ft. (10.42%). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-56 C. allows for up to 3 accessory buildings on one lot with an aggregate area of the accessory buildings not to exceed 2,000 square feet, where the applicant is proposing to have 5 total accessory buildings with an aggregate size of approximately 21,377 square feet. Overview Mr. Thaete noted that the request is for a total of 6 outbuildings. Ms. Brock said there isn't a defect in the notice due to an active variance for a 5th outbuilding that was not constructed or placed. Mr. Thaete gave an overview, saying that the project is to install a new fuel station at the Public Works Facility which involves tearing down the existing station. He described the purpose of each outbuilding, saying that there will be an increase in the total square footage by 1 sgft that had previously been granted and the lot coverage by 26 sgft due to the recent expansion of the Administrative offices. The fuel station will be below ground due to costs, and the previous variance allowed two external storage units, but we only installed one. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. SEQR Determination ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 1 Changes were made to the SEQR form ZBAA Resolution 23-1 SEQR Area Variance Town of Ithaca, Owner 114 Seven Mile Dr., TP 33.-2-6.1 LDR Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Part 1 & 2 and the reasons stated in Part 3. Motion David Squires Seconded by Stewart Friedman Vote: ayes — Squires, Friedman, Ritter, Jung, Apker and Terry Determination ZBAA Resolution 23-1 Area Variance Town of Ithaca, Owner 114 Seven Mile Dr., TP 33.-2-6.1 LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Town of Ithaca, 114 Seven Mile Dr., TP 33.-2-6.1 LDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-61 (Building area) and 270-56C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) with the following: Conditions 1. That the project be built substantially as shown in plans submitted to this Board, and That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: Findings That the benefit sought by applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible given that the replacement of the existing facility will not change the existing uses of the property, and 2. That there will be no undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to the nearby properties given that this is the replacement of an existing facility that has been in place for over 1.5 years, and 3. That the requested is not substantial as the increase in lot coverage is 320 sf and the 2019. variance approved 5 of the existing accessory buildings and this variance is adding 1 more accessory building on an 1.1-acre parcel, and ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 2 4. There will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects, for the reasons stated in the SEQR determination; the facility is at least 500 feet away from the road frontage and not visible from the public view from the road; and this project mitigates the environmental hazards presented by the current fuel storage tank, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created because the current facility is in disrepair and needs to be replaced and the Facility is required for the necessary equipment providing services for the well-being, health, safety and welfare of the Town. Motion David Squires Seconded by Stewart Friedman Vote: ayes — Squires, Friedman, Ritter, Jung, Apker and Terry ZBAA-22-56 Appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberly Owen, owners; Andrew P. Melendez, Esq- Crossmore Law Office agent/applicant of 940 East Shore Drive, TP, LFRZ, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Sections 270-46(F) (Yard regulations) which require a gazebo to be located at least 25' inland from the ordinary high water line of the shoreline and the gazebo has been placed with a setback of approximately 13.6' from the ordinary high water line of the shoreline. Removed - and rr r, cootio 270 205 (Non efif ,-m ing stfl ,.t, es) «.h;& does He� , Overview Mr. Squires stated that the Board heard this appeal in December and did not feel that there was enough justification and asked the applicants to return with details of alternate options the applicants had considered. Mr. Moseley noted that the variance from Section 270-205 Nonconforming Structures has been removed and this appeal is solely on Section 270-46F, Yard Regulation, regarding the placement/construction of the gazebo. Mr. Squires noted that written comments in opposition of the appeal were received from the neighbor and will be filed with the appeal. Mr. Varma stated that he had nothing to add but thanked the Board for the additional time to explore other options. Ms. Brock asked the applicants regarding the 2020 and 2021 emails they received from the Codes Department office regarding an option you asked about for a temporary shade that could be taken down and put up, then there was an email regarding an awning which Codes stated would not be allowed if it extended beyond 4' and your proposal was that it extended 6' and you took that off the table, and it was not clear why you rejected the temporary shade. ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 3 Mr. Varma responded that he has had many conversations with Codes, and he honestly did not remember that one. He added that the wind really picks up and the sheer velocity can really move things on the deck and this gazebo has enough strength to handle that. Ms. Brock read the description of the shade cloth, and that seemed a feasible option for the privacy you want, and your response was that "it got complicated." Mr. Varma responded that the person that was going to help was not interested in working with us once he got into the details of the wind and the project. He said that was over two years ago, and to be compliant with the Code, we have boxed in the hot tub, which made it equivalent to a pool and it has to be enclosed. As of today, the gazebo fits tightly within the enclosed hot tub and has sufficient weight to allay concerns of it being dislodged or blown away. We also asked TG Miller for their opinion and we have tried to do what we can in this situation and we do not know of any other option. We have asked the neighbor to remove the camera, and they have declined, and the hot tub is Code compliant and we are just trying to have a modicum of privacy. Ms. Brock responded that the neighbors have submitted a letter with a picture showing the camera is not aimed at the hot tube and showing the view from the camera. Mr. Varma responded that the camera can be moved, and so for today's conversation, or that submission, at that moment in time, may be true. The camera overlooks our back yard area, including the hot tub. Ms. Brock said she understood his point about a snapshot in time. She asked if they had looked at simple solutions such as stringing up some clotheslines and hanging towels while using the hot tub. Mr. Varma responded that it would not be feasible given the space and the wind at times can be quite ferocious and so that is not plausible. We have sought advice and options, and this is the only solution we believe is viable. This option ensures that nothing will be blown off and harm our property or any neighbors, which has happened; other pieces and structures have blown in from other properties. Ms. Brock asked when the gazebo was installed; Mr. Varma said he cannot recall. Ms. Brock asked if it was after he looked at the sun cloth and awning; Mr. Varma said yes. Ms. Brock asked if the gazebo required a building permit; Mr. Moseley said it does not. Ms. Brock asked if he contacted Codes about installing the gazebo. ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 4 Mr. Var-na said he did not, He said he was simply putting a stand-alone gazebo on his property, and it didn't even cross his mind and he did not know about the high waterline issue and he was very surprised at the 25' setback requirement. The awning and temporary shade would have been attached to the house, and that is why he contacted Codes at that time. Mr. Apker referenced the letter provided by TG Miller pointed to an exception to the Code setback requirement and asked if Mr. Moseley had looked at that. Mr. Moseley responded that he had, and the exception is for steep sloped properties such as the ones on the West side of the lake, this is more of a flat topography in comparison. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing and again noted the letter from the neighbors of 938 E Shore Dr. There was no one else wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Discussion Mr. Squires stated that in looking at the balancing test under NYS, it is difficult to grant as the request is substantial at a 54% deviation and it can be done in another feasible option such as a temporary shade or the hot tub could be in the house and so it is also self-created. Mr. Friedman referred to the letter from the engineering firm, which puts the onus of this appeal on the camera and what is our expectation of privacy in the nature of this type of area in which you live. Ms. Brock responded that the neighbors have stated that people are out in their bathing suits all the time and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Mr. Squires went through each balancing test, beginning with other means feasible. Mr. Moseley explained the NYS Code and the removal of an exemption that had been present in 2015 and which drove the requirement for the hot tub had to be enclosed; the zoning code is why they need a variance, not the enclosure or hot tub construction itself. Mr. Apker asked about using the "temporary" options. Mr. Moseley said he had an inquiry about one of those pop-up tents commonly used at soccer games, and explained the word usage in the Code, saying that we don't have a definition of temporary in the Code so we would ask the applicant when they would remove it. If they said they would remove it every month, that would be temporary in nature and that could have it because it would not meet the definition of a fence and would be permitted. Mr. Apker said this was very confusing, giving the options around "temporary" solutions, and again, what is the expectation of privacy. ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 5 Mr. Terry stated that he didn't think it could be done in any other way feasible and the applicants have demonstrated that they cannot. If they put up a temporary tent, they would still be in the predicament they are in; the only other option for shade is to drill in these fixtures with road to put up a temporary structure and they have stated they have worked with contractors and professionals that are not confident those options could withstand the wind. He said that his personal experience on being on the East side of the lake, is that it does get vicious wind and he did not believe that any temporary structure could stay in place and so there is not other option. Mr. Terry then said the question is the setback, and he assumes it is a viewshed issue, or maybe an erosion component where there is a risk of them falling into the lake. Why is that distance important. Mr. Moseley responded that he was not with the Town when that was enacted, but he would probably agree that it was about viewshed impacts and possible erosion and erosion during construction of projects other than this type of request. Ms. Brock responded that she was involved in the drafting of the dock regulations and there were concerns about obstruction of views from neighbors as well as the view from on the lake and looking at the shoreline and the desire not to have a lot of structures on the shore and the exceptions were for the steep cliffs. Mr. Terry said his interpretation of what the applicable part of the Code means is that the Town does not want to cause any problems to the ground relative to erosion and no obstruction to view shed. From the photos submitted, he did not see any obstructions to the viewshed, and, even in the letter from the neighbor that oppose this, the submitted their own photos showing that there is obstruction to the viewshed; it is on the side of the house and not sticking out, it is tucked in shown in those photos. There are no erosion concerns or issues to the ground because it's on top of the deck and not contact with the ground and there is no foundation associated with it, and for those reasons, I don't think that this is causing any problems that the Code section is trying to achieve protect from. Mr. Friedman stated that he thought the legislation probably took months to draft and it is not fair to second guess the process by this group on the fly. We are guessing what went into the drafting and he would defer to the longer investigation and understanding of the committee and boards that approved it. Mr. Apker said that we have received more correspondence in favor than opposed to this and the balancing test and one factor is not weighted more than another, but them all as a whole. The focus was the expectation of privacy when these houses are so close together and where that fits in the balancing test. The issue of the camera and the lack of privacy from that is not in this board's purview as the variance follows the property. ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 6 Mr. Bush, an engineer the applicants consulted, spoke, saying that he does a lot of work on the lake front, and everything that is done on the lake front requires a variance because almost every parcel or structure is or has a legally existing nonconformity because zoning happened after. Mr. Squires took a straw poll of members and drafted the resolution with discussion. ZBAA 22-56 RESOLUTION AREA VARIANCE 940 East Shore Drive TP 18: 5-5, LRZ Resolved that this board denies the appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberly Owen, owners, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Sections 270-46(F) (Yard regulations) which require a gazebo to be located at least 25' inland from the ordinary high-water line of the shoreline and the gazebo has been placed with a setback of approximately 13.6' from the ordinary high-water line of the shoreline, specifically: Findings 1. That the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means feasible such as placement of the hot tub indoors, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood as it is consistent with the nature of the neighborhood density. The structure does not extend further west toward shoreline beyond applicant's house therefore view of the lake is unaffected by neighbors directly to the south, and 3. That the request is substantial, given that 25' is required and the gazebo is 13.6' from the shoreline resulting in a 54% variance, and 4. That the request will have no adverse physical or environmental impacts as the structure is placed on the deck therefore land is undisturbed. The structure does not extend further west toward the lake therefore the neighbor view shed is not disturbed. The size and scale of the structure compared to the house is not significant, and 5. That the hardship is self-created in that the applicants chose to erect a structure that does not comply with the Town of Ithaca Code and are presumed to know the zoning code, and On balance, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Stuart Friedman Vote: ayes — Jung, Squires, and Friedman nays — Apker and Terry Variance is denied, 3 to 2. ZBAA-23-2 Appeal of Ronald and Rita Vickroy, owners; Gary Bush (Spec Consulting), Agent/Applicant of 636 Coddington Road, TP 49.4-9.2, LDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-56 (Permitted accessory buildings and uses), 270-59 (Height limitations), and 270-60 Yard regulations) to keep an existing garage approximately 672 sgft and approximately 17'2" in height, Where a the maximum is 600' sgft and 1.5' feet in height and the ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 7 existing accessory building (shed) that is located in the side yard of the property where they are only permitted in the rear yard. Overview Ms. Vickroy stated that they bought property 19 yrs ago and demolished the existing house and put in a modular home. They did not know the garage and shed were not legally permitted. Gary Bush added that the garage was built without a permit and the placement of the modular made the shed now in the side yard. Mr. Squires asked if the modular home was done with a permit and if so, why the placement of the house was not shifted to make the shed compliant. Ms. Brock noted that there are two issues; the garage exists, built in 1988, and is not compliant. So, size and height is the issue there. The shed was built in 1984, so existing, and was in the rear yard with the old house that has been demolished, but with the placement of the modular, it is now in the side yard, right next to the garage. Mr. Mosely stated that only a portion of the shed is in the side yard. Discussion followed and Mr. Moseley noted that there is a revision to the height and square footage requirements going before the Town Board soon that would make the garage compliant, but the applicants would like to begin construction now. Mosely must use todays zoning regulations rather than. It would meet new regulations going in front of town board next month or so. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Type II and SEQR not required as it is the placement of residential structure. Discussion The Board discussed the history and looked at Google Earth views of the property and felt this was an appropriate request. ZBAA Resolution 23-2 Area Variance 636 Coddington Road, TP 49.-1-9.2, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Ronald and Rita Vickroy, requesting variances to be permitted to retain an existing garage and shed, with the following: ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/31) Pg. 8 Conditions 1. That the garage is not expanded beyond the current footprint or height,- and Findings 1. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible in the case of the garage, given that it has been there for 35 +/- years and cannot be moved; and in the case of the shed, it could be achieved by moving the shed into the rear yard, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in the character of neighborhood as building and shed have been in existence for 35 +/- years in their current locations, and K That the request is not substantial in that the non -compliant heights is a 12% increase and the square footage is an 11% increase, and the shed is only partially in the current side yard, and 4. That the difficulty is not self-created in that the case of the garage as it is preexisting and is self-created in the case of the shed in that the applicants wants to place the modular in such a way that a portion of it is in the side yard, and 5. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by SEAR not being required, and For the reasons stated above, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: - ayes — Squires, Jung, Apker, Friedman, and Terry Other Business: Mr. Moseley reminded members there is a Special meeting next Tuesday. The Board discussed the changing of the dates for the remaining meetings, moving them from the second Tuesday of the month to the third Monday of the month. There will be two instances of shifting due to the Town Board meeting being shifted due to holiday observances. An updated schedule will be presented at the next meeting. Meeting adjourned upon motion by Friedman, seconded by Connor, unanimous. Submitted by ZBA 2023-02-14 (Filed 3/3.1) Pg. 9