Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2022-12-13Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 6:OOpm 215 N. Tioga St. • ZBAA-22-56 Appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberly Owen, owners; Andrew P. Melendez, Esq, agent; of 940 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-5 • ZBAA-22-129 Appeal of Matthieu & Skylar Colle, owners of 121 Flillcrest Drive, Tax Parcel No. 26.4-15 • ZBAA-22-131 Appeal of James & Jacqueline Yaggie, owners of 325 Bostwick Road, Tax Parcel No. 31.-5-1.21. • Board to discuss and vote on the proposed 2023 ZBA meeting schedule • Discuss and recommend Chair of the ZBA for 2023 • Discuss training hours for existing ZBA members for the year 2022 ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS December 13, 2022 Minutes Board Members Present: David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, and Mark Apker Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-22-56 Appeal of Shan Varma and Kimberly Owen, owners; Andrew P. Melendez, Agent; 940 East Shore Drive, TP 18.-5-5, LFR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Sections 270-46(F) (Nonconforming structures) which requires a gazebo to be located at least 25' feet inland from the ordinary high-water line of the shoreline where the gazebo has been placed within 13.6' and Section 270-205 (Yard Regulations) which prohibits a non -conforming structure to be enlarged or altered to increase the non -conformity. A gazebo has been placed and the deck has been increased by approximately 32' square feet, enlarging the nonconformity. Overview Mr. Melendez gave an overview saying that the appeal came from the owners placing a gazebo over the existing hot tub in an effort to gain some privacy from security cameras on the neighbors house that were directed towards them, as well as the decking which the owners believed was done to Code, but it was discovered that it was not, and so we seek to rectify that as well. Mr. Moseley stated for the record that after further research, Chapter 270-205(a) specifically identifies that the non -conformity would be increased, but, under Chapter 272 23.1, Porches and Carports and dealing with open -roof areas, the zoning does not apply to the deck based upon the height of the deck from ground level. The remaining item is the distance from the high-water mark of the shoreline. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Virginia Augusta, spoke, saying that the obstruction of the fencing around the hot tub and the hot tub itself are within the setback and should have been reviewed. The view is obstructed and the viewshed of the public walking the railroad tracks and neighbors should not be permitted to crowd what little space we have between us. It is literally 5' feet from our house and it makes noise and we can't open the windows. We are on the lake all the time and the expectation of privacy in a hot tub in the close quarters we have down at the shore is not realistic and the cameras they complain about are one of a series of cameras protecting our property. ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 2 Mr. Augusta added that the need for a 10'foot fence in very intrusive and very obstructive and the fence and the gazebo are within the high-water mark. Discussion Mr. Moseley explained the issue. The deck is non -conforming, so the hot tub and the gazebo are on the preexisting nonconforming deck. The portion of the deck that was added was not increasing the nonconformity of the deck. Mr. Apker said it essentially is grandfathered in and the deck was not built under a permit, but the addition did not actually increase the nonconformity. Discussion followed. The measurements are 13.6 feet and 22.4' feet from the shoreline on the survey which shows you the lowest and the highest. Mr. Melendez stated that there is not increase horizontally by placing the gazebo on the deck. Mr. Squires reopened the public hearing to address the increase in the conformity of the deck. Ms. Augusta spoke again, showing pictures she had submitted to the Board which show it adds volume and obstructs the viewshed. Mr. Augusta added that there was a lengthy process to determine the high-water mark when they installed their seawall. Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. Board discussion continued with Mr. Friedman saying he is familiar with the challenges of living so close to each other and buying a house on the lakefront that type of non -privacy is expected and whether it is a good idea or not, we have the Code to follow. Mr. Apker said he agrees, except that is what a variance request is for; to use the balancing test to see if the variance from the Code is acceptable; although he didn't think it was quite there for him either. Ms. Brock restated the two variances; increasing the volume in the area of the deck which is non- conforming and the distance from the high-water line. Ms. Brock added that there are laws specifically stating that people should not be walking on the railroad tracks and therefore, the Board should not consider the viewshed impact from walkers on those tracks. Ms. Jung said she is inclined against the nonconformity. Mr. David stated that it appears by straw poll that the appeal would not be granted. ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 3 Ms. Brock stated that SEQR is not required as it is Type 2; minor accessory residential structures. Determination As the Board drafted a resolution of denial, it was determined that there were no alternatives presented to achieve the desired result. Discussion followed on how to provide guidance on how to make something compliant. Ms. Brock stated that the Board cannot give alternatives, but, if the Board wants more information on how to consider the appeal, such as what alternatives the applicants have discussed and considered. Mr. Apker asked the applicants and said they are not in a position to discuss other options as this is the one we landed on and there aren't a lot of them available given the dimensions of the existing deck and the topography and limited area of the lot. The applicants requested additional time to explore other options and provide the Board with why some other options were discarded or not considered. Mr. Squires moved to adjourn the appeal until no later than the February 2023 meeting to provide additional information, seconded by Mr. Apker; unanimous. ZBAA-22-129 Appeal of Matthieu & Skylar Colle, owners 121 Hillcrest Drive, TP 26.4-15, MDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section, 270-71(A) and (F) (Yard Regulations) to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a front yard setback of approximately 4.5' feet and the attached garage would be set back approximately 9.9' feet where 25' feet which is required for both. Overview Mr. and Ms. Colle gave a PowerPoint presentation showing that original plan as granted by the previous variance and how the siting was changed. He believes the stakes were moved during excavation by the contractor and the encroachment increased more than the variance granted. He noted that the house is compliant on the southwest of the lot, but they are not within the variance due to the shift in the placement of the structures. Discussion Ms. Brock noted that the measurement begins at the end of Hill Crest Dr., and not necessarily the gravel that may or may not be extended beyond that. Public Hearing ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 4 Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Robert Champion spoke, saying that he is the contractor, and he wanted to publicly apologize for this error, adding that he has done a lot of work in Ithaca and never on such a difficult site. It was easy to see the side property lines, and there was no room for error and once the foundation was laid out, we should have remeasured everything. He added that they used the architect's numbers and should have considered the edge of the road and the earth moving that was taking place. He said it has been horrible for his clients and he and his workers and subcontractors really appreciate their support and hope the Board will grant this requested variance to rectify the mistake made by him. Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. Determination ZBA Resolution 2022-129 Area Variance 121 Hillcrest Drive, Tax Parcel No. 26.4-15 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Matthieu & Skylar Colle, 121 Hillcrest Drive, TP 26.4-15 by reaffirming ZBA Resolution 0022-2021, granting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-71(A) and 270-71(F) (Yard Regulations) where the front yard requirements are: house be not less than 25' feet in depth, as measured to the front yard property boundary line and 4.5' feet is requested and section 270-71(F) which requires an attached or detached garage be no less than 25' from the front property boundary line, where 9.9'feet is requested, with the following amendments: Conditions That the house be constructed and sited as currently placed, with the house being no closer than 4.5' feet from the property line, where 7' feet was originally granted and the garage be no closer than 9.9' feet from the property line, where 17' feet was originally granted, and with the following Findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically The benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible given the steep slope of the lot as it falls from the road and the large trees which would have to be cut to meet the Code requirements, and that an error was made in measuring by the contractor after the substantial amount of fill was added to the site, and ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 5 2. That there will not be any undesirable change to the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties given that the adjacent property to the south has similar setbacks and other homes further south appear to also be within the required setbacks to the property line, and That the request is substantial in that the required front yard must be at least 25' feet in depth and the request is for 4.5' feet for the house and 25' feet is required for the attached garage where 9.9' feet is requested, however, this is mitigated by the fact that the road is a narrow single track private road with very little traffic with abundant vegetation between the road and the proposed home shielding the home from travelers giving a sense of it being further from the road, and 4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects given that no SEQR is required, and the applicant is attempting to minimize the amount fill and number of trees to be cut when building the home, and 5. That the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build closer to the road, but that is exacerbated by the constraints of the topography, the error made by the contractor. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes — Squires, Jung, Apker, and Friedman ZBAA-22-131 Appeal of James & Jacqueline Yaggie, 325 Bostwick Road, TP 31.-5-1.21, LDR; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Sections 270-59 (Height limitations) and 270- 60(E)(2) (Yard regulations to be permitted to keep an accessory building that is 24' feet tall where 15' is permitted and to keep it in the front yard, which is prohibited. Overview Mr. Moseley noted for the record that the Codes department issued a building permit and certificate of compliance in 2020 in error for this structure. He said the process errors were made by the Town and he contacted the applicant to start this variance process. Mr. Yaggie was available for questions. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to address the Board and the hearing was closed. Determination The Board noted that this is a great distance from the road and the barn actually screens the house and the topography makes it look smaller than it is and blends into the rural landscape, ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 6 with the house to the east substantially far away. Ms. Jung added that the barn takes the focus off of the water tower and you can't see the bottom of the barn and there is a lot of new plantings around it. The nature of the neighborhood is agricultural and rural and there was no impact to the character. She added that if this was coming before the Board prior to it being built, given the topography of the property, there are most likely sever limitations due to the slope and existing stream which would probably require a lot of excavation and possibly taking down of mature trees, increasing erosion concerns. Mr. Mosely stated that the Conservation Zone is contiguous, and the Ag Zone is about 2,500 feet away. There is a stream on the property, but the barn is well outside the stream setback. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-22-131 Area Variance 325 Bostwick Road, TP 31.-5-1.21, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of James & Jacqueline Yaggie seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Sections 270-59 (Height limitations) and 270-60(E)(2) (Yard regulations) to be permitted to keep an existing accessory building that is 24' feet tall where l 5' is permitted and to keep it in the front yard, which is prohibited, with the following Findings 1. That there benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given that the structure was built under an approved building permit and issued a certificate of occupancy in error by the Town Code's Department, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties as the building is a substantial distance from the road and the neighboring parcel has a water tank on it and the property is only approximately 2,500 feet away from the Ag Zone which allows barns in the front yard, and 3. That the request is substantial in that the structure is 9' feet taller than allowed and is in the front yard where it is not permitted, and 4. That the request will have no environmental effects as SEQR is not required as a Type 2 action, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that that is where the applicant wanted the barn is location and size, but, nevertheless, this Board finds that the benefit outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes — Squires, Jung, Apker, and Friedman ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 511) Pg. 7 Other Discussion: 0 2023 Z13A meeting schedule Motion made by Mr. Squires, seconded by Ms. Jung to retain the current scliedule�, unaninmus. Recornmendation of'(' 1hair for 2023 Motion inne by Mr. Apker, seconded, by Mr. Friedman to recoMmend David Squires be reappointed as Chair Im 2023; unanim()us. * Discuss training oppoilunifies and requirements Mr. Moseley reviewed training opportunities for the Board. Subn d 1) V, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk ZBA 2022-12-13 (Filed 5/1) llg7