Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2023-07-17Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday July 17, 2023 at 6:OOpm 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. AGENDA • ZBAA-23-11 Appeal of Matthew Bollinger & Anne Weber, owners of 232 Troy Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (Yard Regulations). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 requires an accessory building to be located in the rear yard, where the existing accessory building is located in the side yard of the property. The current property is located in the Low Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-11 • ZBAA-23-13 Appeal of Zai Dong Zhu, owner of 106 Briarwood Dr., Ithaca, NY, 14850; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 C (Yard regulations). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 C requires a side yard setback of 15' from the side yard property line, where a roofed deck/porch has been constructed approximately 14' 1" from the side yard property line. The current property is located in the Medium Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 70.40-15 ZBAA-23-12 Appeal of Namgyal Monastery at Du Khor Choe Ling, Owner; Applicant/Agent James Fruechtl, Senior Project Manager, TWMLA- A Fisher Associates Studio, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-70 (Height limitations) and 270-223 (Fences, and walls; retaining walls), for a proposal to construct flag poles and a fence. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-70 limits the height of a structure, other than a building, not to exceed 30 feet in height, where the current proposal is requesting to allow for exterior flag poles to have a total height of approximately 37 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 requires that fencing be a maximum height of 6 feet and fencing is prohibited to cause injury upon human contact, where the proposed fence would be approximately 24 feet in height and have a portion of the fence that has an open picket exposed and can cause human injury upon contact. The current property is located in the Medium Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-10. ZBAA-23-10 Appeal of Phyllis and James Baker (Sweyollakan Farms), owners of 411 Bostwick Rd, Ithaca, NY, 14850; Agent: Joe Talbut, Town of Ithaca Parks Maintenance Manager; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-34 A, 270-34 B, and 270-34 C (Size and Area of Lot). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-34 A requires the minimum lot size to be a minimum area of 1 acre, where the proposed lot is approximately .53 of an acre. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-34 B requires that the width at the street line be a minimum of 60 feet, where the proposed lot is approximately 42.03 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-34 C requires that the width at the front yard setback line be a minimum of 100 feet, where the proposed lot does not provide for 100 feet at the front yard setback line. The current property is located in the Agricultural Zone, Tax Parcel No. 32.-1-18.5 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 www.zoom.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 htt_.ps //u_so 6web.zooill us/j/8- 255871570. 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 hltp .www.youthre,com/chain�c l/CJC C �vycic:V(i1c1VI1:7jhC"(�/livc Questions about accessing the Zoom video conference should be directed to lkofoid,(iz'),town.ithaca.ny.us or (607) 273-1783 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals July 1.7, 2023 MINUTES Present: David Squires, Chair; Members Chris Jung, Stuart Friedman, David Apker and Kim Ritter Absent- Connor Terry Marty Moseley, Director of Codes, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, ZBAA-23-1.1 Appeal of Matthew Bollinger & Anne Weber, owners, 232 Troy Rd., TP 45.-2-11, LDR seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (Yard Regulations) to be permitted to keep an existing accessory building in the side yard. Mr. Bollinger noted that he bought the property last year with the shed in existence and in the side yard location. He gave a detailed presentation with pictures of the structure and a survey, saying it is not easy to see the shed from the road due to the slope of the yard and he doesn't want to attempt to move it to the back yard because there are mature apple trees and raspberry bushes. He also presented an arial view of the property from 2007 that clearly showed the shed, and a street view that showed the heavily shaded driveway that blocks the view of the shed, adding that they do plan to paint it a green that blends into the surrounding landscape better. Mr. Bollinger added that his neighbor owns the property on both sides of him and he has submitted a letter saying he has no issue with the variance. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. DISCUSSION Mr. Friedman stated that this is not like other appeals where the structure was built without a permit and asked if there was anything that could be done to prevent this type of appeal where a new owner has an existing nonconformity. He wondered if there was more public outreach that could be done to alert buyers to these types of issues or a way to permit them to do so without coming to this Board. Mark Apker responded that this Board has to look at each instance as if the structure has not been built or placed and decide if the variance should be issued because of mitigating factors such as topographical features, foliage, landscaping, and views. ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 1 In this case, there are many mitigating factors, where the shed is shielded from view by trees and the yard is sloped to also reduce the view of the shed and the backyard has mature trees. Mr. Squires agreed, saying that it has been there for many years and is very well screened. 1 :O ► 1► ZBA Resolution - ZBAA-23-11 Area Variance 232 Troy Rd. TP 45.-2-1.1, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Matthew Bollinger & Anne Weber, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 (Yard Regulations) to be permitted to keep an existing accessory building in the side yard, with the following: Condition 1. That the shed may not be moved to any other location that is not in compliance with the Town of Ithaca Code, and with the following: Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, additional storage, can be achieved by other means feasible, but the accessory building has been there for many years, and it is not practicable to move it, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties in that the building is well screened by foliage and distant from the neighboring property, and has been in existence for many years, and 3. That the request is substantial in that accessory buildings are not permitted in the side yard, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects given this is Type 2, placement of a minor accessory building and therefore no review is required, and no concerns were raised by the Board, and 5. That the difficulty is not self-created in that the building has been in its current location for many years and existed prior to the current ownership. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes — Squires, Jung, Friedman, Apker and Ritter • ZBAA-23-13 Appeal of Zai Dong Zhu, owner of 106 Briarwood Dr., Ithaca, NY, 14850; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 C (Yard regulations). ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 2 Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 C requires a side yard setback of 15' from the side yard property line, where a roofed deck/porch has been constructed approximately 14' 1" from the side yard property line. Mr. Zhu stated that this was constructed without a permit because he thought a 10' x 10' patio/deck did not require a permit or have other restrictions and that by putting a roof on, it would violate the Code. Mr. Squires asked if there is a penalty for building without a permit. Mr. Moseley replied that the permit fee is doubled when that happens. He added that Mr. Zhu is incorrect in that any deck needs a permit under NYS Building Code and the Town Code. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Ms. Howell spoke, saying that she lives in the neighborhood and is neither opposed or in favor of the variance but wanted to raise a concern about precedent. She said she moved from a metropolitan area where the standard procedure was a builder to do the construction and then appeal for a variance — better to ask forgiveness than permission. The neighborhood used to be rentals and recently all were sold to become owner residences and the concern is to encourage people to get the proper permits rather than build and get a variance. In Person Speaker, The Speaker asked if this was enclosed or screened in or have walls. Mr. Moseley shared a picture showing that it is not enclosed, and it does not have walls, but does have railings. The Speaker said she was concerned about this becoming enclosed and used as living space and the infringement on the neighbors that are very close. Mr. Moseley went through the drawing as submitted and google views of the addition. Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. DISCUSSION Mr. Apker asked if the structure was not roofed, would it have needed a building permit. Mr. Moseley responded that it would depend on the grade, and if it was less than 36" inches from the ground, we would not have looked at the side yard setback. Mr. Squires said he felt that the request is less than a foot and he was in favor of granting it. ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 3 Mr. Apker agreed, saying that if this had not been built, he would approve it because it is a very small encroachment, it is open and although in plain view, the area of the backyard is very small and this location makes the most sense for a small patio. Ms. Jung stated that she is familiar with this area and the builder put the houses very close to each other and there is very little landscaping or trees to screen anything. Mr. Zhu showed pictures of the patio/deck as built with two angles showing the relative size and the shrub that is there. Discussion followed as the Board went through the criteria for the balancing of the request. The main concerns were the closeness of the neighbor's driveway and whether this would become livable space in the future by enclosing it. A condition was drafted to prohibit any enclosure of the deck, with the exception of the installation of removable blinds by the applicant. Mr. Apker noted that he is very familiar with this residence as he has spent a lot of time at the house directly next door and this type of small, roofed patio resembles more of a covered entryway and is not obtrusive at all and has an existing shrub that almost hides it from view. ZBA Resolution - ZBAA-23-13 Area Variance 1.06 Briarwood Dr. TP 70.40-15, MDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Zai Dong Zhu, owner, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 C (Yard regulations), to be permitted to keep an existing roofed deck/porch that has been constructed and encroaches I I" into the required side yard setback of 15' feet., with the following: Conditions 1. That the deck/porch cannot be modified from the details as submitted on the application; such as, but not limited to, enclosure of the deck with siding, windows, or doors except that of removable shades, and 2. That the existing shrubbery be maintained and replaced if necessary, and with the following Findings 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the porch is very small in size and resembles an entryway which blends into the house and is shielded by an existing shrub that must remain as part of this approval, and ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 4 3. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by no SEQR review being required as a Type 2, minor accessory structure, and 4. That the request is not substantial given that the encroachment is less than one foot, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the owner built the porch/deck without a permit, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, for the reasons stated. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Mark Apker Vote: ayes — Squires, Apker, and Ritter nays — Jung abstentions — Friedman ZBAA-23-1.2 Appeal of Namgyal Monastery at Du Khor Choe Ling, Owner; Applicant/Agent James Fruechtl, Senior Project Manager, TWMLA- A Fisher Associates Studio, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-70 (Height limitations) and 270-223 (Fences, and walls; retaining walls), for a proposal to construct flag poles and a fence. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-70 limits the height of a structure, other than a building, not to exceed 30 feet in height, where the current proposal is requesting to allow for exterior flag poles to have a total height of approximately 37 feet. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 requires that fencing be a maximum height of 6 feet and fencing is prohibited to cause injury upon human contact, where the proposed fence would be approximately 24 feet in height and have a portion of the fence that has an open picket exposed and can cause human injury upon contact. James Fruechtl went through a presentation on the requested variances, noting that the overriding factor is keeping the additional fencing in character with the existing pagoda and traditional Tibetan style. He noted that the flag poles are set downslope from the road which will make them appear less tall than they are, and they will be approximately 900' feet from the road and shielded by the existing trees and shrubs. The finials are rounded to mitigate any safety concerns of any person attempting to scale the fence. Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. Changes were made to clarify the yes/no options on the SEQR form and fix typographical errors. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-23-12 SEQR - Area Variance Namgyal Monastery TP 41-2-1.0, MDR ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 5 Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the SEQR form. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes — Squires, Friedman, Jung, and Ritter nays — Apker Mr. Apker explained that he had questions about the SEQR form pertaining to the natural habitat of wildlife species and the wetland or waterbody references and he felt he had not had enough time to ask questions about it, so he voted no. Ms. Brock explained that the water body is part of the stormwater pollution protection plan that is reviewed by Engineering and has been approved by them. 11131*9211,TUMMEW 1► Mr. Moseley explained the "human harm" factor in NYS Building Code and the Board discussed the height of the pagoda and tying the existing fencing into it. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-23-12 Area Variance Namgyal Monastery TP 41-2-1.0, MDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Namgyal Monastery at Du Khor Choe Ling, Owner, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section, 270-70 (Height limitations) and 270- 223 (Fences, and walls; retaining walls), to construct flag poles that exceed 30' in height at 37' feet and fencing that exceeds the maximum height of 6' feet at 24' feet and with finials that may cause human injury if scaled, with the following Condition 1. That the flag poles and fence be built substantially as depicted and described in the application, and with the following Findings That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, that of keeping within the traditional and ornate elements of the Monastery cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given that the finials are an integral part of the fence design, which is mitigated by the rounded tips, and the fencing is necessarily connected to the existing pagoda to ensure control of access to the property, and the added height is necessary for that purpose and to be in scale with the pagoda, and the flag poles' added height is necessary given the slope of the property, and ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 6 2. That there will not be any undesirable impact to the neighborhood or community given that the pagoda has been in place and is approximately 100' feet from the roadway and in scale with the project and the flags are approximately 900' feet from the roadway, yet both are visible from the roadway and therefore need to be in scale with the existing elements, and 3. That the request is substantial in that 6' feet is permitted for a fence and 24' feet is granted and the added finials may pose a risk to humans if breached, and flag poles are limited to 30' feet where 37' feet is being granted, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the negative determination under SEQR made by this Board, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created, but, nevertheless, on balance, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Stuart Friedman Vote: yes- Squires, Apker, Friedman, Ritter and Jung ZBAA-23-1.0 Appeal of Phyllis and James Baker (Sweyollakan Farms), owners of 411 Bostwick Rd, Ithaca, NY, 14850; Agent: Joe Talbut, Town of Ithaca Parks Maintenance Manager; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-34 A, 270-34 B, and 270-34 C (Size and Area of Lot) to permit a subdivision of a lot that contains a historical cemetery the Town maintains that does not meet the minimum requirements at approximately .53 acre and the setbacks at approximately 42.03' feet width at the street line where 60' feet is required and will not have the required 100' feet at the front yard setback. Mr. Slater, Director, DPW, gave an overview saying the Town has been maintaining this cemetery for many years and both the Town and the owners would like it to be a town property for liability reasons and legality of access and in the future, any grants from the NYS Cemetery Division for continued maintenance or improvements. This subdivision allows conveyance to the town and preserves the most land possible for continued farming by the Baker's. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Squires opened the public hearing, there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. SEQR DETERMINATION There were no questions from the Board. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-23-10 SEQR - Area Variance Bostwick Cemetery Subdivision ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 7 TP 32.-1-18.5, AG Zone Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based upon the information in Parts I & 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the S9QR form. Moved: David Squires. Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes — Squires, lung, Friedman, Apker and Ritter ZBA Resolution ZBAA-23-10 Area Variance Bostwick Cemetery Subdivision TP 32.4-18.5i AG Zone Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Phyllis and James Baker, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-34 A, 270-34 B,, and 270-34 C (Size and Area of Lot) to permit a subdivision of a lot that contains a historical cemetery the Town maintains that does not meet the minimum requirements at approximately .53 acre and the setbacks at approximately 42.03' feet width at the street line where 60? feet is required and will not have the required 100' feet at the front yard setback, with the following Findings 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given the intent is to transfer the cemetery to the town and preserve as much agricultural land as possible, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable change in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties as the cemetery has been in place for over 100 years, and 3. That the request is substantial, given the minimum lot size is I acre and approximately .53 acres is granted, and 4. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by this Board's negative determination and there. are no other concerns, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that the cemetery existed prior to the current ownership and for over 100 years. Moved: David Squires - Seconded: Mark Apker Vote: ayes — Squires, Apker, Friedman, Jung and Ritter The meeting was adjourned upon motion by Mr. Squires, seconded by Mr. Apker, unanimous. ZBA 2023-07-17 (Filed 7/21) Pg. 8