Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Area 11/9/1994 TOWN OF ITHACA FILED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Dal Clerk,n Not-oSd The following appeals were heard by the Board on November 9, 1994: APPEAL of Robert Fiske, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements, of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a carport with a side yard building setback of 2 + feet (15 foot side yard setback required) at 204 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-6-7, Residence District R-15. • GRANTED. APPEAL of Douglas H. Armstrong, Appellant, requesting a time-limited variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain the occupancy of a single-family residence by five unrelated persons (maximum three unrelated persons allowed) at 975 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-32, Residence District R-15. Said building currently has a non-code compliant second dwelling until located in the structure's basement. POSTPONED. APPEAL Janice A. Cornish, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit to the second floor of a residential building on a non-conforming parcel of land at 509 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31-2-32, Residence District R-15. Said parcel is non-conforming since it contains, in addition to said residential building, a second residential building containing two - dwelling units. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance allows for only one residential building with up to two dwelling units on a single parcel of land. SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED. FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dahl 1 j I 5. 19�'S WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1994 Cl 1 ,Hni PRESENT: Chairman Edward Austen, Edward King, Harry Ellsworth, Pete Scala, David Stotz, Town Attorney John C. Barney, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost. OTHERS: Janice Cornish, Gary Provost, Lucia Armstrong, Douglas Armstrong, Allan Bloom, Andrew Bohutinsky, Steve Lucente, Pat Lucente, M. Rocco & Max Lucente, Robert Hines. Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7:13 PM and stated that all posting, publication, and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order. The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows: APPEAL of Robert Fiske, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a carport with a side yard building setback of 2 + feet (15 foot side yard setback required) at 204 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-6-7, Residence District R-15. Attorney Robert Hines, who is representing Mr. Fiske, stated that Mr. Fiske and his wife have made a contract for the sale of their property at 204 Roat Street which will close in approximately a month for the title. In the process of getting the paperwork ready to close the transaction, there was a survey prepared. The original survey by Howard Schlieder showed the side yard setback of 2' +. The original frame dwelling and garage has been on the property for a number of years annotating the zoning ordinance of the Town of Ithaca. The carport (or what was labeled the carport) was constructed starting around 1967. At that time, the exterior posts were located in a shed from the original garage roof over to the edge of the area, was fixed. In speaking with Mr. Fiske (and Attorney Hines said he has known the Fiske's for some time), Mr. Fiske indicated he believed that this was an accessory building and he built 3' within the property line. It also wasn't clear that a permit would have been required at the time because of the dollar amount. In any event, Mr. Fiske didn't get a permit but he did build it as close as he could estimate 3' from the property line. Howard Schlieder was sent back to the property to verify that it was, in fact, 3' and Attorney Hines said he had seen the stake and it is, in fact, 3' so they have an amended Map A that's more accurate. Over the few years since 1967, the carport was flashed out and a wall along the eastern line was put in with windows and a wall along the back was put in but the front remains open. One detail that isn't shown on the map is a row of spruce trees that's along the easterly line of the Fiske property which effectively obscures the view of this particular structure from the roadway and from the neighbor to the east. As you look from the roadway, you'll see what looks like an open shed in which material is stored along with lawn mowers and various other things. The issue is, whether under Section 267b of the Town Law, the convenience or inconvenience of the neighbors balances or weighs in favor of the Fiske's. Although not a large structure, this is substantial enough that it's difficult to remove and contract of sale was made in place and the buyer expects to buy it. Therefore, they're now faced with a problem. They really can't tear it down without recasting an agreement which was made some time ago in good faith. The neighbors have reviewed this (and Attorney Hines gave Mr. Frost a statement from the neighbor on the east and the neighbor across the street) . Attorney 'Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 9, 1994 Hines noted there was a map included which shows the location of these neighbors and Mr. Frost confirmed that each of the Board members do have a copy of that. Attorney Hines said he did not have Section 267b memorized, but the burdens to the Fiske's for this self-imposed problem are significant. They have a contract for sale and the buyer expects to buy this particular structure. The structure is not highly visible to anyone around and it serves a very useful purpose for the property. Even though the structure was built without the benefit of clergy, there was an effort made at the time to comply with what Mr. Fiske believed to be the setback requirement. Attorney Hines restated that he isn't sure what the law was in 1967 and doesn't know whether or not a permit would have been required; but, in any event, he didn't get one. Attorney Hines said the profits to the property are significant, the inconvenience and difficulties associated with having to remove the structure are substantial because they would jeopardize a contract that they've made. He believes the burdens on the neighboring properties are slight (he said he couldn't speak for the neighbors, but they did have Mr. Fiske circulate the area and one of the neighbors is present if he cares to speak on the subject) . Mr. Frost said he wanted to add that the notice in parentheses says 15 foot side yard setback required and it should have read 10 foot. Mr. Frost continued that the ordinance is not exactly very clear because, under Section 13, they do use the word "garage" under the paragraph of Section 13 where they discuss accessory buildings. When you get into Section 14, however, they state that a 10' side yard setback can be maintained with either an attached or detached garage. Mr. Frost said he thought, therefore, there could be some confusion in reading the ordinance that way. Mr. Frost said he also noted that the request is for 2 + feet because he did not have the revised survey until today and he would rather do it on the more conservative side because it is a public notice in the newspaper. Attorney Hines said it may be 2-1/2' but they believe it to be 3' and he wasn't sure if it makes too much difference. His point is that the applicant really did try to comply with what he believed to be the requirements. Mr. Frost then reconfirmed that he did advertise it for a 2' setback. Mr. King asked if they had said this was built in 1967 and Attorney Hines said the shed was built then. The house and garage were built some time prior to that predating the zoning ordinance. Mr. King said certainly, a building permit would have been required even for an accessory building and then asked Mr. Frost if that was correct. . Mr. Frost said, most likely, he does have the 1967 ordinance upstairs. The Town did not adopt building code until 1960; therefore, if the house was built prior to 1960 (which it may have been) , it wouldn't have needed a building permit. Attorney Hines said he thought the present zoning ordinance calls for $2,500 or $3,000 and, if you exceed that, you have to get a permit. Attorney Hines said he is trying to ameliorate the impact of a self-imposed hardship; it was done in good faith believing it was appropriate. Chairman Austen noted that a letter dated November 7, 1994 had been received from three of the neighbors stating they had no objections to the granting of this variance: the Venables of 111 Blackstone, Anthony & Edna Krizek of 202 Roat Street, and Janice Johndrew of 205 Roat Street. A letter dated November 2, 1994 from the Tompkins County Department of Planning, James Hanson, Jr. , Commissioner of Planning was also read for the record. Chairman Austen then opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. King stated that the sketch submitted with the appeal indicates that it's approximately 13' to 14' between the east side of the Fiske carport and the west side of the Krizek garage on the property to the east, that being the nearest building apparently. Mr. King then asked if that was indeed the nearest building and Attorney Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 9, 1994 Hines said that is the nearest building but possibly Mr. Fiske could tell more about its distance. Mr. Fiske said, from his line, the distance to the Krizek's garage would be approximately 12' or 13' . Mr. King noted that the sketch shows 11' from the line and 13' to 14' between the buildings. Mr. Fiske said yes, that is his sketch and 11' and 3' equals 14' , so 14' is correct. Mr. King asked if their carport is used for storage of a car at any time and Mr. Fiske said yes, the reason he made it that large is so that he could angle a trailer back in there. He cut the corner of the garage off, and he didn't want to cut the big spruce tree down. Mr. King again asked him whether he does keep a motor vehicle in there and Mr. Fiske said yes, on occasion. Mr. Stotz asked if this house is now under contract for sale and Mr. Fiske said yes. Mr. Stotz said it was mentioned before that they would have to renegotiate this contract in some way. For instance, what would happen if the carport were removed with the potential buyers? Mr. Fiske replied that he didn't think it would make any great issue. Attorney Hines said he could say that they have not broached the subject with the attorneys for the buyer, but he suspected it would not pass unnoticed. Mr. Scala said you're looking at a building that's been there over 25 years (he didn't think a carport should be called a building) and it's really not visible at all from the street. The big, heavy spruce trees that are there pretty much blanket the scene and it looks like it's used mostly for storage the way it is now. The trailer is sitting off on the left so, obviously at one time, the trailer was to fit into the carport. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Scala said you're looking at what has been part of the garage for a long time. He said his understanding is that there was no objection on anyone's part and it would never have come up if it weren't for the survey due to the sale. Chairman Austen noted that Section 13 allows an accessory building to be not less than 3' from the lot line. He said this is probably more carport than accessory building, however. Mr. Frost said it certainly could be used as a carport. Mr. Scala said he had just one other comment. If they ever tried to empty the carport out to make room for that trailer, some other part of that lot is going to be pretty well filled with ladders, tables, etc. He would say, if anything, it's been an accessory building in the sense of random storage for a long time and then asked how long the trailer had been out there. Mrs. Fiske said it had been there just about one year. Mr. King asked if anyone saw any problem with a car being in there and noted that the ordinance calls for a 10' setback for a garage which would mean, with the carport and garage next to each other, you'd have a 20' separation between them and there is presently about a 14' separation. Mr. Scala asked if it had a door and Mr. Fiske said no. Mr. Frost said he supposed one could view it that, if there was no carport and someone just had a driveway with a car parked there, the fact of having a car parked that close to the property line would be legal. Mr. King said that's true and the ordinance does, in some instances, permit construction of a single garage across the lot line so he would judge that the ordinance doesn't see any particular harm in having two cars next to each other. Mr. Scala asked if he understood it correctly that, if it were used as an accessory building the way it's built now, that would be permissible but, if used as a second garage, that would require special approval. Attorney Barney said, if used as a second garage, that would require a variance. Chairman Austen added, with the exception that another garage could be built across the property line and both neighbors could have one that crosses the lot. Attorney Barney said if they wanted to latch on and put a carport on the other side, you probably could make it legal that way. Mr. Scala asked if the carport was being sold as an accessory building or as a second garage and Attorney Hines said he wasn't privy to the conversation with the buyer. They're buying the structures as they exist; what they think they are, he doesn't know. Attorney Hines asked Mr. Fiske if he had any conversations with the buyer regarding this and Mr. Fiske replied that he wasn't aware of any. Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 9, 1994 Mr. Frost noted, since this is a setback variance, the law does not require the environmental assessment form. Chairman Austen then asked that a motion be made on the appeal. MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala. RESOLVED, that the Board grant the applicant, Robert Fiske (Robert Hines, Attorney) , a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a carport accessory building on the east side of his property within 2' to 3' of where it stands which is within 2 to 3' of the east property line, at 204 Roat Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71- 6-7, Residence District R-15, with the following findings: 1. Noting that the structure has existed in its present location for some 27 years. 2. The structure is not easily visible from the street and is apparently well constructed. 3. The structure apparently does not bother the neighbors on either side or across the street or those most affected by it, all three such neighbors having written to this Board that they have no objection to the granting of a variance for such continuation. 4. Upon appearing that this singular carport would not have an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to those properties. 5. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved by any other method than a variance. 6. That it would be a substantial imposition on both the appellant and their prospective buyer to have the structure removed at this stage. 7. That the variance would not appear to have any adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 8. Even though the difficulty was self-created, it's understandable that they considered the building to be an accessory building which could be built within 3' of the lot line. With no further- discussion, Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows: AYES - Austen, King, Ellsworth, Scala, Stotz. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The second case to be heard by the Board was as follows: Appeal of Douglas M. Armstrong, Appellant, requesting a time-limited variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain the occupancy of a single-family residence by five unrelated persons (maximum three unrelated persons allowed) at 975 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-32, Residence District R-15. Said building currently has a non-code compliant second dwelling unit located in the structure's basement. Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 9, 1994 Mr. King pointed out that he had examined the survey map in relation to the ownerships listed on the assessment rolls and it seems the petitioner's parcel is the southerly (bottom) one labeled Parcel #2 on the drawing. Next north of them is indeed owned by Garrison, as indicated by Parcel #1 on the survey. North of Garrison is a parcel owned by Patricia Lucente (or at least was owned by her in the last roll he had access to) , the Lucente parcel being Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21-2-30; Garrison being No. 21-2-31; and the petitioner, Douglas Armstrong, being No. 21-2-32. Several lots south of that are still owned by the Walter and Joyce Wiggins family. Douglas and Lucia Armstrong stepped to the microphone. Upon being asked by Chairman Austen how long they had owned the property, Mrs. Armstrong replied since 1986. She said they had included in the packet of information with the appeal, details on when they had bought the property. They bought it, assuming it was a two-family dwelling. This was with their lawyer handling the case and it went through as a two-family dwelling. Chairman Austen noted that a copy of the purchase offer had been included in the packet. Mr. King added that was the petitioner's purchase in 1986 in which the property was noted as a two-family structure at 975 Taughannock Boulevard. Mrs. Armstrong said, as they indicated in their cover letter with the appeal, they've had the property on the market for several years. There have been over four realtors who tried to sell it (they have their publicity) as a two-family dwelling and no one has ever questioned that. Mr. King asked if they had received the letter dated October 5, 1994 from Mr. Frost, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, in which he advises that the second apartment in the basement does not have the required 7' 6" of floor to ceiling height. Mrs. Armstrong said yes, he went over that and several other violations. They had said in the cover letter that they do not intend to put additional money into the property to make those repairs, but they would like to get through this rental year because it's very important in terms of the rental income. Mr. King asked if "getting through this year" meant through May 31, 1995 and Mrs. Armstrong said they asked in the letter if they could have a time limit variance until May 31, 1995. As can be seen in the lease itself, they have a second summer lease (Mrs. Armstrong said she had brought a copy of that) . At the time they signed the lease with the students, they asked if they could stay so that they could study for the bar. These are five (5) third-year law students. They signed the lease with them with the understanding, if the property was sold, they would not honor that lease. There are two reasons they didn't bring that lease to the Zoning Board originally: 1) Mr. Armstrong had spoken to Mr. Frost about it and said, if the Board would be kind enough to give them a time variance, it would only be for the school year. 2) They had a contract on the sale of the house. Since that time, the buyers have decided they do not want to buy the house. They know it would be a real time of stress for students who are preparing for the bar to have to leave at that point. It would also be a great lack of income for the appellants. Therefore, Mrs. Armstrong said they are asking that the Board consider this extension. Mr. Frost said, as a matter of clarification, he didn't specifically remember the conversation other than he would have advised them that it would be unlikely in his mind (and his experience with the Board) if they would consider two leases. Mr. King said part of the non-conformity here is that, number 1, they have a non- conforming lot. It doesn't conform to zoning requirements for a building lot. According to the terms of the ordinance, you can have only a single-family dwelling on a non-conforming lot. Mrs. Armstrong said they intend to honor that in the future, but they would not be able to replace these tenants at this point (in the middle of November) . It would also be very difficult for students to move in the middle of a semester. Mr. King said Mr. Frost had also noted that the basement apartment does not TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $80.00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: y Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( (607) 273-1783 rr '' CHECK - ( `T ) APPEAL ZONING: to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to: F/A/4 4- i /E SALE ©F f�oPERiY-3Y FoRBi DiNc� /'111in17"f414NcE OFG �0r1 Y -7 at 4 olar 5-r , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 7/ — 6— / as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s) , Section(s) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary, ) / ^y /V s() L /ti LAC�/C n /4 G. O L F t"? (J7� 77 V� CARPORT, ORT, By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: O *C! .res Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Home Telephone Number: 1 -O`- Work Telephone Number: NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will expire. pt PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE si-miu: - - 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimension and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addition(s). a. Road, 5. Nanes of neighbors who bound lot. b. Both side lot lines; 6. Setback of neighbors. c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and nurber. 3. North arrow. 8. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. tSEE f}�-T-71/Ch}ETJ FL®r PLr_?4L5 • • Signature of Owner/Appellant: ?St" V-% Date: /0—2*a ?4 Signature of Appellant/Agent: • Date: - - - -- - . - o" — � Q _ . — - �I - - -- �1 1 ' I - - I i. ll - --- - 111 ,�,�k kgtzEk o . f'/SKE CA* R z CAR _ fh �R� 6- ��� GE7 rw s-6 , 1 _ ` - ' �- Y3'ci—!/ Q--'- - . - - • . . _ Fr_ ` /s'-WanF TrzuNJ 2o4. Ro47- Sr _(377 -349) - - T-x T - c61- - VARIANCE VEnw6s7 7l- 6= 7 - - - --- - - POz .3_FOo�' - p15%GAIC f�' .SC4L to �/- F2orl; T3oceNDRi L-1NSi -- h t_o-24-9y II _ ___ ___ _ _1‘k: ___ ________, _ __ _ _____i___- -r- --r----7 - - ` - - ---'- -- - - - ' - - 1 - - ;? L J - I__ i I _ . - . ^LEhC7'S'7 'a'd •S•A'fl 3jd1171-r.7s 'a G18lb'MoWW h66t` 1 '1 )0 ►►.,�,.,".,,, .,c�7 O3dtid�1d ,oi',;t 31Wg to �t: .,s� i,,, o 'c)J S/V/>idWQ-/(tJDIN-1/ 10 Mai jAl • . ;4 I72 ' 5 _II� O& 17OC� • . yr .. *, :�rv/77;/M v Jo ; •• oa. `y dyw �ncYnS � , ' i i t. 3icd 0 A 12.1&_L1 1 1/O / / 4) ,,,_j 1 O � ; O Cp'1 (S)81 141\ I `{ ,11� ' ` 90/ c> I L rsti __ _M o — — r Iry 1T73M( I AaczS Z (II ) CA '"C ` u ` N :U L 0, \ 1 1�1 lT� c1 To IIIb 2' Do % 161 Ili 15 Llt �, I Uy U) ONJ a Z.-9--/Z 7°3.7a dd kv I. N pp (6/7 E-Z 4 )3,430 .r 1:I a 'd Aa1Vt'V }/ ld' Sad' N JO S O N U 7 h (A ,nO/.----- r o/% `7 o pc .c X t ;r' fir- —"It'.,_. . . .1‘4-_. _ --we-.44, .. .t_._.,, _ . - . .- (j)d' 3alY /3N47 (j)d (a.sf.-079 E-H-/4 (069-o6- ) e•-9-/� (L 3r.- Sz7►) 'll - 7 7N�,� .�'1/fir 7 T .4.v tIMXYVW 's 5P7.1..//fr \ 1d90, .- N.- 7ot/1A+( _/l/ FM M.3 15;Mi J/N 4 Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 121 East Court Street Ithaca,New York 14850 James W.Hanson,Jr. Telephone(607)274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX(607)274-5578 RECEIVED November 2, 1994 NOV 31994 Mr. Andy Frost TOWN OF liHgCA Town of Ithaca BUILDING/ZONING 126 E. Seneca Street . Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to§239-1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Area variance, 204 Roat Street, Robert Fiske Dear Mr.Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal,as submitted,will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, 1 ,- C2a, t n n./T5 James Hanson, Jr. Commissioner of Planning to Recycled paper cr ` 0 . i Q- . ta r • `Z� I 1 • , _ .,0 i t �,,,L,r v o ,,. ft • '•}r I.• • •�� 1,,•r, �•'" iw• r '. I I a,+ ° 1 • • 1 - ,..44*k_:7, i q*k - - 0''. ,..:..:70:•.: , ,,,,4 0,:.- ‘...• -ia... -e - ,--i i , A . . . ,. • .. 1 11 . I i , i 1