Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2024-09-24 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 24, 2024, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. AGENDA 0 ZBAU-24-2 Trinity Lutheran Church at Ithaca, Owner of 149 Honness Lane; Rob Foote, Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-249B (Prohibited Sign and displays) and 270-54 (Residential and Conservation Zones) to install an electronic message center, where an electronic message center is not an allowed use. The property is located in the Medium Density Residential Zone district, Tax Parcel No. 58.-2-4. 0 ZBAS-24-1 Appeal of Khuba International, Owner of 272 Enfield Falls Rd., Ithaca NY, 14850; Ale ands Mergold, Apiplicant./Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems) for a proposal to construct a professional building without a sprinkler system. The property is located in the Agricultural Zone district, Tax Parcel No. 31-1-24.1 0 ZBAA-24-25 Appeal of Sarneer Acharya, owner of 240 Hayts Rd., Ithaca, NY7 14850; Bob Robinson, Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-32 and regulations). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-32A(3) requires a side yard setback of 401, where the addition is proposed to have a side yard setback of less than 40'. The current property is located in the Agricultural Zone, Tax Parcel No. 24.-1-30 Page I of 2 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 24, 2024 MINUTES Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Kim Ritter, and Matthew Minnig Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town 10 BAST- 4- Trinity Lutheran Church at Ithaca, Owner of 149 Honness Lane, MDR, TP 58.-2-4; seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-249B (Prohibited Sign and displays) and 270-54 (Residential and Conservation Zones) to install an electronic message center, where an electronic message center is not an allowed use. Mr. Foote stated that they are requesting the smallest possible electronic sign to avoid having to manually change the letters all the time. He said they would keep it static as much as possible, and the changeable sign is falling apart. He said it was ironic that a resident called him today after receiving the notice in the mail, saying that he was not aware the Church was doing this. We had sent email s via our listsery and had the message on the current sign on the side that still holds letters, but they fall out sometimes. He thought that illustrates the need for this requested sign. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Ms. Brim spoke, saying that she is a neighbor on Honness Lane, and she had submitted written comments. While she appreciates the work they do, she was not in favor of the variance. She said that she lives in the country, not the city and LED or neon signs do not fit the quiet,, residential feel of the neighborhood. She felt they could accomplish their goal in other ways. Mr. Imani spoke, saying that he is also a neighbor and appreciates them as good neighbors but there are no streetlights here and what is potentially a bright light does not fit the neighborhood. He said he would not be able to see the sign from his home, but he is opposed to light pollution. He said he thought the proposal seemed very minimal and he thought it could work, but he couldn't visualize what the effect would be in reality. He said he was not opposed to it enough to stand in the way, but he is apprehensive about adding a source of light in the neighborhood and added that if he could see it from his house., he would probably be more opposed to it. Mr. Squires closed the public hearing. ZBA 2024-09-24 (Filed 10/5) P . 1 Discussion Mr. Foote addressed some of the comments saying that the sign they are asking for is minimalist and the only part that does not meet the Code is the digital sign. The LED panels are the smallest we could order and can be controlled remotely and scheduled for being on and off at set times or react to the outside level of light and so he felt light pollution would not be an issue as it can be turned off at whatever time the town sets. He said the Church does a lot of community events including Red Cross blood drives, recitals, benefits and fundraisers for a lot of non-profit groups such as Feed My Starving Children, and the Church is used for two other religious groups as meeting space. We ran an after school program for over 40 years and after COVID, it never regained its numbers, and we had to close. That may or may not have been attributable to our inability to let people know via a good sign. Mr. Foote recalled a time when a man with a gun was in the area, and the sign could be used to alert the neighborhood or sever weather events and cancellations of scheduled functions could be communicated easily. He closed by saying that he felt the sign was very minimal and lighting could be strictly controlled and the benefit and community service it could provide outweighs those concerns that can be mitigated. Mr. Squires read the criteria for a Use variance, noting that in a Use variance, each criterion must be met, it is not a balancing test. The Board discussed and struggled with the `self-created" and "reasonable return" and whether it was "unique"' criteria. The mitigating factors outlined in the memo from the Director of Planning was discussed, but those factors did not address the Use variance criteria. They looked at the composition of the neighborhood, costs associated with other means of outreach, and when the property was purchased and the zoning at that time. Although they were generally sympathetic to the appeal, the criteria cannot be met. Determination SE R—Type 2, no SECT needed. ZBAU-24-2 Use Variance Trinity Lutheran Church at Ithaca 149 Honness Lane, MDR, TP 58.-2-4 ZBA 2024-09-24 (Filed 10/5) P . 2 Resolved that this Board denies the appeal of the Trinity Lutheran Church to be permitted to install an electronic message center, with the following Findings That unnecessary hardship was not demonstrated: 1. There was no documentation presented showing that for the existing use, and for other permitted uses, the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, and 2. The alleged difficulty is not unique in that there are other houses of worship within the medium density residential zone nearby that do not have electronic signs, and 3. The request will alter the essential character of the neighborhood by introducing an electronic sign with components that change electronically on a street with no streetlights which is dark at night and there are no other electronic message signs in that neighborhood, and 4. The alleged hardship is self-created because prior to the applicant's acquisition of this parcel of land, a sign of the type that is being requested would not have been allowed and subsequent zoning and sign laws do not allow a sign of this type. Moved- David Squires Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote- ayes— Squires, Ritter and Minnig ZBAS-24-1 Appeal of Khuba International, Owner of 272 Enfield Falls Rd., AG, TP 31-1-24.1 Aleksandr Mergold,Applicant/Agent; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems) for a proposal to construct a professional building without a sprinkler system. Mr. Mergold gave an overview of the request, saying that there is a sprinkler in the kitchen, but they are requesting to not be required to sprinkler the whole building. He said the Learning Farm is a not-for-profit educational facility focused on teaching people, especially underrepresented people, about food and cooking. We want a professional kitchen and associated rooms to do that. The property is not supplied by municipal water and in order to bring water to the kitchen location we would have to trench through our land and the neighbors' property and it isn't financially feasible. There is an option for a holding tank, but that also is fiscally unrealistic at at I least $45k. Mr. Mergold stated that the State does not require the building to be fully sprinklered because the occupancy is below the threshold for that. ZBA 2024-09-24 (Filed 10/5) Pg. 3 He said the design was made so that there are 6 egress doors and the stove will have a sprinkler above it. Discussion Mr. Squires asked if the Fire Department was involved. Mr. Mergold responded that they did discuss fire access with Mr. Moseley. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing. Neighbor—from the east spoke, saying that she had no comments on the sprinklers but she was concerned about campfires near the yurts and the Hemlocks near and around the stream are dying and the ground cover is thick with combustible debris and she hoped that campfires would be restricted there. There was no one else wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination Ms. Brock gave the history of the Town's legislation that is stricter than the State"s and the criteria in the law the Board would use in its determination. Mr. Moseley added that the sprinkler over the stove is a dry chemical fire suppression unit. The applicant team showed drawings of the proposed kitchen and lines of egress. The Board felt there was not sufficient information submitted to be able to address the criteria, noting that there were no financial documents proving a hardship,just statements from the applicant. Discussion on the types of information that has been submitted in previous sprinkler variance requests was reviewed, although the other requests were not for habitable space, which made this lack of information more significant. What is combustible in the structure? Outside the structure? What other safety measures are proposed? What is the total price of the project compared to the cost of sprinklers that meet the Code? Mr. Squires moved to adjourn the appeal until October 22 nd to allow further information to be submitted, seconded by Ms. Ritter., unanimous. ZB AA-24-25 Appeal of Sameer Acharya, owner of 240 Hayts Rd., AG, TP 24.-1-30, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-32 (Yard regulations) to be ZBA 2024-09-24 (Filed 10/5) Pg. 4 permitted to have an addition that would have less than the required 40' foot side yard setback. Mr. Robinson, Agent, gave an overview of the project saying that there is an existing patio that is not covered and when it rains, the water flows towards the home and between the cement and the house causing rot and flooding issues. The proposal is to cover the existing patio and by doing that it becomes a structure that then encroaches into the required setback. The patio will not be raised or enclosed. They shared pictures of the existing and proposed patio. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearin 9�- there was no one present and the hearing was dosed. Determination SEAR.—Type 2, minor accessory structure of a single family home. Mr. Moseley noted that the notification of the appeal was not posted by the applicant but mailed notification to the neighbors was made. The Board was not concerned with the lack of posting and waived the requirement for this appeal. The Board did not think there would be any impact upon the neighbors and it was a minimal change to the current property. ZBAA-24-25 Area Variance 240 Hayts Rd, AG one TP 24.-1-30 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Sameer Acharya, owner of 240 Hayts Rd., to be permitted to construct a covered patio that encroaches in the required sideyard setback, with the following Condition 1. That the patio be constructed substantially as submitted to this Board, and with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically ZBA 2024-09-24 (Filed 10/5) P . 5 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the cement patio exists and putting it somewhere else would require excavation, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood in that the patio is in the rear with vegetation blocking the view from the nearest neighbors, and the project is open on 3 sides, further mitigating any visual impacts, and 3. That there will not be an environmental impacts as evidenced by SEQR not being required. ad 4. That the request is not substantial in that the project will not extend any further into the side yard than it currently does, and 5. That the difficulty was not self-created in that the cement patio has been in existence for many years. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Matthew M.Innig Vote: ayes— Squires, Ritter and Minnig Other Mr. Moseley reviewed the next meeting's agenda. Submitte, Paulette Rosa Town Clerk ZBA 2024-09-24(Filed 10/5) Pg. 6