Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-02-26 TOWN OF TTHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York February 26, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Kirk Sigel, Chairman Members: Dick Matthews, Harry Ellsworth Alternate Members: David Mountin, Eric Levine Absent: Members James Niefer, Ron Krantz Staff: Susan Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Others: Andrew Sleeper, Westview Lane; David Jacobs, West Danby Road, Newfield; Jim Clark, 923 West Broad Street, Horseheads; Randy Sampson, Terrace View Drive Chairman Sigel opens the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 7:00 p.m. APPEAL Judith Kellock, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(C) and Article XXV, Section 270- 205(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to attach an existing garage on the property to the existing home and convert it into additional living space. The property is located at 110 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-9.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. The property contains existing non-conforming structures on an existing lot and attaching the garage to create additional living space will alter the existing non-conformity and encroach into the 15-foot minimum side yard setback and 30-foot minimum rear yard setback. David Jacobs, Agent for Judith Kellock, 1468 West Danby Road, Newfield. I am here on behalf of Judith. The information that you have in front of you is pretty much what's happening up there. I don't know if she gave you a letter of why she wasn't going to be here... Chairman Sigel — She just stated that she couldn't make it. The only question I really had, more curiosity, why it's more efficient to try and move this garage rather than to just build a new space. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 2 Mr. Jacobs —Well, it is so close that not only will she save money, but it's a simple arrangement and the only problem is where the existing building sits now, it's not 15 feet when I move it, but it is now. It's grandfathered or whatever and it's like 6 feet now to the back wall, the brick wall. So my proposal was to move that building over. I drew up a rough draft there, you can basically see what's going on. It's just a shell of a building, it's just a garage, it's pretty straight forward how to jack it up and move it over and to just attach it would be saving her a lot of money and a lot of time. Chairman Sigel —And the new space was going to be heated...and there'll be a doorway cut into the existing house? Mr. Jacobs —Well, there's windows and a garage door opening in the existing garage right now. She's going to save the windows and we're just going to add a 3-foot door to the, for an exit and probably a 4-foot opening from her dwelling to that dwelling after it was attached. Mr. Mountin —Are there plans for a new garage? Mr. Jacobs — No, she just wanted to...I suggested that she move this building over and just attach it. It's a ranch style house and when the garage goes on, it looks like it was built that way It's just a small mirror image of the existing house. Plus it gives me something to do. Kirk Sigel — Both our Alternate Board members will vote tonight. Chris, anything you wanted to add? Ms. Balestra — Nothing, and there is no SEAR on this. Ms. Brock—And we should just state for the record why there is no SEAR, because this is a historic district, the courts like to have this elaborated on just a little bit. The reason is because SEAR treats this Type 11, the granting of individual setback and lot line variances and the granting of the area variances for single family residences and both of those Type 11 exceptions would apply. Chairman Sigel —And if it wasn't non-contributing then we would have to do the long? Ms. Balestra —We would have to do the full environmental assessment form. Ms. Brock— Is that right? Even if it's Type I I? Ms. Balestra — Oh, that's right. If its not Type 11. Even if it were contributing ... Chairman Sigel — Oh, I thought we'd done the long form on all things... ZBA 2/26/07 Page 3 Ms. Balestra —We traditionally did but we found that we don't need to. Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board, the public hearing was closed. Adopted Resolution ZBA Resolution No. 2007 — 005 Area Variance -- Judith Kellock 110 Judd Falls Road Tax Parcel # 66.-5-9.1 February 26, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved that this Board grant the appeal of Judith Kellock, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(C) and Article XXV, Section 270-205(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to attach an existing garage on the property to the existing home and convert it into additional living space. The property is located at 110 Judd Falls Road, Tax Parcel No. 66-5-9.1, Medium Density Residential Zone. Conditons: 1. The new side yard setback of the garage, after it is moved and attached to the house be no less than 5 feet, and 2. The rear yard set back of the garage, after it is moved and attached to the house be no less than 19 feet, and 3. The footprint of the house not change at all, and 4. No further encroachment be permitted in the future without a variance from this Board. Findings The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied by the Applicant, specifically that: 1. The benefit that the applicant seeks; to use the garage space as living space, cannot be achieved any other feasible way, and 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood as evidenced by two supporting letters by neighbors, and ZBA 2/26/07 Page 4 3. The request, while being a substantial encroachment, is actually not very substantial given the setbacks that are common in this neighborhood, and 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. While the difficulty was self-created by the applicant, having recently bought the property, nonetheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine, Mountin NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Mr. Jacobs — Okay. Thank you. So just go ahead with what I am doing? Is there any paperwork or anything I.... Ms. Balestra — You've applied for the building permit right? Mr. Jacobs — Yeah, we have both permits. Ms. Balestra — I don't think there are any conditions in the building permit. You need to talk to Steve Williams, if he has any conditions of the building permit. Mr. Jacobs — He's already been up there and checked out what I've done and he stopped me, I already had my (inaudible) done, just what you see in front of you. It 's just a matter of jacking it up and moving it over there after the concrete's poured. Chairman Sigel — I can't say for sure, but it sounds like you don't need anything else from the Town. Mr. Jacobs — he'll have steps that he'll want to see. Can I just give him a call like I did last time, and just come up...Thank you. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 5 Chairman Sigel announces the next appeal at 7:10 p.m. APPEAL Andrew P. Sleeper, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-73(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the required setback. The residences are located at 156 and 158 Westview Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 58-2-39.681 and 58-2-39.682, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residences received subdivision approval by the Planning Board on January 2, 2007. The lots violate the minimum 100-foot lot width at the 50-foot setback required for parcels in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Andrew Sleeper, Westview Lane I do have a question. I am just curious what the lot it supposed to look like. It is basically a square...it is too bad we don't have a whiteboard or something so you could just quickly draw what the setbacks are, what it's suppose to look like or something like that. Whatever it says, the 50-foot setback...to me it looks like it is supposed to be a pie shape or something.... Chairman Sigel — The reason for the different widths is to allow for lots on a cul-de-sac. Normally, a lot along a straight stretch of road like yours, that's a rectangle, would have approximately the same width at the street and at the 50 foot setback, but a house on the cul-de-sac would be narrower at the street. So that's the reason for the allowance of a narrow width at the street while still requiring the width that the Town desires at the 50-feet back. Does that answer your question? I mean, if, the Town is not trying to encourage trapezoid lots, in general. That is not the intent. Chris Balestra gets the whiteboard and draws a diagram/picture. Mr. Sleeper—Where is the...the 50-foot is that from center line of pavement? Ms. Balestra — I believe it is at the property line. Mr. Sleeper— No, it can't be from... Mr. Mountin — It's from the iron rods... Chairman Sigel — The ordinance says street line, it doesn't say center line...street line, I would assume, would mean the edge of the property, which, there could be some confusion because the street right-of-way could extend into your property so then you could argue over which line you would use there. Property line or right-of-way. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 6 Mr. Mountin — My experience was the stakes, the rods that were marking the property line. Mr. Sleeper — Just for edification, education, it would be nice to know where they're figuring setbacks from. Ms. Brock — The Code says "minimum width at the maximum required front yard setback (50-feet from the street line), shall be 100 feet." And the Code defines street line as "the limit of the right-of-way of the street, road or highway. Where the word street appears this also means highway or road." It really depends on a case-by-case basis where the right-of-way is. This is a subdivision and my guess is the streets were dedicated to the Town, I don't know, but I'm guessing that, so on the subdivision map it should show where the right-of-way would end. I know the Town nowadays is requiring 60-feet right-of-ways for dedicated roads. How old is this subdivision? The '80's... So I don't know what they did back then. Chairman Sigel — It might be coincidental to the property line and certainly in areas where it is tighter, where the homes are kind of (inaudible) the right-of- ways can extend well into what people think of as there front yard. Ms. Brock — A lot of times the right-of-way might go to the back side of the ditch, backside meaning when you are on the road, looking at the ditch, it goes to the far end. But it really depends what was dedicated to the Town in your situation. Chairman Sigel — There are parts of Forest Home where people own right to the center of the street. Ms. Brock — Right, where it is right-of-way by use and not dedicated, it's the traveled pavement, the shoulder and if there are ditches, to the back side of the ditch and any other areas that are customarily used for the road purposes and that can vary segment by segment, but as I said, in your situation, you have a subdivision so my guess is that it was actually dedicated to the Town and the subdivision map would indicate where it is. Mr. Jacobs — No, I'm just curious because I get out there with my tape measure and I like to know where my zero point is. Ms. Brock — Do you have the materials that were presented to the Planning Board? Because, you were before the Planning Board right? So I don't know if the subdivision map...so you might have that information in your materials. I know we have had a number of these Westview duplexes coming before the Planning Board and Zoning Board lately and for some of the packets we've seen some subdivision maps. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 7 Mr. Jacobs — It doesn't show it. Ms. Brock — I'm sure if you call Christine after the meeting she can pull all the data again because we have had all the maps with all the notes on them... Ms. Balestra — It won't make a difference on your property though, because regardless of where it is... Ms. Brock— But if you want to know, she can probably look it up for you. Mr. Matthews — I guess I am a little bit confused...that it's been approved by the government Planning Boards, who subdivide this house and have this configuration as it is and today we're trying to rectify.... Chairman Sigel — That approval was subject to a variance being granted... Mr. Matthews — And from what I can see, there's a substantial house on these two properties. So, it seems like the owner is between a rock and a hard place here, or we are, I don't know which. Chairman Sigel — Well, what these owners, whom we had cases, two cases last month, and these owners are just seeking the ability to sell half houses, or each half of the attached unit separately which they can't do if it's all on one tax parcel. So right now, these units have been, they have to go to one owner, both halves, and by splitting them they will be able to sell them separately. Mr. Matthews — There are other units in this particular area that are like this? Chairman Sigel — Well, there are the two that we approved last month and is there another one coming? Ms. Balestra — There is another one coming, yes. Chairman Sigel — I thought I saw that. So there is at least one more...is that all that there are? Ms. Balestra — I hope so. I don't know. Mr. Matthews — So I came late to the last meeting and perhaps I missed it, we as a Board approved a same request previously... Chairman Sigel — Yes, in fact, those were less conforming because they were on the turn, so they were even less. These actually conform at the street. Mr. Matthews — Okay, thank you. Now I am clear and I think it's pretty clear. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 8 Chairman Sigel —Any other questions? Chris? Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:21 p.m., there was no one wishing to address the Board and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Ellsworth — Wait a minute, what about this thing on the architects letterhead? Dividing party wall... Ms. Balestra — This letter was submitted for the Board's, just for the Board's information. The Planning Board, for all three now, of the Westview Lane subdivision proposals, added a condition of approval that included a letter from a registered architect or engineer indicating that the party wall between the units was fire rated according to the uniform building code. The letter in front of you is just for this property. Mr. Ellsworth — What about this statement that...carry it 4-feet on each part of the wall, up at the roof line... Ms. Balestra — Steve Williams, and the rest of the building department will need to decide whether that is sufficient. Chairman Sigel — So I assume the conditions here are the same or very similar to the other, the ones that were approved last meeting, and it was just the case that the engineer that the people got last month didn't raise this issue. Ms. Balestra — Right, they didn't. This is the first time we've seen it. Chairman Sigel — We could certainly condition our approval on acceptance by the building, by the Code Enforcement Officer of this certification by an architect. Mr. Ellsworth — it's kind of an important issue because if a fire starts on one side of that party wall and it gets the party wall and it's burning up under the roof line, it doesn't stop at the party wall, if it's not resistive material. It will burn right across. Ms. Balestra — Almost all of these houses in this subdivision were built in 1986, 1987 and 1988 and they were all built identically. So it's an issue that has been in existence since the `80s and there are no changes physically to these houses. Chairman Sigel — I would think that if we just reiterate the Planning Board's conditions, their conditions are still required so if they have this requirement, we probably don't need to restate it. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 006 AREA VARIANCE —Andrew Sleeper 156 & 158 Westview Lane Tax Parcel No.'s 58-2-39.681, 58.-2-39.682 February 26, 2007 MOTION made by Chairperson Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Andrew Sleeper, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-73(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain two connected residences on separate tax parcels with resultant insufficient widths at the required setback at 156 and 158 Westview Lane, Tax Parcel No.'s 58-2- 39.681, .682, Medium Density Residential Zone. Findings The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied, specifically that: 1. The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, that is the ability to sell each dwelling unit separately, cannot be achieved by any other means, and 2. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood as most other buildings of this type in the neighborhood already have this right, and 3. The request is not substantial, and 4. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created by the applicant. Conditions 1. That 156 Westview Lane be no less than 57 feet in width at the required setback, and 2. That 158 Westview Lane be no less than 68 feet in width at the required setback, and 3. No changes made to the footprint of the building that would increase the nonconformity. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: ZBA 2/26/07 Page 10 AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine, Mountin NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel announces the next appeal at 7:27 p.m. APPEAL James A. Clark, Appellant, requesting a variance from Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a residential building with a height greater than the height limit. Said home is located at 304 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.30, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed home will have a height of +/-42 feet, where the Town Code limits building heights to 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade or 38 feet from the lowest interior grade (whichever is lower). Jim Clark, 923 West Broad Street, Horseheads Chairman Sigel — When I drove by, from the street it seems that the lot mostly slopes upward as you go away from the street. Slopes upward to the back and to the right, standing at the street, and the way you have the...Are you planning to site the house approximately as you have sketched it? Mr. Clark — No, actually, when I was getting down to my deadline to get the material in to make this meeting, I think some people in the office thought I might have needed an area variance, so I had it surveyed with the house plotted on it two days before I needed to...So, typically, what I have done in that development is face the house roughly with the street, so that's kind of what the surveyor did, he just put it on the map. But you can see that if the house is turned in any direction within that envelope, I am not overstepping the setbacks in any situation. Chairman Sigel — Yes, because with this orientation, the back is at one of the higher parts of the lot. Mr. Clark — And actually, if you look at the rear elevation of the house, the whole back is not exposed like it showed. The foundation will steppe as grade allows. Just did Lot 14, which is basically the same lot situation. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so you are going to have the egress in the back on the downhill side. Mr. Clark — Correct. If you're looking at the rear elevation, it will be more to the right of the chimney. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 11 Mr. Matthews — Say that again...the egress is going to be at the back? Chairman Sigel — He's going to have a basement level access... Mr. Matthews — Into the hill... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, it rises from front to back, and also from left to right... Mr. Matthews — So most of the houses in this development that are on the south side of the road, face the same problem...They have a walkout basement into the hill and Mr. Clark built two houses 300 yards away from this proposed house that goes into the hill also. Am I correct? Mr. Clark— I've got three actually. Mr. Matthews — So there is really no difference from this proposal and at least two, I am not aware of the thirds one, ... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, they're similar. I mean, personally, I find it a bit more of a stretch with these lots, as you said, on the south side of the street, the argument for the walkout basement saving a grading because clearly the house that would be behind this one is going mostly downhill from the front of the house and this one is really more to the side that is going downhill...Some of these houses had steep declines in the back and you would actually have to pile up a huge amount of dirt in the back, to get it, Mr. Matthews — On the north side of the house...to get it... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, and this is not so clear. Obviously you could grade it such that you could get a walkout basement but it sems to me you could grade it pretty reasonably to not. Mr. Matthews — As I recall, the two houses that are together west of this proposed house, you had a retaining wall or something and you wanted to get the drainage away from the house...Am I recalling correctly, you had to grade the hill away so that you could go, shunt the water away from coming into the house... Mr. Clark — On the back side of the house. Yeah, what we did was...Well, the main reason we did that was so that we could get a patio out that backside... Mr. Matthews — That was the rationale for you requesting a height variance for those two houses, as I recall, right. Okay. In this particular area, you don't have the problem with drainage? I think you do, but... ZBA 2/26/07 Page 12 Mr. Clark — Well I think on this lot the drainage is already to the very lowest part of the lot. There is a sewer easement right between my lot and the one next to it. So there is already a natural swale there for water runoff which is already at the lowest part of the lot. Mr. Matthews — So the purpose of you asking for this variance, is to have a walkout basement. Mr. Clark— Correct. Mr. Ellsworth — And that's the way we've passed most of these, for a walkout basement. Mr. Matthews — This would be what, number 10 or so that have been requested in this development for essentially the same reason. Chairman Sigel — That's pretty close, yes. Any other questions? Chris, anything? Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:33 p.m., there being no one, the hearing is closed and the matter brought back to the Board. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 007 AREA VARIANCE —Jim Clark Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.30 February 26, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of James Clark, requesting variance from Chapter 270, Article VI 11, Section 270-59 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a residential building with a height greater than the height limit at 304 Old Gorge Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46.-1-15.30, Low Density Residential Zone. Conditions: 1. That the height of the house as measured from the lowest exterior grade be no greater than 43 feet, and 2. That the height of the house from lowest exterior grade can only exceed on the east and south sides of the house, up to the maximum of 43 feet. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 13 Findings: The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied, specifically that: 1. That the applicant can not achieve the benefit sought, that is, a walkout basement, by any other means feasible, given the type of house that he wants to build, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood given that a number of other homes it this neighborhood are designed in a similar manner, and 3. That the request, given the neighborhood, is not substantial, and 4. There will be no adverse, physical, or environmental effects, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created, and 6. That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine, Mountin NAYS: None The MOTION was carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel announces the next appeal at 7:37 p.m. APPEAL Randall Sampson, Appellant, requesting a variance from Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a residence with an insufficient side yard setback. The residence is located at 125 Terraceview Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 58-2-39.45, Medium Density Residential Zone. Said residence was built in 1988 with a 14-foot southeast side yard setback where the Town Code requires a 15-foot side yard setback in the Medium Density Residential Zone. Randy Sampson, 125 Terraceview Drive We did talk to all of the neighbors and they are fine with what we are proposing to do. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 14 Chairman Sigel — Okay, it seems pretty straight forward. Anyone have any questions? Anyone want to suggest that the applicant move the house? (laughter) Mr. Ellsworth —What's driving this. Is it for sale? Mr. Sampson — No, we're just going to do an addition. In the process of applying, we realized we needed a variance. Ms. Brock— But the addition doesn't need the variance, just the existing house. So what they are proposing to add on will not encroach into the required setback. So the variance would be to basically permit existing house to remain encroaching 1 foot into the required setback. Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 7:37 p.m., there being no one, the hearing is closed and the matter brought back to the Board. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 008 AREA VARIANCE — Randall Sampson 125 Terraceview Drive Tax Parcel No. 58.-2-39.45 February 26, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Randall Sampson requesting a variance from Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(c) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain a residence with an insufficient side yard setback at 125 Terraceview Drive, Tax Parcel 58.-2-39.45, Medium Density Residential Zone. Conditions: 1. That the side yard setback be no less than 13 feet, and 2. That there be no further encroachment within the side yard setback permitted by any further alterations to the house, and Findings: 1. That the requirements for an area variance have been satisfied by the applicant. Specifically: ZBA 2/26/07 Page 15 2. The benefit that the applicant seeks to achieve, that is not having to move or demolish a portion of their house, cannot be met by any other means, and 3. That there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood, given that the house has been there for almost 20 years, and 4. The request is not substantial, being only approximately 1 foot in a 15 foot setback, and 5. There will be no adverse physical or environmental effects, and 6. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created by the applicant, and 7. That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine, Mountin NAYS: None The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel — Did you want to say something Susan? Ms. Brock— it's too late. It's just that in your motion you had said these side yard setback and I didn't know if you wanted to specify which side yard setback because there are two. But as I am looking at the drawings, it looks like one side is 13 feet and on the other side it's 14 feet. That's what the clearance is. Ms. Balestra — There's an attached garage on one side so... Ms. Brock— It's fine...I will jump in a little bit faster next time. Chairman Sigel — Okay. Thank you, you're all set. Chris Balestra announced the Training being sponsored by the Cortland County Planning Department. Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. ZBA 2/26/07 Page 16 Chairperson Kirk Sigel Date Respectfully submitted: Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Date