Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2007-06-18 TOWN of ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 18, 2007 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman Kirk Sigel Board Members: Harry Ellsworth, Ron Krantz, & Dick Matthews Alternate Board Members David Mountin & Eric Levine Staff: Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Chris Balestra, Planner; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk Excused: Board Member Jim Niefer Others: Randy Marcus, Seneca Street Hal Martin and Don Rakow, Cornell Plantations Michael Moore, 1028 East Shore Drive Chairman Sigel opened the meeting at 7:03 p.m. Chairman Sigel —We have 3 appeals and we will take them in this order. The appeal of Cornell University, the appeal of George Holland and Janet Wilkinson and the appeal of Michael Moore. APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Hal Martin, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVII, Section 270- 223 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect an 8-foot tall deer fence in the front yard of the Cornell Plantations property located at 397 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65-1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. Fences over 6-feet in height are prohibited within the front yard of all residential zones. Don Rakow and Hal Martin, Cornell University, Cornell Plantations Mr. Rakow — The project that you have before you is to erect a rear enclosure fence around one section of Cornell Plantations where we are and in the future are building are producing all of the plants for use in the botanical garden and arboretum, an area that we now call our plant production facilities. Power point presentation So since you're all Tompkins County residents, I probably don't need to remind you about the type of damage that deer cause to agricultural crops, to ornamentals. In the Plant Production Facilities, in addition to having seedlings ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 2 growing in our greenhouses, which are deer-proof, we also will have many plants in outdoor beds which will be anything but deer-proof. They will be extremely susceptible to browsing and destruction by the deer. These are plants that would be heading out into the botanical garden or arboretum. Thus the reason for requesting adding a deer-exclusion fence. So the site in question is along the Forest Home Drive...I know it's a little hard to see there...(a green tint to the slides...)...So the site is along Forest Home Drive, across from the area traditionally called Flat Rock. It's an area that has been known internally at Cornell as the test gardens area, and one that, as I said, is managed by the Plantations for plant production purposes. This is an aerial that was taken a few years ago, before the...we created the new greenhouses and headhouse, but the important message that is conveyed in this image are that there are no residences within at least a minimum of 1,800 feet from the plant production area and there will be no residential properties built because Cornell manages the area to the east and to the south and north and to the northeast of all that area and will in perpetuity. Also, along Forest Home Drive, between Forest Home Drive and the plant production facilities, there is a mature arborvitae hedge. So, again, I apologize for the poor visibility of the image, but this is one showing you the greenhouses and headhouse and I will point out that there is this arborvitae hedge between it and the roadway. We also, as we complete this site, we will be planting additional screening and additional ornamentals so that the plant production area is one that the public will not be welcomed in to and in fact, we received Planning Board approval for this project a few years ago, it was specifically with the caveat that it would not be open to the public. But, the siting will be well integrated into the rest of the arboretum landscape. So in this shot, hopefully you can see the arborvitae hedge a little bit better and see how, with the exception of the driveway, the entire plant production complex is screened from the road and certainly very, very well screened from any neighbors who (inaudible). In the final image, this is in the same type of fencing that we are going to continue to use, it is very similar to what has been used in the Cornell orchards, and if any of you are familiar with it, with the test area below Bluegrass Lane. As an aside, it is also the material that I have used on an acre of my own property at home, and have really been pleased both by the fact that we never have deer problems any longer and also by how virtually invisible the fence becomes over a short period of time. Chairman Sigel —Any questions. Mr. Krantz — It's so obvious that that 6 foot should be changed to 8 foot. I wonder if there is a way that we can get that done. We've had several cases ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 3 before where in a desire to keep the deer out of, they've required an 8 foot fence instead of a 6 foot...we really ought to ... Chairman Sigel — We could possibly make a recommendation...but the Town Board may want anything over 6 feet to be reviewed...I don't know. Dick Matthews — I had a question, I'm questioning the common wisdom, I guess...Where do they...the fact of an 8 foot fence being required to keep deer out? Where did that arrive from? My experience is I have a garden that my wife requires me to keep and, I put up a fence that's under 6 feet, and I live in a deer density area of Coddington Road. My car's practically not safe from them and yet I have not had a deer come in my garden. It's not because my vegetables are bad vegetables...why haven't the deer come in my yard at under 6 feet? Do I have deer that can't jump 8 feet? Mr. Raykow — No, it's likely that the deer could jump 8 feet and I think that there's a couple of reasons that probably is for that. One is that if they have adequate food elsewhere, deer are inherently what we would consider fairly lazy creatures...actually they are just trying to conserve energy. If they don't need to jump a fence, they're not going to because it requires expending a lot of energy. Also, I have had a number of people cite anecdotes similar to yours where they have relatively low fences around their vegetable gardens that the deer don't come in. Deer don't like the sense of jumping into an uneven surface. If there were tomatoes growing up in cases and things, that's not comfortable for them because they sense that there isn't a clear landing. So, often, you can get away with below and 8 foot, in your case, you had a 6 foot fence, but it's my insurance policy. We know that we've seen many examples of deer jumping over 6 foot fences. Based on research that all the professors of natural resources department has done, very rarely will a deer be able to clear 8 feet. So, it really is an insurance policy and in our case, it's going to be a much larger area than I suspect your vegetable garden is and the deer, with a lower fence, would feel more comfortable jumping into it. Chairman Sigel —Any other questions or comments? Mr. Levine — How many feet of fence are you installing? Mr. Martin — It's less than 2 acres that are going to be fenced in. It's less than 2 acres that we are fencing in and the...it will be approximately a little over 200 feet one way and 300 feet the other. Dick Matthews — I think the suggestion was made that the 6 foot that we have in the County probably ought to be addressed. Chairman Sigel — I'd have to think about that more. I think there is a good reason for the 6 foot the way it is. There is a big difference between, let's say, ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 4 the fence that Cornell has proposed, which is a very open fence and is not very noticeable from a distance and say, if someone were putting up a solid wooden fence of 8 feet would be quite a visual block and if you had that in a fairly dense neighborhood, it would change the character of the neighborhood quite a bit to have a sort of exclusionary fence. But in this case, I understand your problem. It is very well screened, even from the road, not that I think it would be a problem even if it was visible from the road. Any other questions? We'll open the public hearing. There being no one, we will close the public hearing. Chris, anything you want to say about the environmental assessment form? Ms. Balestra — Staff doesn't have concerns regarding the environmental impacts of this. I should note though, on my memo, I miswrote that there is a 50 foot front yard setback that's required. It's not 50 feet, it's between 30 — 60 feet or the average of the setbacks of other buildings on...adjacent to the property and the average setback, for the Board's information, is 24.5 feet, approximately. Chairman Sigel — The average was based just on this property, I assume... Ms. Balestra — This property and properties adjacent to it. Cornell Plantations has a very large property. Ms. Brock— So that means the setback would be 30 feet? Because it can't be less than 30 feet. Chairman Sigel — Okay, so it would have to be at least 30 feet. And what is the...what's the setback of this fence? Mr. Martin — This fence will be 26 feet from the right-of-way, 50 feet from the center of the road and that's...that is the reason that we are coming for a variance because we understood that we could put 6 foot fence within...closer to road but we want to put the 8 foot closer to the road...I understood it to be 50 feet but we're still under the 30 .... Chairman Sigel — Okay, so it's 26 feet from your property line. Mr. Martin — It's 20 feet from the road right-of-way, in other words, the road right-of-way is 25 feet or so from center to edge of road is the right-of-way and then from that right-of-way, the edge of the road, the fence is 26 feet back from the road right-of-way. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 5 Chairman Sigel — Okay, but we normally measure it from the property line right? Do you know how the...do you know how the property line of this parcel relates to the right-of-way line? It's not necessarily the same line. Mr. Martin — I do not. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I don't know that it's critical. We could specify the highway right-of-way line as a reference. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 024 SEAR Cornell Plantations Fence Tax Parcel # 65.-1-5.2 June 18, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in regard to the appeal of Cornell University to put up an 8 foot tall deer fence at the Cornell Plantations property at 397 Forest Home Drive for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment form prepared by Town Staff. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine NAYS: None Motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Sigel — I will move to grant the appeal of Cornell University Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article XXVII, Section 270- 223 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect an 8-foot tall deer fence in the front yard of the Cornell Plantations property located at 397 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. With the following findings...Actually, I would be happy to make all of the findings on the area variance criteria sheet submitted by the applicant. I think that those were all reasonable findings, which is actually a rarity, but I agree with all of your findings...so, if that's okay with you Susan... Ms. Brock— That's fine. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 6 Chairman Sigel — I will make those findings, and I will make the following conditions: 1. That the fence be no higher than 8 feet tall, and 2. That the setback from the road right-of-way be no less than 24 feet. Ms. Brock — Kirk...Because they haven't yet received site plan/ special permit approval...do you want to make your approval contingent on the applicant receiving the necessary site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board for the proposal? Chairman Sigel — Sure...I guess there's no harm in that... Ms. Brock — Okay...and should that be without special modifications? Substantial modifications of the proposal... Chairman Sigel — What if we don't condition it on anything, having to do with that? I mean, they still need site plan approval, right? Ms. Brock — Yes, but they could change the location of the fence, I mean, as long as they're not encroaching more into the setback, that would be okay, but if they are moving it in a way that it becomes more visible, or changing the materials... Chairman Sigel — Personally, I am comfortable with the Planning Board...with them exercising their judgment. So I'd rather, actually, leave it looser so that they can exercise their judgment and the applicant doesn't necessarily have to come back here. Ms. Brock— Okay, so you don't want to make this contingent on their receiving approvals...okay...just thought I would check with you. Chairman Sigel — Is that okay with everyone (nods from the Board)... ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 025 Area Variance Cornell Plantations Fence Tax Parcel # 65-1-5.2 June 18, 2007 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Dick Matthews. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 7 Article XXVII, Section 270- 223 of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect an 8-foot tall deer fence in the front yard of the Cornell Plantations property located at 397 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1-5.2, Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS 1. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties because the site is not visible from any nearby residential properties, and 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any feasible alternative to the variance because moving the fence would reduce usable area within plant production facility and using shorter fence would allow access by deer, and 3. That the requested variance is not substantial because the applicant is asking for an 8 foot fence rather than a 6 foot fence, and 4. That the variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because the surrounding area will be additional gardens and plantings, and 5. That the alleged difficulty was not self-created because the deer population has grown out of control in the area. CONDITIONS 3. That the fence be no higher than 8 feet tall, and 4. That the setback from the road right-of-way be no less than 24 feet. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Matthews, Levine NAYS: None Motion was carried unanimously. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 8 APPEAL of George Holland and Janet Wilkinson, Owners/Appellants, Randall B. Marcus, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a residence with insufficient side yard setbacks. The home with attached garage was built in 1958 and is located at 359 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-5, Low Density Residential Zone. There are no changes proposed for the home other than the sale of the home and property. The existing home encroaches into the 40-foot eastern side yard setback and the attached garage encroaches into the 15-foot western side yard setback required for parcels in the Low Density Residential Zone. Randy Marcus, Agent, Seneca Street, Ithaca As Kirk indicated, I am representing the sellers of the house at 359 East King Road. The house was constructed in 1958. The reason that this was constructed in the wrong spot is it appears to be that the property lines are not perpendicular to the road that's used in the (inaudible) and it was not discovered that the house encroached across that until a few weeks ago. A survey was prepared for the first time since the house was built and The microphone was turned off when the previous applicant slid it away from himself. This section is inaudible. It was a brief over view of the issue, which was, essentially, that the house was built slightly over the line. The owners of the encroached upon property were not willing to sell a portion of land to cover the encroachment but were willing to sell what amounts to approximately 2 feet bump-out over the line to accommodate the encroachment. To proceed with the sale, they need a variance in the setbacks. Chairman Sigel — Do you mind if I ask what they are charging their client...just out of curiosity. Mr. Marcus — The purchase price for the .01 acre is $500, plus the legal fees for their attorney of$250, plus the abstract charges which are another $200, plus the recording charges, which are another$200 or so. So it came to about $1,000 for something that has existed for 50 years and needless to say, the clients were not too happy about that. Chairman Sigel —Any questions... Mr. Krantz— I would doubt that there is a Zoning Board in this whole country that would not grant you this. It's been that way for 49 years... Dick Matthews — It's there...I'm very familiar with it.... ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 9 Chairman Sigel — There doesn't seem to be any kind of problem. So it looks like you...so you'll clear the edge of the garage, which is part of the house, by approximately 2 feet, and then the patio by .3 feet. Mr. Marcus — That's exactly right. Dick Matthews — You didn't move the western border property line completely, you just... Mr. Marcus — Just bumped it out a little bit. Dick Matthews -- ...a polyp there...a polyp of land. Mr. Marcus —Absolutely. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So for this we do not need to make an environmental finding. Any comments from Staff? Ms. Balestra — No. Chairman Sigel — Okay. We will open the public hearing....there being no one, we will close the public hearing and if there are no further questions or comments.... I will move to grant the appeal of George Holland and Janet Wilkinson, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a residence with insufficient side yard setbacks. The home with attached garage was built in 1958 and is located at 359 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-5, Low Density Residential Zone. There are no changes proposed for the home other than the sale of the home and property. The existing home encroaches into the 40-foot eastern side yard setback and the attached garage encroaches into the 15-foot western side yard setback required for parcels in the Low Density Residential Zone. With the findings...again, I think I am happy to make the findings as submitted by the applicant...and with the following conditions: 1. That the east sideyard setback be no less than 37 feet, and 2. That the setback for the house, on the western side, be no less than 1 foot, and 3. That the setback of the existing concrete patio on the west side be no less than .1 foot, and ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 10 4. That no addition or modification to the house be done within the required east and west sideyard setbacks. Chairman Sigel —Anything you would add Susan? Dick Matthews — For the record, the co-seller of the home, Mrs. Wilkinson is an across the street neighbor of mine. She has not talked to me about this at all, and the western property owner, Peter Capalongo, is a good friend of mine and he has not discussed this with me. I see no reason to recuse myself from this...unless somebody else can see that. Chairman Sigel — I guess while we are admitting things, I have, on occasion, hired Mr. Marcus to do some modest amount of legal work, which I don't think is affecting my decision at all. Okay. Any other questions or comments...suggested modifications...vote. ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 026 Area Variance Holland/Wilkinson 359 East King Road Tax Parcel #46.-1-5 June 18, 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grant the appeal of George Holland and Janet Wilkinson, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VIII, Section 270-60(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to maintain a residence with insufficient side yard setbacks. The home with attached garage was built in 1958 and is located at 359 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 46-1-5, Low Density Residential Zone. There are no changes proposed for the home other than the sale of the home and property. The existing home encroaches into the 40-foot eastern side yard setback and the attached garage encroaches into the 15-foot western side yard setback required for parcels in the Low Density Residential Zone. FINDINGS 1. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because no construction or development of any kind is proposed and the house has existed in its present location for approximately 50 years, and ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 11 2. That the benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by any feasible alternative to the variance given that the applicant has not been able to acquire land from the adjoining owner that would be sufficient to satisfy the sideyard setback requirements, and 3. That the requested variance is not substantial in that there will be no change whatsoever to the existing development of this property, and 4. That the variance will not have any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because no construction or development of any kind is proposed and the house has existed in its present location for approximately 50 years. 5. The alleged difficulty was not self created because the house was built approximately 50 years ago, and was just discovered, by the descendents of the family member who had the house built, to be without adequate set back from the westerly line of the property. CONDITIONS 1. That the east sideyard setback be no less than 37 feet, and 2. That the setback for the house, on the western side, be no less than 1 foot, and 3. That the setback of the existing concrete patio on the west side be no less than .1 foot, and 4. That no addition or modification to the house be done within the required east and west sideyard setbacks. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Matthews, Mountin NAYS: None Motion was carried unanimously. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 12 APPEAL of Michael Moore, Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect a new entranceway to a home under construction at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed entranceway will encroach into the required 20-foot southern side yard setback required for parcels in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Michael Moore, 1028 East Shore Drive I am requesting a variance for a roof and a cement pad for my front entrance way door at 1028 East Shore Drive. Chairman Sigel — When you were here before...let's see...when was that...September of 2005...1 don't recall, did you have house plans at that time? Mr. Moore — I had a sketch of the house plan. I didn't have this house plan and I didn't realize...I didn't think about it at the time, to have a roof over the entrance door. Chairman Sigel — Okay. So did you envision the entrance being on the side, at that point? Mr. Moore — I hadn't gotten that far. I knew basic what I wanted to do, I wanted to get the basic footprint established, as far as the size and I had an idea but... Chairman Sigel — Okay. And it is just the roof that is triggering this, is that right? Mr. Moore — No, I can do the roof, Steve Williams said that the roof would be fine, but putting the one step up cement slab at the entrance door, then that increases the footprint, and he figured I'd need a variance. Chairman Sigel — I thought that a patio had to be at least 18 inches off the ground to be subject to setback? Or maybe that's decks... Ms. Brock— I think those are uncovered, right...but I can check... Chairman Sigel — Yeah, I thought that it would be the roof that triggered the need...I think you can...well my guess is that you can have an uncovered patio, concrete slab there, without a variance... Mr. Moore — Mr. Williams looked at the fireplace also...(inaudible)... that I would need a variance for that. So that's why I have that listed... Chairman Sigel -- Is there a particular reason why you didn't put the entrance on the east side? ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 13 Mr. Moore — On the east...there's a sewer pumping station on this side here... Chairman Sigel — I don't know what your setback is like there, it may also have been noncompliant, I'm not sure... Mr. Moore — Yeah, plus there is a water line going through there that I wouldn't be able to pour something on. Harry Ellsworth — It's kind of a problem because that house that's adjacent to you is probably sitting on the property line... Mr. Moore — I did get a letter from the neighbor that he doesn't have any issues with the variances... Dick Matthews — Does he live there all the time or does he rent it? Mr. Moore — He rents it out sometimes and then he lives there...there are three brothers who own it and they spend summers there. They alternate... Dick Matthews — It's a summer residence only? Mr. Moore — I believe. I'm not sure. They have been renting it out, but I... they share. Mr. Mountin — I was walking around there this morning and there are half a dozen houses that are just sandwiched together in there and I was thinking...the 5 foot roof porch of this house would almost conform with the rest of the houses in the way they are all packed in there and there are very few feet between all the houses on East Shore Drive. They are all so...my impression is that putting a little 5 foot patio and a door wasn't going to make any difference to that whole neighborhood or to the whole issue. Harry Ellsworth —All the lots are small. Mr. Mountin — They are all extremely narrow. Chairman Sigel — True. That is true. Ms. Brock — Kirk, to answer your question, the Zoning chapter doesn't apply to unroofed porches that are not over 3 feet above the level of the floor of the ground story or 3 feet above grade, whichever is lower. So, because this is roofed, zoning requirements do apply. Chairman Sigel — Okay. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 14 Harry Ellsworth — Is it a big problem if that entranceway goes on the east end of the house? Mr. Moore — Well, all the utilities go to this end of the house, and to have two cars park straight in and walk to the corner...if you put it out here then there is no room for parked cars. Chairman Sigel — So you are trying to maintain the space between the house and the road to be as clear as possible. (inaudible) Talked about the pump station on the other side and lack f room. Chairman Sigel — So you are proposing a 5 foot 4 inch setback? Which would mean that...so the roof and patio are coming out then, a little less than 5 feet? A little over 10 feet total...so a little under 5...it could probably be reduced a little bit if we were particularly bothered by the setback. Mr. Moore — I talked to my architect about the size and she said if you ever wanted to get a person in a wheelchair in there, the area to turn around and enter the door can't be less than the 5 foot pad because you have the two pillars coming off of it... Chairman Sigel — Well, it...will you be able to walk through it...so if you were going around the house, would you tend to walk over it or wqould you walk around it? Mr. Moore — You would probably walk around it. There will be 8 feet from the edge of it to the other house. Chairman Sigel — My personal feeling is that I feel a bit frustrated that it wasn't presented to us originally so we could take that in to account, but on the other hand, I do think that he meets the criteria. Harry Ellsworth —What is the...that house next door there...the Barnes house... Chairman Sigel — That side of the house doesn't have any doors, right... just a few windows... Mr. Moore — Right. Dick Matthews — Maybe I'm a little bit thick tonight, that's not abnormal, but I can't understand why the entrance can't be at the front of the house. Why do we have to crowd the house in like this? Chairman Sigel —Well at this point the house is partially built, so... ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 15 Dick Matthews — But he knew that... Chairman Sigel —Well yeah, he knew that... Dick Matthews — It's a self inflicted wound... Chairman Sigel — That part is certainly self created, yes, the smallness of the lot is a preexisting condition. Dick Matthews — He knew that going into the game. Now he wants to further encroach on the smallness of the lot by increasing the size of the footprint, and I just can't understand why it can't be done in the front of the house. Chairman Sigel — Well, I guess the simple answer is I'm sure it could be. On the other hand, it being such a small lot, the applicant is trying to maximize the utility of the lot and parking in that area is very limited, and they are limited even more by this pump station on their lot, so they have less ability for parking than most of the lots there. So I do sympathize with the applicant somewhat in that regard. And I feel that this, it's not the same as the whole house encroaching that much farther. It's a roof with no sides and a somewhat raised patio... Dick Matthews — It's within whispering distance of the neighbors, that's for sure... Chairman Sigel — Right, but it's not a patio that you are going to sit on and entertain on. It's just an entrance way that's covered and without the roof would be legal. Dick Matthews — I'm adverse to crowding houses in tenant style in lovely Tompkins County. I'm just adverse to it and Mr. Moore knew the size of the property he was building this house on, and he could have reduced it...kept the footprint somewhat by shortening the length of the house. I feel that this is a self- imposed situation and it's imposing on a future owner who buys the house next door. He's stuck with it. I don't think that's fair. Harry Ellsworth — It's not measuring up too well. It doesn't meet some of these criteria. Chairman Sigel — The way the area variance test is written, you don't have to meet all the criteria. Those are criteria that we need to consider. Mr. Levine — It's just a balancing test. Chairman Sigel — Exactly. Mr. Moore — ...(inaudible)...The property to my south is 2.8 feet off and then the property to the north is approximately 2 feet off with their deck so I will still be ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 16 staying less of a distance away, twice as much, almost, as either of my neighbors from my property line. So it's consistent with the neighborhood. (inaudible)...So when visitors come, to ring the doorbell, they don't have to stand in the rain. Harry Ellsworth — Thayler's deck is what distance... Mr. Moore — It's 2 feet and Don's house is 2.8 feet and my entrance way will be 5 feet 4 inches away from the other property line. Mr. Mountin — I think that anybody who's buying a house down there, the way it looks like it's sardined, all the houses are in there and they all have different patios and doors and they're all squished together so a patio over a 5 foot entrance on that side of the house as a pass through, too, is, seems to work in terms of neighbors, in terms of access and parking for him. I think it just comes with the turf. If anybody wants to buy anything in that neighborhood is going to realize...this is what you're buying, you're buying a sardine type of situation here and it is what it is. It's not like its... Dick Matthews — It's a sardine situation because that's what's been approved... If the Zoning Board approves sardine situation before that doesn't mean the Zoning Board has to approve sardine cans today. Mr. Mountin — I am just referring to...we're putting a 6 foot roof out to the house...I don't think it adds any detriment to the distance between the house to the south at all, having been there, having looked at the site and I can envision that porch being there 6 feet...all the houses along there have nuances of things that somebody could complain about or something but I think it just comes with the territory. Chairman Sigel — I agree. I think that the key thing was what we did before which was to maintain the 10 foot setbacks which in that area is actually generous, compared to a lot of the homes, and while I would rather it wasn't sticking out, I agree with David, an open roof coming out 5 feet for that small surface area is pretty modest and really, given that neighborhood will have almost no impact and will obviously be a great benefit to the applicant to have a covered area for the door, for the entryway. Dick Matthews — As I recall, this property had a contentious situation before this with a dock didn't it? With Mr. Thayer? Mr. Moore — He didn't like the wall that I put in. He said that it wasn't installed correctly and I submitted three letters...one form the Army Corp of Engineers, one from the DEC and one from the Town that it is installed correctly. He said that it was going to erode his beach property further away and it's actually increased his property. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 17 Dick Matthews — Not a happy neighborhood. Mr. Moore —Actually, I had a closing with Dick today and we got along fine. Dick Matthews — We're adding to the unhappiness. Anyway, I hear what you're saying but... Chairman Sigel —And also, the neighbor... Dick Matthews — A foot here and a foot there and before you know it, we have tenements... Chairman Sigel — I understand. I am sympathetic to your view as well, but, personally, in this case, I think he squeaks over the line. Any other questions, comments... Mr. Levine — I would just comment that we've...we have treated clusters similarly. Like housing developments where they routinely exceed heights wouldn't be appropriate for a different area. We wouldn't grant it there. It seems that this is appropriate for this area, in my opinion and based upon David's visit and what he has said, I would agree. Dick Matthews — You may be referring to the cluster development on East King Road, and there was a height variance given to practically every house there...and that all had to do with not flat land, but with inclination...and that's what caused that... Mr. Levine — Right, I understand that... Dick Matthews — So I think that you may be talking, in some regard, apples and tangerines a little bit here... Mr. Levine — Yeah, but, my point was that we look at, it seems to me, the immediate area and the character of the immediate area and it seems that this area, the houses are already very close together and the neighboring properties seem to have similar small setbacks with the entranceways, so, it seems that this would just be keeping with the character of this clustered houses, that was my main point. Chairman Sigel — Okay...any other comments? Okay. We do not have to make an environmental finding with this. Chris, any comments from you or other Staff members? Ms. Balestra — No comments. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 18 Chairman Sigel — Okay. We will open the public hearing...There being no one present, we will close the public hearing. Ms. Brock — Kirk, I just want to disclose for the record that Mike Moore was my real estate agent. Chairman Sigel — Okay. I will move to grant the appeal of Michael Moore, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect a new entranceway to a home under construction at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed entranceway will encroach into the required 20-foot southern side yard setback required for parcels in the Lakefront Residential Zone. With the following findings- 1. indings:1. While the benefit that the applicant seeks to achieve could, in fact, be achieved by other means, namely, placing the covered entranceway on the east side of the house, that the applicant does have good reasons for seeking to place the entranceway on the south side of the house to maximize the limited amount of parking area that the property has on the east side, and 2. that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that other properties in the area have even less of a setback on their sideyards, and this area, there is a relatively small covered entryway area, and 3. the request is substantial, given that the applicant is seeking a setback of a little over five feet where twenty feet is required, and 4. that the applicant's proposal will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. the difficulty is self created, given that the applicant has designed this house from scratch, and could have sought to place the entranceway to the east. Nevertheless, applying the area variance balancing test, that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. And with the following conditions: 1. that the setback from the south sideyard be no less than 5 feet 4 inches, and 2. that the entrance area be constructed as shown on the applicant's plans and no larger, and ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 19 3. that no other portion of the house encroach any further than the 10 feet allowed by the previous variance granted through Zoning Board Resolution # 2005-046. Ms. Balestra — Just a quick question. By stating that, do you preclude the fireplace bumpout? Chairman Sigel — No. Maybe we should explicitly state that. Ms. Balestra — My only concern is that code enforcement staff will read the variance condition and then conclude that Mr. Moore has to come back to the Zoning Board because the fireplace bumpout does not meet that 10 foot ... Chairman Sigel — Okay, I will modify that condition that no other portion of the house encroach beyond the 10 feet to specifically exclude the fireplace bumpout which has a setback of at least 8.5 feet and will be built as indicated on the plans. Chairman Sigel — Susan, any suggested changes? Ms. Brock— No, I think that was very thorough. Vote ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 027 Area Variance Michael Moore 1028 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel # 19.-2-16 June 18, 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ron Krantz. RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Michael Moore, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VII, Section 270-47(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to erect a new entranceway to a home under construction at 1028 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19-2-16, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposed entranceway will encroach into the required 20-foot southern side yard setback required for parcels in the Lakefront Residential Zone. Findings The requirements for an Area Variance have been satisfied, specifically that: ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 20 1. While the benefit that the applicant seeks to achieve could, in fact, be achieved by other means, namely, placing the covered entranceway on the east side of the house, that the applicant does have good reasons for seeking to place the entranceway on the south side of the house to maximize the limited amount of parking area that the property has on the east side. 2. that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that other properties in the area have even less of a setback on their sideyards, and this area, there is a relatively small covered entryway area, and 3. the request is substantial, given that the applicant is seeking a setback of a little over five feet where twenty feet is required, and 4. that the applicant's proposal will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. that the difficulty is self created, given that the applicant has designed this house from scratch, and could have sought to place the entranceway to the east. Nevertheless, applying the area variance balancing test, that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the community. Conditions 4. that the setback from the south sideyard be no less than 5 feet 4 inches, and 5. that the entrance area be constructed as shown on the applicant's plans and no larger, and 6. that no other portion of the house encroach any further than the 10 feet allowed, excluding the fireplace bumpout which has a setback of at least 8.5 feet and will be built as indicated on the plans, by the previous variance granted through Zoning Board Resolution # 2005-046. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Levine NAYS: Dick Matthews Motion was carried four to one. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ZBA 5-18-07 Pg. 21 Chairman Kirk Sigel Paulette Neilsen Deputy Town Clerk