Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2017-07-31 Public Hearing Notice Town of Ithaca Special Meeting Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, July 31, 2017 Appeal of Julie Crowley, owner, 987 Taughannock Blvd, TP 21.-2-27, LR, requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-45, "Height restrictions" to construct a building exceeding the allowed height by 3ft. 3in.; and 270- 46 C "Side yard setback," to build within the required 20' ft. setback of the property; and 270-47, "Building area," to exceed the allowed 10% building area on the lot by approximately 2.5%. Information on the appeal is available at from the Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Town Clerk 7/26/2017 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, July 31, 2017 Board Members present: Rob Rosen (Chair), Bill King, Chris Jung, Christine Decker and George Vignaux; Alternates: Carin Rubin and William Highland Staff present: Marty Mosely, Senior Code Inspector; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Appeal of Julie Crowley, owner, 987 Taughannock Blvd, TP 21.-2-27, LR, requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-45, "Height restrictions" to construct a building exceeding the allowed height by 3ft. 3in.; and 270-46 C "Side yard setback," to build within the required 20' ft. setback of the property; and 270-47, `Building area," to exceed the allowed 10% building area on the lot by approximately 2.5%. Julie Crowley, owner and Jason Demerest, architect were present to answer questions from the board. Mr. Demerest thanked the board for scheduling this special meeting and noted that he submitted a new site plan that shows the house moved to be in compliance with the 20 foot setback on the north side to allay the concerns of that neighbor. To do this we will have to do some interesting structural work and channeling the drainage creek but that was the best way to resolve the neighbors concern. The house footprint is a little bit different than what was previously submitted but largely the same lot coverage, footprint and elevations. Mr. Demerest stated that they managed to move the house down on the site about four feet which brings the ridgeline down further. Mr. Demerest noted that there was confusion about negative easements and property lines and they have abandoned that approach and moved the house so the request is back to a side yard setback on the south side of the house and the height and lot coverage variances. He added that the details of the request are located in the corner of the new submission. Mr. Demerest noted that there is still more than 40' feet between the two structures so the buffer is there and the lot coverage is only 2.6% over the needed 10% and this is normal in this area given the narrow and steep lots on the lake. As for lot coverage, if the walk-in closet and master bath were removed, that would meet the height but this is a normal wish for lake residents. Mr. Rosen noted that saying that there is still 40' feet between houses and the buffer is there is not quite accurate in that if that other lot wants to build within their allowed setbacks, the buffer would not be 40 feet. Mr. King asked if the house was made smaller and Mr. Demerest said it was not, it was just pulled in a little bit to change the foot print. He added that they looked at ways to change the ZBA Minutes 2017-07-31 Pg. 1 house but at the end of the day, when asking who it impacts, making any changes would not mitigate anyone's perception of lot coverage given the topography. Since the applicant owns the neighboring property and they are not concerned with any view and any future owner would be aware of what they were purchasing insofar as what the house looked like next door, there isn't an issue. Mr. Vignaux asked what the issues are at this point other than the increase from 12.5% from the required 10%? Mr. Rosen responded that the other variances remain for height and side yard setback but for the south side. Some discussion followed but the biggest concern was the neighbor to the north and that has been mitigated. The board acknowledged that there are a lot of tight houses in the area and nonconforming lots with people buying them and knowing what they are getting into. Ms. Brock asked why the previous application stated the placement of the house was due to the creek and yet now that does not seem to be the case. Mr. Demerest responded that after a site visit, that creek bed is bedrock and so we are more comfortable anchoring the foundation into the bedrock and that is still below the lower level of the house and we will re-channel the creek which will still be lower than then lowest level of the house. It adds cost but took care of the biggest concern expressed at the last meeting. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. ZBA Resolution 0019-2017 Area Variance 987 Taughannock Blvd. Lakefront Residential, Tax Parcel 21.-2-27 July 31, 2017 Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Resolved that this board grant the appeal of Julie Crowley, owner, 987 Taughannock Blvd, TP 21.-2-27, LR, requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-45, "Height restrictions"to construct a building exceeding the allowed height by 3ft. 3in.; and 270- 46 C "Side yard setback," to build within the required 20' ft. setback of the property; and 270-47, "Building area,"to exceed the allowed 10%building area on the lot by approximately 2.5%with the following Conditions 1. That the building be constructed substantially as shown on the revised ZBA submission dated July 21, 2017 , and 2. That the height not exceed 39' feet 6"inches, and ZBA Minutes 2017-07-31 Pg. 2 3. That the setback on the south side is no less than 12' 6"inches, and 4. That the lot coverage for all structures combined on the lot not exceed 13%, and 5. That the plantings shown in the July 21, 2017 submission be planted and maintained and such plantings should consist of coniferous, deer-resistant species that are at least 6' feet tall at time of planting, and with the following: Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweighs any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the design of the house and the narrowness of the lot and the steep slope, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties given that nearby properties and the neighborhood in general are also less than the required setback to the lot lines, and there are many in the area that are closer than this proposal, and 3. That the request is substantial given the setback requirement is 20'feet and this is approximately a 35% reduction and the height variance is substantial given it is about a 10%increase in height and the lot coverage is substantial given that 3%is a lot of square footage, and 4. There will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the fact that SEQR is not required and that the creek is not regulated by the state or the town as well as the fact that it does not drain a large area and due to the topography of the lot the ridge elevation will be two feet lower than the existing house and will appear to be a one- story house from street level, and 5. That the hardship is self-created in that the applicant wants to build this house this way, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Other business Mr. Mosely asked the board for clarification on board's granting of a height variance for the Cayuga Medical Center's Behavioral Sciences addition in January. In reviewing the building application, there is some issue with the measuring stated in the resolution: "that the height not exceed 48' feet as measured from the lowest interior level." And then under the Findings, the board states that the building appears to be approximately 50' feet high from the front, and it is only when measuring from the lowest interior space from the rear of the building, which is downslope, that the requested height variance becomes necessary." ZBA Minutes 2017-07-31 Pg. 3 Given those statements, Mr. Mosely asked whether it was the board's intention to grant the variance as requested and presented,regardless of where the measurement is taken? The board responded yes, there were no concerns with the project at all. Mr. Mosely explained that the building permit application is the same plans,with the final elevation being the same, but there is a lower basement level in one area of the campus. Some discussion followed while looking at the various levels shown on different drawings which showed a back side of one building. Mr. Rosen stated for the record that it was not the board's intention to measure from a lowest interior level that is elsewhere and not in the area impacted by this construction being considered. The board was looking at the one area on the drawing showing 47' 6" feet probably from the basement slab, and the intent was not to change anything in the request and not to include a lower basement level that wasn't shown in the plans. Meeting was adjourned at 6:42 p.m. Submitt aC Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk ZBA Minutes 2017-07-31 Pg.4