HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2015-07-20 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Monday July 20, 2015
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair;John DeRosa, Chris Jung, Caren Rubin, George Vignaux and
Christine Decker (7:OOp.m.) Absent: Bill King
Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon,Town Engineer; Paulette
Terwilliger,Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Continuation of Appeal of Kristin Letourneau and Diane Sullivan, owners, and Michael Reed,
Agent, is requesting relief from section 270- 219.1 B(1) "Solar collectors and installations",
of the Code Of The Town of Ithaca,to be able to install freestanding solar collectors in the
rear yard that do not meet the required 50 ft. set back in an agricultural zone, located at 461
Bostwick Rd.,Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-2.1, Agricultural Zone (AG).
Mr. Reed gave an overview of the new proposal noting that the proposal is one array on top
of the existing garage and a west array beside the garage with an east array 30 feet from the
east property line and 4 feet from the back property line. The placement in the east is still
close to the property line because of the septic field and to protect the view shed from the
house and it's resale value.
Mr. Rosen responded that basically the arrays could be on the big lawn next to the house
and not need any variances but you are asking us for a variance to put them 4 feet from the
neighbor's property line because you don't want to ruin your view. Mr. Reed responded
that there are height requirements for placing the arrays near the house and the owners did
not want to affect the view. Mr. Rosen responded that the one array is near a tree farm so
that doesn't make sense and Ms. Letourneau responded that the property he was referring
to was not the tree farm but the vacant lot which has been vacant for 12 plus years and they
were willing to take that risk.
Ms. Caren stated that it doesn't seem the revised plan addresses the concerns from the last
meeting except moving the west array and putting it next to the garage so the access
concerns are the same. Ms. Latourneau responded that they have no knowledge of a tree
farm being on that property;this summer they have been logging tress off the property but
it isn't necessarily a tree farm, and her driveway is quite a ways from our driveway and the
easement is within 4 feet of the property line anyway so she wouldn't be able to use the
easement/access regardless of whether there is an array there. Ms. Latourneau had photos
and Mr. Rosen added that he didn't see how the easement and access to it affects this
variance and thought that should be put to rest. Ms. Latourneau responded that she
thought the west array had been the only issue and the concern that it would change the
aesthetic value of the neighbor's home and the empty lot and we have moved it back to line
up with an existing structure. She added that the photos show the arrays seen from such a
1
distance would not be aesthetically significant because either way the existing structure is
there.
Mr. Rosen continued to think that there is room on the property without needing a variance
and the view of it would be there. Ms. Brock read from the statement submitted by the
neighbor at the last meeting concerning being able to see it and the board looked at the
submitted pictures showing the large distance between the two properties and the
applicants and agent thought the array would look pretty small in comparison and there is a
tree line and the topographical dip would make it even smaller seeming.
Discussion followed as the board looked at the pictures and discussed the actual height of
the array(s). Ms.Jung agreed that the array would look very small and not that offensive
given the distance and the actual view of most of the valley from her porch isn't in view
anyway. Discussion followed and the east array would not be in sight but the west array
would but it isn't objectionable.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:26p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
board on this appeal and the hearing was closed.
Ms. Brock noted that this is a Type 2 action and no SEAR is required.
ZBA Resolution 2015-0044 Area Variance
461 Bostwick Rd,TP 32.-2-2.1
July 20, 2015
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Kristin Letourneau and Diane Sullivan from
section 270- 219.1 B(1) "Solar collectors and installations",to be able to install freestanding
solar collectors in the rear yard that do not meet the required 50 ft. set back located at 461
Bostwick Rd.,Tax Parcel 32.-2-2.1, Agricultural Zone (AG)with the following
Findings
1. That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the community because the neighboring house is far enough away
that these arrays, although close to the property line, are rendered small because of
the distance involved and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character but in
fact will be a desirable change because of the renewable energy being produced, and
2
3. That the request is substantially, going from 50 feet to 4 feet for one of the arrays
and 50 feet to 30 feet for the other, but this is mitigated by the fact that the
neighbor's house is approximately 800 feet away, the effect is minimized along with
the fact that the western array is adjacent to an existing garage that is already in the
neighbor's line of sight and the eastern array is hidden by the topography of the land
and the trees in existence and it will be difficult for the neighbor to see them given
those reasons, and
4. That there will be no physical or environmental effects given that this is a Type 2
action and no SEAR is required, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created but the benefit to the applicant outweighs
any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community for the reasons
stated above.
And with the following
Conditions
1. That the arrays be installed substantially as as shown on the plans submitted for this
July 20, 2015 meeting with the setbacks and heights as indicated (not to exceed 11
feet)
Vote: Ayes—DeRosa,Jung, Rubin and Vignaux Nays—Rosen
Motion passed 4 to 1
Christine Decker arrived.
Appeal of Esref and Belgin Dogan, owners, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-73C "Size
and area lot" of the Code of the Town of Ithaca,to subdivide a property creating two lots,
with the created lot would have inadequate width at required 50 ft setback line, located at
1408 Hanshaw Rd,Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR).
Mr. Dogan gave an overview of the discussion and resulting conditions on their approval
passed at the Planning Board meeting (resolution and minutes were in the board's packet.)
The only variance needed was for 60 feet where 100 feet is required at the 50 foot setback
from the road.
Mr. Rosen brought the board's attention to the color map included in the packet and noted
that he does not see the stream referred to in the narrative. Staff noted the location for him
and added that many changes have been made in the area and the stream is intermittent.
Mr. Rosen added that the board has had requests for flag lots in the past and the Planning
3
Board did give its approval contingent on the variance. He asked Ms. Brock to explain the
difference between the two boards, Planning and Zoning, and what they look at.
Ms. Brock stated that the Planning Board would not consider or look at the need for the
variance or the fact that it will be a flag lot and she added that Ms. Balestra had submitted a
map showing the other flag lots in the area and other odd-shaped parcels and parcels with
shared driveways in the area. She passed it around.
Ms. Jung stated that she lives in the neighborhood and the size of the proposed two lots
would be in character with the neighborhood.
Mr. Bates added that the only obstacle is the setback at the 50 foot setback, other than that,
all dimensions of the proposed split would meet all requirements in the zone.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m.
Diane Feldman and Eileen Deboer, next door neighbors
Ms. Feldman stated that they are concerned about the water and drainage issues because
their lot slopes towards their property and they have put in a retaining wall and French drain
to try and control the water and they have had 3 water claims for damage and they are
concerned another house will increase the amount of water that will continue to come
down. She added that when they redid Hanshaw Road with the swales and everything else,
they still have runoff even with their retaining wall and other improvements they have tried.
Ms. Jung asked if the water is coming from the stream and Ms. Feldman responded that it
used to but Mr. Dogan changed that so now it is the culvert and the work he did and they did
with the retaining wall has helped but the new house would increase the water because of
the slope. Ms. Feldman noted that the plan submitted to the board says that drainage issues
will be addressed.
Mr. Dogan responded that the neighbors did not mention the water at the Planning Board
meeting at which they also spoke;they were only concerned with the driveway being in their
line of sight and nearer to their living and bedrooms and now they say they are concerned
about water drainage. He stated that of course he would build to code and work to mitigate
any water discharge and put it in the drainage pipe. This would be his house and he knows
there are things that need to be done and he will do them and he does not think the town
should add additional costs over and above what would normally happen.
Mr. Rosen noted that he lives in the neighborhood also and the soil is not very permeable
and surface water is a problem so adding a house will increase the impermeable surface and
some Stormwater management will be needed. Mr. Dogan responded that it would go
down in the footers that would go down to the storm drain as required and customary. Mr.
Dogan showed Mr. Rosen that the way the property is,the neighbors built a berm and water
from his property is not going from his backyard to theirs.
4
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:58p.m.
Discussion followed on various Stormwater mitigation options and the possibility or putting
a condition on the approval but the applicant did not want a specific way indicated that may
cost significantly more than other options that are perfectly legal and to code.
Mr. Rosen asked Mr. Hebdon to address the concern of a new roof that would increase the
impervious surface and he responded that there are all sorts of ways to mitigate runoff and
single family units do not fall under our purview or code. Building code requires gutters and
that is it. Discussion followed and Ms. Brock responded that you don't want to engineer the
solution but the board could require that they submit details of how they will handle
stormwater runoff subject to the approval of the town engineer;that it would not runoff to
the neighbor's property. Mr. Bates would like to see it tied to a standard but Mr. Hebdon
responded that there isn't really one and there are many ways to do it and there is no way
to stop runoff in a 10 year storm or a 100 year storm. Discussion followed and Mr. Rosen
thought it could be stated that runoff would not be discharged directly onto the property.
Mr. Dogan responded that most people just drain onto the land and he doesn't and doesn't
plan to.
The board briefly discussed adjourning the appeal to get more information on drainage
mitigations. Mr. DeRosa would like to see details from the builder. Mr. Dogan responded
that he did not know it was such a large issue because the neighbors spoke at the Planning
Board about the driveway and wanting to keep open space and didn't say anything about
the drainage. He reiterated that he will be doing drainage mitigations for his own benefit
and the SEAR approved by the Planning Board says it would be little or none. Ms. Brock
noted that the Planning Board thought they did not have any information on drainage issues
and since it is a single family house,the default is no impact and they did not have any
information that flooding happens at the neighboring property. Mr. DeRosa stated that the
addition of an additional structure is a concern for drainage any time anyone wants to build
in the area. Mr. Bates responded that he agrees but the neighbors and no one else that
spoke at the meeting mentioned drainage at all.
Mr. Dogan reported that he does not have any flood issues and he never has and Mr. Rosen
suggested a condition that the applicant have a civil engineer approved drainage system to
either contain it or drain it so it won't run across the lawn to the neighbors' yard. The Board
agreed.
5
ZBA Resolution 2015-0045 Area Variance
1408 Hanshaw Road,TP 70.41-40 MDR
July 20, 2015
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Caren Rubin
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Esref and Belgin Dogan requesting a variance
from Chapter 270-73C "Size and area of lot" of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to subdivide
a property creating two lots, where the created lot would have inadequate width at the
required 50 ft setback line, located at 1408 Hanshaw Rd, Tax Parcel 70.-11-40, Medium
Density Residential Zone with the following
Conditions
1. That the created lot will be for a single family house, and
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, submission to the Codes Department of a of a
stormwater mitigation plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer for the new
impervious area, and
3. Maintenance of the stormwater management facilities described in the mitigation plan
must be maintained as specified in the plan.
And with the following:
Findings
1. That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, specifically,that the benefit cannot be achieved by any other
means feasible given that the request is to subdivide a parcel to create a new parcel for
another house for his family, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties given that there will be a stormwater management system, and the newly
created lots will each exceed the lot size requirements for the zone and two flag lots
exist around the corner on Warren Road.
3. That the request is substantial, going from 100 feet to 50 feet, but nonetheless, the
benefits outweigh the detriments, and
4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental impacts for the reasons
stated in the SEAR form approved by the Planning Board and the fact that this is a Type 2
where SEAR is not required for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and a stormwater
6
management plan is being required to mitigate additional effects of additional
impervious surfaces, and
5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, the benefit to the applicant does
outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the
reasons stated above.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, Rubin, DeRosa, Jung and Vignaux Abstention: Decker
Appeal of Ernest and Melissa Blake, owners, requesting a variance and special approval from
the requirements of Chapter 270-69C "Accessory buildings and uses authorized by special
approval only" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be able to keep domestic animals and if
allowed, a variance to keep animals in a lot that does not meet the size requirements
Chapter 270-69C-(1), located at 303 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-2-2, Medium Density
Residential Zone (MDR).
Ernest and Melissa Blake were present to answer questions from the board and stated that
they have had the chickens for a few years and never had a complaint. They have six
chickens and they are building a house in Danby where they are allowed. They added that
they thought they were legal when they bought the chickens. They noted that their lot is
just under a half an acre. They added that they spoke to 12 of their neighbors and have not
heard any dissent other than the one who attended the appeal of another chicken owner
last month.
Ms. Brock noted that there was one person who was not in favor. The Board noted that
given the size of the lot,they would probably not be in favor of this without being able to
put a time limit on the variance to allow them to keep them until they move.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
A letter was received by the board in favor of the chickens.
Karen Newsome, neighbor, stated that she hears them and thinks they are lovely and she
has no issue with keeping the chickens. She added that the dogs in the neighborhood are
much noisier.
Jane Law, speaking in support of the variance and added that she just came back from a
Cornell sponsored research trip to study an urban agricultural project in Europe where food
security is a real concern and a 3-year study was done. The cities that allowed chickens
scored very high in the food security and there are many cities and towns that allow chickens
in the US. Ms. Law went on extensively about the benefits of having chickens, the food
security issue and the social benefits of having chickens and how they bring people together.
f o",N
The public hearing was closed at 7:25p.m.
7
Ms. Brock had a few changes to the SEAR form.
ZBA Resolution 2015-0052 SEAR&Area Variance for Chickens
303 Murial Street,TP 70.-2-2 MDR
July 20, 2015
SEQR
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for
the reasons stated in Parts1 and 2 and the information provided in Part 3 of the SEAR form.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, Vignaux,Jung, Decker, and DeRosa
Area Variance
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Ernest and Melissa Blake, owners, requesting a
variance to be able to keep domestic animals in a lot that does not meet the size
requirements Chapter 270-69C-(1), located at 303 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-2-2, Medium
Density Residential Zone (MDR) with the following
Conditions
1. The variance will expire on June 1, 2016, and
2. That there may be up to 6 hens and no roosters, and
3. That there be no guinea fowl, and
4. That the food shall be stored in the house,
5. That the hens shall be for personal use an no commercial use, and
6. That the existing fencing be maintained in the condition and location substantially as
described in the application and at the meeting, and
7. That the coop be located as presented in the application
With the following:
Findings
That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community for the following reasons:
1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant
given that the existing lot is .56 acres, and
8
2. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or to
nearby properties given that there will be no more than 6 hens, no roosters, the type
of hen is docile and does not make much noise, and that this variance is time limited
to 10.5 months, and
3. That the request is substantial in that the area needed is 2 acres and this property is
.56 acres, but nevertheless,the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment for
the reasons stated above, and
4. There will not be any adverse environmental effect for the reasons stated in the
SEQR resolution adopted by this board, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicants wish to maintain their
chickens, but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to
the health and safety of the neighborhood for the reasons stated above.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, DeRosa, Decker, Rubin and Jung
ZBA Resolution 2015-0052 Special Approval—Chickens
303 Murial St,TP 70.-2-2
July 20, 2015
Motion made by George Vignaux, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Ernest and Melissa Blake, owners, requesting
special approval from the requirements of Chapter 270-69C "Accessory buildings and uses
authorized by special approval only' of the Town of Ithaca Code,to be able to keep domestic
animals, located at 303 Muriel St,Tax Parcel No. 70.-2-2, Medium Density Residential Zone
with the following:
Conditions
1. The variance will expire on June 1, 2016, and
2. That there may be up to 6 hens and no roosters, and
3. That there be no guinea fowl, and
4. That the food shall be stored in the house,
5. That the hens shall be for personal use an no commercial use, and
6. That the existing fencing be maintained in the condition and location substantially as
described in the application and at the meeting, and
7. That the coop be located as presented in the application
And with the following:
Findings(as stated in the application with minor changes)
9
A. That the hens are fenced in and their wings are clipped. They are confined in a
predator-proof coop at night and there are no roosters and the food is stored in our
house. Further, chickens eat ticks and these chickens may be helping in reducing the
incidences of tick-borne illnesses in our family and neighborhood, and
B. There is adequate space available and there are no streams or wetlands, and
C. The coop is white and unobtrusive. There are only hen chickens- no roosters or
guinea fowl, ducks or geese. The breed, Buff Arrington, is knows as docile and
friendly. They are amusing and relaxing to watch. The fence is typical for the
neighborhood, being made of melded wire, and
D. Chickens are becoming more and more desirable in backyards across America—rural,
suburban and urban. As recently as 15 years ago, there were lots of chickens on
Muria[St. and it is likely there will be again soon. Every neighbor whose property is
in view of ours has expressed support for us having chickens, and
E. average, no noisier than dogs. The coop is no smellier than a compost bin or pile
and in this case, the coop is quite far from all property lines. The closest property
line is 56 feet away, and
F. Chickens require only a small amount of water. The entire flock of 6 drinks no more,
on average,than a dot. The waste is composted in our garden compost bins, and
G. Given that this board has just granted an area variance for the action and the coop is
a minimum of 56 feet from any property line and 60 feet from the house, and
H. The structure is only 24 feet. We keep a fire extinguisher near the backdoor,which
would be adequate for putting out a coop fire, and
I. There will be no significant impact on traffic, sewer or water, and
J. Are not applicable given that this board has granted an area variance for the lot area
requirement, and
K. The small amount of rainwater that drains off the coop's 24 square foot roof soaks
into the ground and doesn't flow on the surface, and
L. Chickens are an allowed use on a 2-acre lot.
Vote: Ayes—Rosen, DeRosa, Decker,Jung and Vignaux
Appeal of Virginia Augusta and Matthew Clark, owners, requesting variances from the
requirements of Chapters 270-47 "Building area" and 270-46 A& B "Front and rear yard
setbacks" of the Town of Ithaca Code,to build a residence that lacks adequate building area
and does not meet the front and rear yard setbacks, located at 932 East Shore Dr,Tax Parcel
No. 18.-2-3, Lakefront Residential (LR).
Virginia Augusta, Matthew Clark and George Franz were present to answer questions.
Ms. Augusta explained that they purchased the property a few years ago;4 years ago they
purchased two very dilapidated cottages at 938 East Shore Drive and it has taken 4 years to
get to this point. Just north of this house and across the tracks they are building a new
10
residence and when they first bought the property they weren't sure what they were going
to do but they have decided to downsize and live there as a.family year-round and they
started looking at the parking and storage for outdoor items. They approached a neighbor
and bought another dilapidated property as an income property or in-law apartment.
With all of those potential needs to accomplish what they want as a family, they are coming
before the board to establish a footprint and it is a very difficult site, but they don't want to
invest a lot in planning something that is not feasible in the eyes of the board. They want to
improve the area while satisfying their needs as a family and get feedback on where to go
from here. The footprint is the start.
Mr. Franz spoke about the footprint and the setbacks using the map included in the
property. The property goes to the center line of E Shore Dr. with the state having a right-of-
way and they are assuming it is 33 feet from centerline to the edge of the state right-of-way
represented by the red line. The lot is about 13.5 feet wide at the north end and about 35
feet at the south end outside of the right-of-way. It is extremely narrow but about 145 feet
long.
The other issue, shaded in yellow, is two easements for sewer lines which have recently
been granted to the town of Ithaca and they make the site even more interesting than
before and the green line is the actual sewer line which abuts to the railroad line which has
its 33 from center ownership of the property. Ms. Brock asked if the state owned the road
or had an easement and Ms. Augusta responded that they only have an easement.
Mr. Rosen asked if the existing house is over the sewer easement and Mr. Franz responded
that it did encroach on the easement and Ms. Brock asked if the encroachment would
increase and Ms. Augusta responded that they are reducing the encroachment in the state
right-of-way but increasing the encroachment on the sewer easement.
There were questions about the map and diagram which are difficult to put in writing. Please
refer to map/diagram in appeal folder.
At one point the applicants were advised that the state would have to be a co-applicant if
they were going to build in the state easement and they subsequently pulled back the
footprint to avoid that encroachment which reduced the footprint by 100 square feet.
Mr. Franz went on to say that the challenge is that this is a very small, narrow lot and they
are requesting a variance from the minimum 25 foot rear-yard setback to permit the house
to be located within roughly 5.3 feet of the rear yard line adjacent to the railroad. They
would like an essentially zero front-yard setback from the public right-of-way and that would
give the north side of the house 16 feet of width for the structure and the south side 18 feet
and roughly 72 feet long.The other variance they are requesting a maximum square foot lot
9• � coverage of 34%vs the 10% permitted under zoning for the 1,257 sq foot house. He went
on to say that the sewer easements are especially challenging because they essentially
11
eliminate about 25%of the lot for use as a structure and unfortunately it happens to be the
part of the lot that is the widest. Ms. Augusta added that they agreed to buy the lot with the
existing survey which was about 6 years old and did not show the easement which was done
more recently. The east/west easement wasn't shown and didn't register in their minds
when doing the transaction.
Mr. Hebdon asked if the new house goes more on the existing easement with the town and
Mr. Franz responded yes and Mr. Hebdon stated that only the Town Board could allow that
and Mr. Franz stated that any approval would be conditioned on getting relief from the town
board.
Ms. Augusta went back to describing the concept with having a garage/storage at the
railroad level and living space at the E Shore Dr. level and a second floor loft sleeping area
from the ground level so essentially 3 levels beginning at the railroad level and working
down.
Mr. Rosen asked about the GML from the County and the concern with parking and Ms.
Agugusta stated that the garage would not be for vehicles,just storage because they live
across the street. So the garage would be storage at the ground level to use for lake
equipment. She added that they could even consider a canterlevered structure to be off the
ground of the town easement but Mr. Hebdon said you have to be able to dig with a
backhoe and that wouldn't work.
Mr. Rosen asked how, procedurally,they could decide on anything without plans; he
thought what they were talking about sounded fine, but the board can't rule on something
without plans. Mr. Franz responded that they are asking for a variance for the building
envelope in which to work with to which Mr. DeRosa responded that the applicants could
come in with two different plans that would be looked upon totally differently by the board
and he couldn't see how to decide or even debate something without a plan.
Ms. Augusta responded that the board would be looking at the possibility of a 3-story house
from the bottom grade and they wanted a feel for what the board would think because she
doesn't want to spend a lot of money on plans and drawing that are not even a little bit
favorable and she would like her lawyer to be able to talk to this board about so she has so
direction on what is conceptually acceptable.
Mr. Hebdon responded that it sounds like you are trying to come here with a sketch plan like
the Planning Board does. Ms. Brock responded that this is a quasi-judicial board and they
cannot make any promises or guarantees without final plans and holding a public hearing
and they cannot be seen as pre-judging any aspect of it if you want their decision to hold up
if anyone chose to challenge it and she was saying it to protect both the applicant and the
board. Mr. DeRosa added that even if he were to say I would consider a zero foot setback he
would say of course,that's his role on the board, but he can't say that without any plans.
12
Ms. Augusta responded that they did something similar with the other E Shore Dr. property
and they had conceptual drawings and she asked if that would be acceptable to the board
and Ms. Brock responded that the board would need the dimensions at least and that would
all have to be available for the public to review.
Ms. Brock stated that the board could give general opinions and Mr. DeRosa stated that
what they were describing as being able to submit in the way of a conceptual drawing
sounded like something that would allow him to make a decision on and Ms. Augusta
responded that there aren't a lot of options and Mr. Franz added that they are requesting
three variances, front yard, rear yard and lot coverage with the full intention of building
within the height limitations of the zoning limitations and that is why there are no plans for
the building, we were hoping to get approval of the footprint in which we could build.
Mr. Rosen responded that there are a lot of similar appeals for this lakefront district and he
didn't have a problem with someone building up to the lot line because there would still be a
lot of empty space with the railroad and the street but he felt it was a big detriment to the
public to build over a sewer easement. Mr. Franz responded that it is possible to maintain
sewer lines in something less than a 20 foot easement.
There was some discussion on the uses of the building for storage and an in-law and Ms.
Brock reminded the board that they can't look at occupants of the building because that can
change.
Ms. Jung asked if there are comparable properties nearby that have the same combination
of issues and Mr. Rosen thought it was common and the applicant responded that their
other parcel at 938 E Shore Dr. was the same but Mr. Bates reminded the board that this
parcel is not on the lake. Ms. Augusta responded that the parcel comes with 8 feet of Lake
Frontage across the street. Mr. Bates noted that the town was not aware of the
consolidation and discussion followed on whether that would come into play with the
setback issues.
Ms. Augusta stated that it seems like the next step would be to come back with some more
detail on what they would like to put within the lines an get more information on the
easement situation and whether a 5 foot zigzag would have to happen and Mr. Hebdon
responded that although Mr. Franz has said there are smaller easements in the northeast,
that is a mistake from the past that the DPW does not want to repeat because they have had
nothing but trouble working in those easements and in fact the new easements are 30 feet
wide. The Superintendent does not want to give up any more easement.
Discussion followed on whether to try and grant the variances because some felt the board
doesn't need to see exact plans but to just set the perimeter. Ms. Augusta felt the sewer
easement placement was unfair that the easement was taking up 27% of the property and
,O"N Mr. Hebdon reminded her that the easement was in place before they purchased the
13
property and they bought into the hardship. Ms. Augusta thought they were trying to
accomplish a tradeoff and get some benefit back.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:55p.m.
Rob Kwortnik, neighbor at 934 East Shore Drive
Mr. Kwortnik stated that he is directly behind 932 E Shore Dr. which is the new property and
that he is friends with the applicant but they are in conflict right now. His main concern is
parking because right now, if there is any easement on the ROW that will affect the parking
along E Shore Drive. He has no parking and goes down a flight of steps to get to his house.
He stated that the applicants have decided that they control that parking although his layer
is debating that because it is a state highway. There are three homes there and the history
has always been that that area is a state ROW and used by all to park and they have put up
"no parking" signs and said that parking had to be with their permission. He went on to say
that this is being worked out between lawyers but he was concerned that any variance along
E Shore Dr. would threaten the parking for the group.
The board asked him to show where the parking area is on the displayed map.
Mr. Franz responded that there is no encroachment on the state ROW and the proposal is to
build a new stairway and move them. The applicants are not eliminating access. Discussion
followed and the issue will definitely need to be researched and the board thanked him for
bringing the issue to their attention.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 9:08 p.m.
Ms. Augusta responded to the parking issue saying that they have been getting guidance
from their lawyer on this issue and she clarified that the reason she asked him not to park in
the spots or to talk to them beforehand is that they are building right now and they need the
space to park. They bought this property for parking. They gave notice to everyone and
there is a spot further up that people use when they have guests. They purchased the
property for parking and just because people have been essentially squatting there for years,
our lawyer tells us it is our property.
Discussion continued and the applicant requested an adjournment until a mutually agreed
upon time to provide further information to the board.
14
14"11\ Approval of Minutes
Mr. Rosen moved the draft minutes of June for approval, seconded by Ms.Jung. Approved.
Ms. Kofoid will canvass the board on a date for a second meeting in August if necessary.
Meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Submitt d
Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk
15