Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2015-11-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday,November 16, 2015 Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, and John DeRosa, Christine Decker, and Chris Jung; Alternates George Vignaux and Carin Rubin Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of Jaye and Laurel Rothermel, current owners, William and Elizabeth Walkenback, former owners and the Town of Ithaca, acting as agent on their behalf, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-71C"Side yards" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to maintain an existing home with insufficient side yard setback, located at 155 Whitetail Dr, Tax Parcel No. 44.4- 128, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Mr. Bates explained that this is an issue common to the development and is a town responsibility to correct the error by asking for a variance, therefore the town is acting as the representative for the applicant. Public hearing was opened at 6:07p.m. There was no one present and the hearing was closed. ZBA Resolution 0065-2015 Area Variance 155 Whitetail Drive,TP 44.4-128 MDR November 16,2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jaye and Laurel Rothermel, current owners, William and Elizabeth Walkenback, former owners and the Town of Ithaca, acting as agent on their behalf, requesting a variance from Chapter 270-71C"Side yards" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to maintain an existing home with insufficient side yard setback, with the following Conditions 1) That the setback be no less than 8 feet and 2) That there is no further construction or encroachment within the granted setback Findings 1) This board finds that the benefit to the applicants does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 2) That there will not be any undesirable change to the character of the nearby properties given this house has existed in its present location for many years, and 1 3) That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve; not moving the house; cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 4) That the request is substantial given the variance is for 8 feet where 15 feet is required,but again, the house is in existence now and was part of a development of similar houses, and 5) That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by no SEQR being required and the reasons stated above, and 6) That the alleged difficulty is not self-created but resulted from an error made during construction of the development. Vote: Ayes—Rosen, Jung, Decker, DeRosa and King—Unanimous Other Business Discuss Draft Sign Law Mr. Bates and Ms. Brock explained that the sign law has been reviewed and been in the drafting process for over three years, and all associated boards and committees are being asked to review it and give comments back to the Town Board. The Zoning Board had initially requested that this law be reviewed and simplified. Ms. Brock added that the old law had a lot of things that were content based, including requirements based on what type of entity displays the sign, and recently the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rules on content based regulations. Ms. Brock noted that some things may have caught the Board's attention, and most deal with the universities or business campuses and that is because there isn't an educational or institutional zone yet and they are in low density residential zones; the COC thought they should be allowed more signs but couldn't say that because that would be content based; so the committee looks at total square feet of buildings and road frontage and things like that. Mr. DeRosa asked about the 16 sgft of signage allowed in residential zones and he didn't think it depended in any way on the size of the lot; so if you have 2 acres or .25 acres, you are still allowed 16 sgft and he wondered if there are other municipalities that tie the amount to the size of the plot more. He thought that much signage on a small lot could be problematic. Ms. Brock responded that municipalities do it all sorts of ways and the COC talked about this and Mr. Bates thought it was to allow things like political signs; you could have 3 political yard signs, a political comment sign and a home occupation sign and reach that aggregate square footage. Mr. Rosen asked if that means anyone can put up a 4x4 sign in front of their house and say anything. Discussion followed. Mr. Rosen felt 16sgft is a lot of signage for a residential area and Mr. Bates said there is a limit on the size of each sign of 6 sqft, so the 16ft is in the aggregate. Mr. Rosen still felt it was a lot and Ms. Brock again said that could be signs for a presidential election, a governor candidate and a local board member candidate and you are almost there in terms of aggregate square footage. 2 Mr. Rosen didn't feel there was a need for someone to put 3 or 4 political signs up. He didn't see the need for a person to do that and Ms. Brock responded they have the right to do so. Mr. Vignaux also stated you have a right to do so, and Mr. Rosen responded then why not 10? He just thought it was excessive. Mr. Vignaux asked for clarification on the criteria applying to all signs in all zones,#3—be placed or painted on vehicles or trailers that are parked or located for the primary purpose of displaying such signs and he wondered how you determine if that is the primary purpose of displaying the sign and used the example of a hot truck that he is running at the State Fair and he parks it in his driveway, is it not a sign that is advertising his hot trucks? Mr. Bates responded that the vehicle is registered and moves; if it was not moving on a regular basis and just parked on or near the road that would be a sign. Mr. Vignaux used the example of the tractor trailers parked on fields along the interstate. He thought it would be an indefensible determination. Mr. Bates responded that it would be a determination by the Code Officer and the person would have the option of appealing to this board for a ruling on that determination and if they didn't like the ruling then yes, going to court. Ms. Brock added that you do not want to prohibit signs on vehicles such as florist delivery vehicles, and this terminology is the best the COC could do to address that concern. Mr. Vignaux then asked about regulating the size of an American flag and whether it was legal because there is a Federal code regarding American flags. Ms. Brock responded that we are treating American flags the same as any other flags and she was not aware of any statute that exempted American flags from local laws. You have to treat all flags the same because to do otherwise would be content based. If a 40 sqft American flag is allowed then a 40sgft Nike flag must be allowed. Mr. Rosen asked about lighting of signs in residential areas and flashing LED etc. Ms. Brock pointed to the section that referred to the outdoor lighting law and the prohibition on flashing LED etc. Discussion followed and there are limitations such as after the event is over and 9pm to 5am, whichever is earlier. Mr. Rosen did not think lit signs should be allowed in residential areas to which Mr. Vignaux asked about an American flag which is supposed to be lit when flown at night. A lengthy discussion followed and it is unclear about American flags but using the example of a lit Stop the War sign, the language about time frames should apply. Mr. Rosen didn't think they should be allowed at all. Mr. Vignaux asked about tombstones and whether they are signs and Ms. Brock responded the committee did talk about that and decided to leave it alone. Ms. Jung asked about murals and if someone wants to paint the side of their house, at what point is it a sign or a mural. Ms. Brock responded that the majority of the COC thought that murals were fine and pulled them out by defining them separately from other signs and will be addressing them separately. They will have to be one-of-a-kind and she will be drafting that soon. The issue was again the content based regulating. 3 Mr. Rosen thought somebody's art could be obnoxious to another person. If a death skull was painted on the side of a house, they could think it's cool while kids could be scared, and Ms. Brock responded that we don't have aesthetic standards and he responded that is why they should be treated as signs. Mr. King thought it might require some kind of permit, but Ms. Brock responded then you couldn't rule on the content so what would you rule on? When the whole board was asked,5 out of 7 wanted murals allowed and 1 thought it was hard to allow when allowing them may open the door to something commonly offensive because you can't regulate murals. Lengthy discussion continued using the Andy Warhol picture of a can of Campbell's soup and that is art and can be an advertisement. Ms. Brock stated that if you are being paid to display it that would be an off-premise sign,but if you painted a big graphic yourself and were not paid to do so, that would be allowed as an art mural. Mr. DeRosa thought the difference is the content and if you can't regulate by the content it is a conundrum. Using the example of the camouflaged-painted house in the City, that would be allowed under the draft law where the City made them paint over it. Mr. Rosen said he wouldn't want his neighbor to paint his house zebra striped and Ms. Jung responded what about purple—same thing. Discussion followed. Mr. DeRosa used the example of painting the side of his house with the words"Cuomo is great", which sounds like it would be allowed as a mural because he painted it and is not being paid and it is one-of-a-kind yet he is only allowed 16 sqft of"normal" signs so where is the logic there? Mr. Bates responded that the COC wanted to move this sign law forward and to do that the COC decided to pull out the mural issue and address them separately. Mr. Rosen thought in the absence of a demand for murals, he would rather see them treated as signs until it is figured out. He thought all zoning laws are protecting the public and he doesn't want to look at somebody's idea of art. Ms. Brock asked about the mural on the parking lot next door and Mr. Rosen responded that he doesn't think it adds anything to the garage but it was considered and approved by the governing body of the City who decided to allow it. He stated that he knew for a fact that if he wanted to paint a mural on the side of his office building on Albany St it would not be allowed and if he wanted to paint a picture of a policeman shooting a criminal, that wouldn't be allowed either and he thought the subject matter is chosen by the government and the location as something that is in the public interest and you can't just let people paint whatever they want. Mr. DeRosa responded that he doesn't know how you can tell one person they can paint whatever they would like on the entire side of their house,but you tell the neighbor they can't have more than X feet of sign. More discussion followed, and Ms. Brock thought the Town Board could look into how the City set theirs up and Mr. Rosen added that they could just be allowed in commercial zones and Ms. Brock responded that is an option. Mr. Vignaux brought up a sundial he has in his yard and asked if that was a monument sign and Ms. Brock explained the conversation at COC regarding the cow on top of a steak house or in a 4 yard and these are the things that the COC went through over and over and she thought it was helpful to have fresh eyes on the draft because she is even noticing some things that need to be changed now that it has been a month or two since being immersed in it. She added that it is impossible to write a law and think of everything and address every eventuality and that is why determinations will be made by the Code department and requests will still come to this Board for interpretations. She also said that we will need a little while to live with this law and have it in action to know where changes may be needed and that is always possible and will happen. Approval of Minutes Mr. Rosen moved approval of the September minutes, Mr. King seconded and Ms. Decker abstained due to absence. Unanimous with Mr. Vignaux voting. Recusal for next meeting. Mr. Rosen reported that Taitum Engineering is appearing as agent for someone and both he and Mr. King work for them and although they will not benefit in any way or work directly on the project, they were considering recusing themselves. Some discussion followed and since there will be a quorum present even if they do recuse themselves, they decided they would and would not participate in any discussion or decisions associated with the appeal. Submitte y, c;"7 Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk 5 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION 1010ft, 1, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: 71 ADVERTISEMENT ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Notice Ithaca Journal Legals November 9, 2015 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting: Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting: November 5, 2015 Date of Publication: November 9, 2015 N", Lori Kbfoid .......... Deputy Town Clerk /4, STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of 2015. 4ary Public ....... Debra DeAugistil's Notary Public I state.,of New YOCK No.01DE6148035 OuRlified in Tompkins CountY My Com 'm Expires Julie 19:20 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL ,Om%, STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) 1, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street,Ithaca, New York. That on the 5th day ot'November 2015,deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document, of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: 155 Whitetail Dr.,Tax Parcel 44.-1-128,Area Variance By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. Lori *1,L K foid,DepUt )wn lerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 01'Day of November 2015. No"tary Public Debra DeAugistine Notary Public-State,of Plow York No.01 DE6148035 Oualified in Tbrr)l.)kins,County My Commission Eypirps June 19, 20 AAM% 155 Whitetail DrTP 44..-1-.128 Jose&Alma Garcia Frank Wise Thomas&Katherinea Smith 149 Whitetail Dr 142 Whitetail Dr 156 Whitetail Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Patrick&Jennifer McKeon Roberto&Lynn Bertoia David&Rebecca Sparrow 152 Whitetail Dr 143 Whitetail Dr 332 Saranac Way Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 George&Sorina Popescu Ernest Exposite Gordon Holloway&Mary McKellar 166 Whitetail Dr 873 Coddington Rd 303 Saranac Way Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Santosh&Felicia Ninan Brian Heltsley&Ann Hoffman Lori Mike 150 Whitetail Dr 309 Saranac Way 308 Saranac Way Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Kui Chen&Jinmei Zheng Francesca Molinari&Levon Barseghyan Chiwai Ray Ng&Alice Kinhung 147 Whitetail Dr 154 Whitetail Dr 307 Saranac Way Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Hyunchelo Kim&Yac Eun Han Brad&Rachele Pollack Deer Run Homeowners Asc Inc 153 Whitetail Dr 304 Saranac Way 119 W Green St 2nd floor Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14851 Mary Ziegler William&Andrea Gerding 301 Saranac Way 146 Whitetail Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 David&Ilia Burbank Joyce Tappen Shankar Prosad&Tonima Mondal, 161 Whitetail Dr 330 Saranac Way 169 Whitetail Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Walter&Lisa Welton-Lair Jaye and Laurel Rothermell Chad&Karen Dumont 141 Whitetail Dr 155 Whitetail Dr 168 Whitetail Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ye Myint&Tin Tin Aye Jill and John Mayer Brian&Barbara Belyea 148 Whitetail Dr 145 Whitetail Dr 165 Whitetail Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Duane Barrett&Melinda Rivera Raj Managaraj&Clarissa Coombs Clayt&Lara Freed 306 Saranac Way 144 Whitetail Dr 305 Saranac Way Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Paul&Joanne Sweeney William&Regina Courtney Chad Horihan 167 Whitetail Dr 19 Saunders Rd 21 Saunders Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Paul&Maria Muscente William Petrillosc Laureen Golden 20 Saunders Rd 22 Saunders Rd 16 Saunders Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Michael&Jolie Massicci Bhupinder Singh&Rajinderk Kaur Peter&Nancy Massicci 12 Saunders Rd 23 Saunders Rd 18 Saunders Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Xiao Chen&Xiaoying Zhu Brisa Teutli&[ago Gocheleishvili 215 N Tioga St 7 Saunders Rd 15 Saunders Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Jay Bramhandkar Brian and Jennifer Kay Michael&Lisa Lofgren 2303 N Triphammer Rd 17 Saunders Rd 163 Whitetail Dr Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Linda&Richard Schurman 24 Saunders Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Jennifer&Daniel Driscoll Franziska Racker Centers,Inc 14 Saunders Rd 3226 Wilkins Rd Ithaca,NY 14850 Ithaca,NY 14850 Pablo&Angela Cohen 133 E King Rd Ithaca,NY 14850