HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2015-05-18 (2)ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, May 18, 2015
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members: Christine Jung, Chris Jung, Bill King, John DeRosa
and Alternates George Vignaux and Carin Rubin
Staff: Bruce Bates, Direct or Codes; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Susan Brock,
Attorney for the Town
Aaaeal of Jane Marie and Adam Law, 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 16 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-1-18, Medium Density Residential
Zone (MDR).
Jane Marie Law was present to answer questions from the board. She noted that there is an
additional letter of support she submitted and her nearest neighbor is present to speak at the
public hearing.
Mr. DeRosa asked Ms. Law if we were to receive similar requests from all others in the
neighborhood and would her position be to grant all of those? Ms. Law responded that in her
mind it isn't really whether people have the amount of land but whether they will provide
proper animal care and Mr. DeRosa asked what about the person who intentionally bought a
house in a zone where they thought they wouldn't have to worry about domestic animals
being raised and Ms. Law didn't know what to say to that except that zoning laws are
constantly changing. Mr. DeRosa stated that he doesn't disagree but maybe it should be done
through a zoning change and not variances.
Ms. Law responded that she went for a variance because she wants to start the conversation
and set something in place for a reasonable chicken ordinance which provides for very small
flocks of well-kept animals. Ms. Law talked about food security and the history of the small
flocks and her concern that the animals be taken care of correctly as well as the benefits of
chickens doing pest management and composting.
Mr. DeRosa noted that she could move tomorrow and the variance would follow the property
not her and quite a bit of the appellant's argument seems to be based on the standard of care
and hygiene she will provide and this variance will stay whether she is there or not.
Ms. Law agreed that the town should establish a real chicken ordinance that would require a
licensing similar to dogs to make sure people did it conectly but this is her only legal option.
It would be better if we come up with a legal option instead of a variance based option.
Mr. DeRosa asked why she doesn't move to somewhere that would allow chickens and she
responded she doesn't want to, she likes her neighborhood and Mr. DeRosa responded that is
the point, zoning is there for a reason. Ms. Law responded that zoning laws change all the
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 1 of 11
time but they move at a glacial pace and she wants it now. Ms. Brock responded that it
doesn't necessarily move that slowly and something like this could be done in a few months.
Ms. Law responded that she is here tonight to ask for a variance because her yard is huge and
bounded by an easement on top of that.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Dan Boucher, neighbor
Mr. Boucher stated that the Law's are great neighbors and he has no objection at all to this
variance and he has the longest border with her. She has dogs and he has no problems with them
and she has been an exemplary neighbor.
Mr. DeRosa asked him about the hypothetical scenario where she moves and a stranger is now
going to have chicken in the adjacent property and would that raise concerns and Mr. Boucher
responded that it would not because strangers bring all sorts of problems with them, it could be
their children or any number of things and Mr. DeRosa agreed but noted that this would be a
problem he wouldn't have to worry about under current zoning.
Mr. Boucher agreed but said he doesn't see chickens as a problem and he is very in favor of the
local food movement that Ithaca supports so strongly and he encourages the town to move
forward with it and changing the law because it is a healthy way of people providing for
themselves. He wouldn't mind a chicken coop at every house.
Bozzelli's — Neighbors
Mrs. Bozzelli stated that although they appreciate the Law's doing this in the cleanest manner
possible and probably in a manner no one else would ever do, but their concern is others are
going to come in and say they did so why can't we do it. They wondered how the town would
manage that and make sure everyone did it right; the code officers have no time as it is to issue
building permits never mind making sure people are taking care of their chickens correctly.
There are a couple of people with chickens now and they wander around neighborhood freely
and into her yard. Mrs. Bozzelli stated that she certainly doesn't want roosters in her backyard
too and a neighbor has one but they don't care that other people may not want to get up at the
crack of dawn.
Mrs. Bozzelli was concerned about the next person and them not being as conscientious about
keeping them and then getting a rooster. She was also concerned about an increase in coyotes
and raccoons that the presence of chickens will attract. She was also concerned about the feces
that is around from the ones running around freely tracked in by kids and pets roaming around.
Mrs. Bozzelli stated again that it is wonderful that they want to do it but if every other house has
chickens in it and the enforcement of it and people not doing it correctly or not in a nice way
with ugly chicken coops too close to the property line of others.
Mr. Rosen responded that some of the concerns could be addressed by conditions and in this
particular application, which will differ from others, is they have stated they do not want a
rooster, that they have a fence around the entire property and a fence around the chicken area as
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 11
well as a larger lot than usual in the area. Mr. Bozzelli responded that he feels this will
embolden others to do what they want to do without getting a variance and it's already a problem
and it will only get worse and now we have to make phone calls and follow up and codes has to
follow up and it is time he doesn't want to spend on this type of thing.
Mr. Rosen stated that he completely understands and he would be upset if his neighbors had
noisy chickens and Mr. Bozzelli responded that it is happening now; they have just starting
popping up all over in the last few weeks and here we are.
Mr. Bates addressed the comments about other roaming chickens stating that they have been
contacted and given a timeframe to comply and Mrs. Bozzelli responded that there are others in
the neighborhood in coops or fences that shouldn't be there either which illustrates the issue with
enforcement not having the time to police this type of thing.
Glenna Margaris stated that she loves her neighbors, they're good people, but we are worrying
about things that we don't need to. She said that she has thought about this and she grew up with
chickens and there's no odor and she thought that people who have never had chickens don't
realize that; this is not farm animals with their associated smells. If there is a problem with your
neighbor you need to talk it out, we need to be more tolerant of our neighbors and talk things out
directly instead of calling enforcement.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 7:43p.m.
The board discussed SEQR and made a number of changes to the form. A substantial section
was added to Part 3: There is no potential for a significant adverse environmental impact
because the applicant will only have 6 hens and no roosters. The coop will be located
approximately 75 feet away from the stream and provisions have been made to control the
stormwater runoff from the coop roof to protect the stream. Food will be stored in the garage in
animal proof containers.
ZBA Resol ution 0035-2015 and 0047-2015 S
SEQR — Chickens
16 Muriel Street, TP 70.-1-18 MDR
May 18, 2015
Moved by Christine Decker, seconded by Chris Jung
Resolved that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance
regarding the appeal of Jane Marie and Adam Law, 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), based on the information given in Parts 1 and 2 of the and
for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form.
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 11
Vote: Ayes — Decker, Jung, DeRosa, King and Rosen Unanimous.
Discussion again turned to the area variance and special approval.
Ms. Rubin thought that in looking at the balance of this request, the private good vs the public
good, while there are concerns, it is a compelling argument that the way in which they plan to
keep their chickens provides a public good.
Mr. DeRosa disagreed, saying that although he is a fan of chickens, this is a neighborhood in
which people would reasonably purchase their property based on the regulations as they
currently exist and those regulations do not permit chickens on parcels smaller than 2 acres and
to permit this, even in a case like this, even though they will be kept in exemplary conditions, we
will be fundamentally changing the character of the neighborhood and what would prevent this
board from granting similar requests in the future? He stated that he felt changing the statute
would be the appropriate way to impose such a dramatic change on the neighborhood rather than
one variance at a time and leaving the property open to future use by unknown parties who may
not be as conscientious as Ms. Law.
Mr. Rosen responded that there is always a possibility of granting a variance to anybody and in
this particular case, where it is 1.5 fenced acres with n roosters; those are significant factors.
Mr. DeRosa responded that this is not the country and people make their property decisions on
what is and is not allowed in a particular neighborhood and there are people in this neighborhood
who may not want chickens and they expected that in this zone. He again stated that this is not
against having chickens, but what people expect when they purchase property in this kind of
development and zone. He added that we are doing it such a way that he would have a hard time
in a similar case drawing that line. He felt it leaves the door open.
Mr. Rosen responded that he is not considering the person, just the verifiable, quantifiable area
variance that is being asked for. He added that he did think someone could come next month
with a 1 acre lot who wants 12 chickens and it could be a slippery slope.
Ms. Jung responded that that would be very substantial and that is taken into account with this
request. This is for 6 hens on more than 1.5 acres which is about a 25% difference versus a 50%
difference and then you add the fencing so that is what doesn't set precedent for anyone.
Mr. Vignaux thought the 2 acre requirement probably came from the average lot coverage of a
residence which would leave X amount of open space for things. This 1.5 acre lot is atypical in
that it is fenced, not sitting close to a lot line, it has a garden in place already and these things are
more in line with larger parcels so we can judge it differently.
Mr. King asked about the general lot size in the area and Ms. Brock stated that most are very
narrow and deep but hers is double wide, but there is a variety. Mr. King asked if the board can
put conditions about a fence and no roosters and quality of care to address concerns and Ms.
Brock responded that the board can for the �rst two but not about care.
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 4 of 11
Mr. DeRosa added that is the concern; there are a lot of things that once you allow this, day to
day are going to be beyond anyone's control because there isn't an ordinance on it. Mr. King
agreed saying there are standards for caring for chickens and it would be good if that could get
into the variance. Ms. Brock responded that we don't have those before us and Ms. Law added
that she is working on an ordinance that would include that.
Ms. Brock suggested a time limit on the variance to allow for the progression of a possible
ordinance by the town going one way or the other. The board discussed Iength of time and Ms.
Law asked for 3 years because she was going on a sabbatical. Ms. Law stated that she spent a lot
of time on this variance request and she felt she should get a variance on its merit. Mr. Rosen
responded that the board has to consider the concerns brought to the board and the concerns of
the members of the board. He added that he had concerns about this variance being granted in
perpetuity so the idea of a time limited variance is appealing. Ms. Law asked why the variance
can't be for the life of the applicant and Ms. Brock responded that variances are not particular to
the person but tied to the property so the board cannot make any conditions dependent on any
characteristics of the applicant including life.
ZBA Resolution 0035-2015
Area Variance — Chickens
16 Muriel Street, TP 70.-1-18 MDR
May 18, 2015
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jane Marie and Adam Law, owners, requesting a
variance to keep animals in a lot that does not meet the size requirements Chapter 270-69C-
(1), located at 16 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-1-18, Medium Density Residential Zone
(MDR), with the following
Conditions
1. The variance is time limited for three years
2. That there be up to 6 hens and no roosters
3. That the existing fences around the property and the garden must be maintained in a
condition and location substantially similar to the fencing described in the application
submitted for this appeal
4. That there be no Guinea fowl
5. The coop shall be substantially built and located as presented in the application
6. That the food for the chickens shall be stored in the garage in an animal-proof container
7. That the hens shall be for personal use only and not any commercial use
And with the following
Findings
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 5 of 11
1. That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community in that the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to
the applicant given that the existing lot is 1.56 acres, and
2. There will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby
properties given that the lot is 1.56 acres, is fenced, and there will be no more than 6 hens
and the coop will not be visible from the road or from nearby properties, and
3. That the request is substantial in that the area need is 2 acres and the property is 1.56
acres which is 23% short for that requirement, but nevertheless, the benefit outweighs the
detriment for the reasons above, and
4. That there will not be any adverse environmental effects as indicated in the SEQR
resolution adopted by this board, and
5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that applicant wishes to have chickens, but
nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above.
Vote: Ayes — Decker, Jung, King, DeRosa and Rosen
ZBA Resolution 0047-2015
Special Approval — Chickens
16 Muriel Street, TP 70.-1-18 MDR
May 18, 2015
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung
Move to grant the appeal of Jane Marie and Adam Law, 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 16 Muriel St, Tax Parcel No. 70.-1-18, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR},
with the following
Findings
a. That the health, safety morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with
the general purposes of the zoning chapter and the medium density residential zone are
being promoted because, as found in the SEQR form, there is no potential for a
significant adverse impacts. The chickens will not be visible from neighboring
properties or the road and the keeping of chickens will enable the applicant to produce
her own food, which supports the local food movement, and
b. The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, such use will ful�ll a
neighborhood or community need given that the applicant has a double wide and
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 6 of 11
double long lot with screening from all adjacent properties, and the keeping of the
chickens will enable her to produce her own food, and
c. The proposed use and location and design of the structure will be consistent with the
character of the district in which it is located for the reasons stated above, and
d. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood
character in amounts sufficient to devalue neighboring property or seriously
inconvenience neighboring inhabitants for the reasons stated above and given the
conditions that are imposed on the area variance, and
e. Operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to
nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential
nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the medium density residential
zone for the reasons stated above and given the conditions imposed on the area
variance, and
f. Community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective
services, roadways, garbage collection, schools, and water and sewer facilities are
currently of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and
g. The proposed use, building design and site layout comply will all the provision of the
zoning chapter and to the extent considered by this board, with other regulations and
ordinances of the town, with the building code and all other state and federal laws,
rules and regulations and with the Town's Comprehensive Plan given that this board
has just granted an area variance for the action, and
h. The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the
site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and
i. The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such
items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems is not
detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community given that there
will be no impact at all on these items, and
j. The lot area, access, parking and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use
and access, parking and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their
visual impact given that access, parking and loading facilities are not applicable given
that this board has granted the variance for the lot area requirement, and
k. Natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town or local law or
ordinance and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects
other properties as shown by the applicant's control of the stormwater runoff of the
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 7 of 11
coop by capturing it into rain barrels and by locating the coop at least 75 feet from the
nearby stream on the property, and
1. To the extent reasonably deemed relevant by this board, the proposed use or structure
complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in this chapter.
And with the following:
Conditions
1. The variance is time limited for three years
2. That there be up to 6 hens and no roosters
3. That the existing fences around the property and the garden must be maintained in a
condition and location substantially similar to the fencing described in the application
submitted for this appeal
4. That there be no Guinea fowl
5. The coop shall be substantially built and located as presented in the application
6. That the food for the chickens shall be stored in the garage in an animal-proof container
7. That the hens shall be for personal use only and not any commercial use
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, DeRosa, Jung and Decker Unanimous
Aapeai of Renate Schmitt and Leon Ginenthal, owners, and Thom Mayo of Renovus, agent,
requesting a variance from section 270-219.1 B(5) "Solar collectors and installations" of the
Town of Ithaca Code, to be able to install a solar expansion on the front yard, located at 190
Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 31.-5-1.4, Low Density Residential Zone (LDR).
Ms. Brock disclosed that she has solar panels on her house installed by Renovus but she didn't
feel that would alter her objectivity or ability to give impartial advice on this appeal. The Board
agreed.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. There was no one in the room and the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Ginenthal gave an over view stating that they have a very large lot but they placed the house
in such a way that the front yard is the biggest part of the yard. They did this to get the most from
the view and they have existing panels that were installed about 10 years ago and they just want
to add on to that. He added that if they tried to place them in the backyard they would have to
remove some mature fruit trees and a part of the vegetable garden.
Mr. May noted that they did evaluate the roof for additional panels but it is not oriented correctly
for them.
The board discussed the definition of a front yard and how that is determined and noted that the
front yard really doesn't seem like a front yard and they are not very visible from the road and
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 8 of 11
would seem to the public that it is in the side yard. It was also noted that the one neighbor who
could possibly see them had submitted a letter in support of the application.
ZBA Resolution 0036-2015
Area Variance — Solar Panels
190 Seven Mile Drive
TP 31.-5-1.4 LDR
May 18, 2015
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by John DeRosa
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Renate Schmitt and Leon Ginenthal, owners, and
Thom May of Renovus, agent, requesting a variance from section 270-219.1 B(5) "Solar
collectors and installations" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be able to install a solar expansion on
the front yard, located at 190 Seven Mile Dr, Tax Parcel No. 31.-5-1.4, Low Density Residential
Zone (LDR} with the following:
Conditions
1. That the additional panels be installed substantially as described and depicted in the
application to this board
And with the following:
Findings
1. That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community, and
2. That the benefit to the applicant cannot be achieved because the existing house in not
oriented in the correct way to use roof mounted panels and the unusual way the house is
placed on the lot makes a very large front yard that in reality seems like the side yard, and
3. That the request is not substantial given the size of the lot, the orientation of the house
and the size of the array, and
4. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties given the size of the lot, 3 acres, and the fact that there is an anay already in
existence, and there is existing screening in place for the panels already erected which
will also shield the additional panels, and the orientation of the house and size of the 3
acre lot makes the placement seem to be in the side yard, and
5. That there will not be an adverse environmental affect and in fact it will have a positive
effect, and
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 9 of 11
6. 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.
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, DeRosa, Decker and Jung Unanimous
Appeal of Scott & Walter Wiggins, owners, requesting a Sprinkler Variance for the
Bathhouse located in the Firelight Camps, as reyuired by Section 225-4 "Building permit" of
the Town of Ithaca Code which requires a sprinkler system, located at 1150 Danby Rd, Tax
Parcel No. 36.-1-4.5, Multiple Residence Zone {MUL).
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 9:OSp.m. There was no one present and the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Wiggins explained the renovation to the bath house and that most of it would be cement,
ceramic and tile and there would be extremely limited chance of a fire as well as people would
not be sleeping in the structure or even in it a majority of the time.
The board discussed the uses of the building and some conditions they would put if granting the
variance. The hot water heater is electric and the building is used seasonally. The state code
does not require a sprinkler but the Town Code does. The board felt this was a safe structure,
with water available in close proximity and of limited capacity and limited use.
Ms. Brock decided that we do not need to do SEQR as it is a Type 2 action.
ZBA Resolution 0038-2415
Sprinkler Variance
1150 Danby Rd
TP 36.-1-4.5 MUL
May 18, 2015
Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Scott & Walter Wiggins, owners, requesting a
Sprinkler Variance for the Bathhouse located in the Firelight Camps, as required by Section
225-4 "Building permit" of the Town of Ithaca Code which requires a sprinkler system,
located at 1150 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 36.-1-4.5, Multiple Residence Zone (MUL) with
the following:
Conditions
1. That the garbage cans will be fire resistant, and
2. That the smoke detectors shall be hard wired and connected in all rooms except for the
shower stalls and sauna rooms, and
3. That a minimum of three (3) fire extinguishers shall be distributed and available
throughout the building.
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 10 of 11
And with the following
Findings
That based on the findings as presented by the applicant and the memo dated Apri19, 2015
with details and costs to this board, that this board finds that the strict application will create a
practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the omission of an approved sprinkler system
will not jeopardize human life with the addition that the conditions above are implemented.
Vote: Ayes — Jung, Decker, King, DeRosa and Rosen Unanimous
Other Business
Mr. Bates and Ms. Brock noted that the Planning Board is willing to be Lead Agency in the
SEQR determination process associated with the College Crossings development.
Motion made by Rob Rosen and seconded by Chris Jung, that in anticipation of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board's intention to declare themselves as Lead Agency and asking for
concurrence from other involved agencies, that this Board agrees and concurs that the Town
Planning Board be Lead Agency for the College Crossings Project's SEQR process.
Vote: Ayes — Jung, Decker, Rosen, King and DeRosa
Mr. Rosen reported that the evergreens that were shielding a solar array on Forest Home Drive
have been removed and having them there was a condition of the approval and a major factor in
granting the variance. A number of board members agreed that it is unsightly now and asked
Mr. Bates to check into it.
Mr. Bates asked the Board if they would be interested in changing the meeting time to 6p.m.
The Board was interested in trying the new time and will begin the new time for the July 2015
meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
Submitte �-
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
Adopted June 15, 2015 Page 11 of 11