The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2018-08-14Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, August 14,2018 @ 6:00 p.m. Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members George Vignaux, Bill King, and Caren Rubin Alternates David Squires and David Filiberto Absent Chris Jung Appeal of Ralph Yarn, agent, and Reed Dewey, owner, 203 Roat Street, Medium Density Residential, TP 71.-5-3 requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-71E(l) Accessory buildings to be able to build a detached accessory dwelling unit where the minimum rear side-yard setback is 30 ft. and 6 ft. is proposed and from Chapter 270-70, Height limitations where one story and 20 ft. in height are allowed and the proposed are two stories and 25 ft., and from Chapter 270-219.6 C(2) Additional requirements applicable to detached accessory dwelling units where the street facing facade of a detached accessory dwelling unit must consist of at least 20% window or door openings and the proposed is approximately 17%. Mr. Yarn gave the board an overview of the project as detailed in the submitted materials. The main need for the placement and height are to allow for the owner's mother to come here to live and the setbacks and the location of the stream added to the new setbacks for stand-alone ADUs make placement difficult while keeping the mature trees. Mr. Reed, owner, added that his brother lives across the street and his mother has medical needs which need single level living and easy access to his house without a long walk. The garage is in disrepair and seems ideal to repurpose and put an elder cottage there. Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Brock about other appeals where they have been told to de-couple the personal situations from the property itself as the variance applies to the building or property itself and Ms. Brock responded that that is correct; the variance runs with the land and if the ADU is built there, regardless of who builds or occupies it, it remains there. The law states that you are to look at the area variance criteria and do the balancing act according to those only. Those criteria are specifically aimed toward the property void of personal aspects. The board had questions about the existing art studio and Mr. Reed responded that access to that is too hard for his mother with the stairs. Mr. Yignaux asked about the other two buildings in the back and Mr. Reed responded that they have no water, sewer or electricity and was built and used as a quiet place to sit and the other is a playhouse/fort. Mr. Squires asked if the garage could legally be turned into a dwelling unit and Mr. Bates responded that they couldn't put a dwelling unit in there without a variance. Mr. Yignaux asked Mr. Yam why the building couldn't be built at the rear of the and Mr. Yarn said they looked at a lot of options and the width of the yard is not conducive to that and is further back and a longer distance for her to walk. Mr. Yignaux asked about a temporary elder house and Mr. Bates responded that the new legislation removed that option. ZBA 2018-8-14 Pg. 1 Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Ms. Sherene Bower who also sent a letter to the Board stated that while she is sympathetic to the plight of the mother because they had an elder stay with them and did legal alterations to handle the needs as have other neighbors but none asked for a variance to build a separate unit that can become a rental. She agreed with Ms. Brock in that the board needs to think about the property and the fact that it could become a rental which would be detrimental to the neighborhood character. Ms. Bower said the neighborhood is all owner-occupied at this time and if a rental option becomes available, being two miles from Cornell, it will change the demographic. The application is not to simply take down and build a new garage as implied. Mr. Rosen noted that they have the right to build an ADU but not within the setbacks and Ms. Bower stated that she understood that, but if you allow one closer to the sidelines, others will and the look of the neighborhood will change. Ms. Bower stated that she knows that other people have written in opposition and there is the option to add a wing, this is not the only alternative. There was no one else wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Board discussion Ms. Brock noted that SEQR is not required because it is an area variance for a single family home. Mr. Rosen restated the appeal noting that the question is not whether there can be a rental unit in the back, that is allowed if you meet setbacks, but the question is whether it can be six feet from the property line and taller than allowed. The Board felt that the idea that the garage is there and needs to come down is not applicable to the request and there are other alternatives available to the owners. Mr. King asked about previous variances in the neighborhood and Ms. Rosa stated that there have been five in the history but none for an accessory dwelling according to the research of the Town database. Mr. Rosen stated that the variance is large, going from 30' feet to 6' feet and there are other options that seem to be possible. Mr. Vignaux went through a number of options to meet the needs for someone with mobility needs. Mr. Filiberto stated that as you go through the criteria, the request doesn't meet any of them. ZBA 2018-8-14 Pg. 2 Ms. Brock asked for clarification if it is physically possible to meet the setbacks to put the building directly behind the deck and patio and Mr. Varn responded that it is if you go beyond the garage and further back. The lot is 431' feet deep. If it goes directly beyond the patio the large tree would have to be taken down but Mr. Rosen didn't think that was accurate but Mr. Varn responded that the large tree and possibly two others would go. He added that adding to the building would still need a variance but they will continue to look at that. Ms. Brock asked if there were any issues with extending a driveway to a location further back in the yard and Mr. Bates said there was not but Mr. Reed stated that his mother doesn't drive and ferrying her back and forth doesn't seem feasible or give her the independent feeling they were hoping for. Mr. Reed asked if the setback for the side-yard would be 15' feet if they added on to the house and Mr. Bates stated that that was correct. Some discussion followed and the owners requested that the appeal be adjourned so they could revisit different options that may still need a variance and taking all the comments into consideration. Mr. Rosen agreed to adjourn the appeal on request of the applicants with a the condition that the applicants return with a revised plan within one year of today's date, August 14, 2019, after which the appeal will be considered withdrawn and the process of applying for and paying for a subsequent appearance before the Zoning Board will apply. The applicants agreed to those parameters. The applicants did ask about what is allowed and Mr. Bates and Ms. Brock explained the setbacks and the new legislation which changed some setbacks and owner-occupancy requirements for new accessory dwelling units and the various compromises that went into the decision. Ms. Rosa added that, notices will be sent to neighbors again and a public hearing most likely held if they retum since the change would probably be significant from the original appeal. Other Business Mr. Bates reported on a training opportunity. Meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Submitted/ Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk ZBA 2018-8-14 Pg- 3