HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2019-09-10
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday, September 10, at 6:00 p.m.
Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members Bill King, Chris Jung, and Caren Rubin and Alternates
David Squires and David Filiberto Absent: George Vignaux
Staff: Bruce Bates, Codes, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town
Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.
0010-2019 Appeal of James Gary Kohlenberg, owner of 1580 Slaterville Road, Tax Parcel No.
56.-3-19, is requesting relief from the Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71 F. (1)Yard
regulations, which requires a, one story garage, minimum side yard setback of 5 feet. Currently,
the garage has a side yard setback of about 2 feet. This property is in the Medium Density
Residential Zone.
Mr. Kohlenberg was present and explained that the garage was there when he bought the
property and when he applied for a building permit to reroof it, Codes found that there was no
permit for the garage and it was 2 feet from the property line and the current regulations require
5 feet in the side yard so he applied for this variance. He added that the backyard is very steep
and he assumes the original builders put it there because there really is no where else to put it.
Mr. Rosen said that this seems pretty simple with the garage being there at least 25 years.
The rest of the board also felt this was not out of character with the neighborhood, you can’t see
it from the road, and the neighbor on the other side has no issue with it. Although by proportion
is seems a significant variance of over 50%, in practice it isn’t.
Mr. King asked what the setback was when it was built and Ms. Brock said it was 3’ feet at the
probable time it was built. Had the owner at that time come in for a permit, they would have
been 1’ foot shy and needed a variance for that.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. There was no one wishing to speak on the
appeal and the hearing was closed.
Ms. Brock stated that SEQR is not required, Type 2.
ZBA Resolution 0010-2019 Area Variance
1580 Slaterville Road,
Tax Parcel No. 56.-3-19
September 10, 2019
Moved that this board grant the appeal of James Gary Kohlenberg,ownerof 1580 Slaterville
Road, Tax Parcel No. 56.-3-19, is requesting relief from the Town of Ithaca Code section 270-71
ZBA Minutes 2019-09-10 (Approved 9/16) Pg. 1
F. (1) Yard regulations, which requires a, one story garage, minimum side yard setback of 5 feet.
Currently, the garage has a side yard setback of about 2 feet, with the following:
Conditions
1. That the deficiency of the side yard setback remain unchanged and the portion in the
required setback not be expanded in any dimension, and with the following:
Findings
1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means
possible given the topography of the land and the NYSEG easement makes it not feasible
to move the garage, it is economically prohibitive and
2. There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby
properties given that the garage has been in place for 25 plus years and has therefore been
a part of the neighborhood character for a long time, and at the time of the garage being
built in the early 90’s the setback was 3’ feet in the sideyard and the garage is barely
visible from the street and little impact to the neighbor who has a fence between the
garage and the yard, and
3. That the request is substantial, given that 5’ feet is required and there is only 2’ feet, and
4. That the request will not have adverse environmental effects as no SEQR is required, and
5. That for the reasons above, there will not be any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Karen Rubin
Vote: Ayes – Rosen, Rubin, King, Jung and Filiberto Absent: Vignaux
0009-2019 Appeal of Tenzin Pelmo, owner of 1322 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 70.-1-26, is
requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 A. (3) (a) and (c) Fences and walls;
retaining walls, to be allowed to have a solid fence 8 ft. in height within 10 ft. of a highway right
of way. This property is in the Medium Density Residential Zone.
Ms. Pelmo was present for questions and a lengthy discussion followed on the exact placement
of the fence using surveys in the packet as well as photos and google earth.
The measurement from the road side and the ROW was discussed at length and there were
questions as to the exact placement and what the applicant was using for the measurement.
The applicant noted that there are shrubs on the edge of her property and the fence would be
right behind the shrubs on her property. The applicant felt that the powerlines above was the
location of the fence.
Mr. Rosen thought she wanted to put the fence 6.5’ from the gutter of the road which is the
ROW and discussion followed with Mr. Rosen feeling there was not an accurate measurement
given and he did not see how the appeal could be considered without that measurement.
Mr. Rosen suggested adjourning the appeal until there were accurate measurements.
ZBA Minutes 2019-09-10 (Approved 9/16) Pg. 2
The Board and staff went through a number of ways to measure the placement of the fence using
the side of the road or the side of her house. The question seemed to focus on the definition of
the side of the road but then there is a ROW.
The applicant wanted the fence under the wires.
The fence can be 10’ feet back from the wires or a variance is needed and for the height of the
fence.
The applicant stated that she would agree to the 10’ feet back from the street line but wanted the
variance for the height. The fence would be on the inside of the shrubs the applicant referred to.
The Board then turned to the height variance.
Mr. Rosen did not feel that an 8’ foot high fence fit the neighborhood character because many of
the other houses that did have fences in the neighborhood were open or split rail and he felt a
solid fence of that height was unfriendly and just not in keeping with the neighborhood.
There was some discussion on the stated purpose of the height for the fence with the applicant
saying that there was no privacy into her house from the neighboring house and passersby.
Mr. Rosen did not agree that an 8’ foot house would solve any issue with sight from the
neighboring house which is at least 75’ feet away between the road and its own setbacks.
Mr. Squires asked if a 6’ foot standard fence would be allowed and Mr. Bates responded that it
would be, and given that, he agreed that the sight issue from the neighboring house would not be
solved with the additional 2’ feet even if it was granted due to the differences in elevation.
Ms. Jung agreed that a fence of that height would not be in character with the neighborhood.
Mr. Squires was inclined to stay with the limits in the Code.
Ms. Rubin stated that there is nothing unique with this case to make a variance defendable.
Mr. Filiberto agreed that the expressed need for the additional height doesn’t seem to apply so
adhering to the stated Code seems the correct thing to do. There is no extenuating circumstances
to vary from the requirements.
Mr. King said the benefits could be achieved by blinds or taller trees and it would have a change
in the neighborhood character and it is self-created so none of the criteria for a variance are met.
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
ZBA Minutes 2019-09-10 (Approved 9/16) Pg. 3
Neighbor spoke who said he is the neighbor whose view the applicant is concerned about. The
speaker said that the applicant’s property does dip down so the proposal wouldn’t help with any
privacy issue. He agreed that the character of the neighborhood seems to be more open fencing.
Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:41 p.m.
Ms. Brock stated that there is no SEQR required for a single-family home placement of a
structure so this was a Type 2.
Mr. Rosen asked the applicant to verify that the variance for the placement has been withdrawn.
Mr. Bates suggested that the applicant withdrawn that portion of the request until there is clearer
documents provided.
More discussion followed and the Board suggested the applicant ask to postpone the appeal until
there is further information available and the applicant responded that she has provide the
location on the survey.
Ms. Brock responded that our understanding keeps changing because we do not have a drawing
telling us how many feet from the street line the fence will be placed.
The applicant responded that she assumes the street line is where the blacktop is and Ms. Brock
responded that that is not right. Your property abuts the street line and the pins are right were the
electrical poles are so that is a good guide, but we need to know how many feet from that line the
fence is proposed.
The applicant responded that she wants to put it right on the line or even a little bit closer to my
house.
Ms. Brock responded, that is the problem; first you say on the property line and now you say
maybe 2’ feet away….
The applicant said no, right on the street line.
Ms. Brock suggested adjourning the appeal until the applicant decides exactly where she wants it
and provide additional information next month showing exactly how many feet from the legal
property line and then see if you need the 8’ feet.
The applicant said 6’ feet will not work.
Ms. Brock explained the choices to the applicant of either adjourning the appeal for more
information or have the board decide on the fence being on the street line at 8’ feet tall.
The applicant wanted to move forward.
ZBA Minutes 2019-09-10 (Approved 9/16) Pg. 4