Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Packet 2019-01-14Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, January 14, 2019 @ 6:00 p.m. 215 N. Tioga St. 0014-2019 Appeal of Peter Trowbridge &Nina Bassuk, owners of 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-23.1, are requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-54.B(3) Permitted Principal Uses, and 270-219.6.B(l) Floor Area (for Accessory Dwelling Units). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-54.B(3) allows a two-family dwelling consisting of a principal dwelling unit and an attached accessory dwelling unit, provided the accessory dwelling unit complies with the applicable requirements of Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6.B(l) allows for an accessory dwelling unit not exceeding 800 square feet or 70% of the floor area of the principle dwelling unit (whichever is less). The applicants are requesting to have an accessory dwelling unit of 1600 square feet, which exceeds the specified limits of Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6.B(l). The property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone. Contact Marty Moseley at mmoseley@town.ithaca.ny.us or 273-1721 ext. 2 with any questions Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement ZBA2020Ͳ01Ͳ14Filed1/28/2020Pg.1  Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Minutes Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Chris Jung, George Vignaux, David Squires, and Bill King Alternates David Filiberto and David Williams Staff: Marty Moseley, Codes; Jasmin Cubero, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. 0014-2019 Appeal of Peter Trowbridge & Nina Bassuk, owners of 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-23.1, are requesting relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-54.B(3) Permitted Principal Uses, and 270-219.6.B(l) Floor Area (for Accessory Dwelling Units). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-54.B(3) allows a two-family dwelling consisting of a principal dwelling unit and an attached accessory dwelling unit, provided the accessory dwelling unit complies with the applicable requirements of Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6.B(l) allows for an accessory dwelling unit not exceeding 800 square feet or 70% of the floor area of the principle dwelling unit (whichever is less). The applicants are requesting to have an accessory dwelling unit of 1600 square feet, which exceeds the specified limits of Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.6.B(l). The property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone. Mr. Trowbridge gave an overview saying that their daughter and her family would like to live in the accessory dwelling unit. The property is 10 acres in size in low density residential and they built the house about 40 years ago and added a home office, which we outgrew and so the business moved downtown and the detached accessory dwelling unit was used for family visitors. Mr. Trowbridge said the house is 800 sqft and it is hard to see the building from the public roadway even in the winter when the trees are bare and the neighboring properties are agriculture and dairy so there would not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood. Mr. Trowbridge did not think the addition to the accessory dwelling would go over the 50% larger than the primary structure which had been allowed until recently. Mr. Rosen gave a brief history of the legislation, saying up until 2017, an accessory dwelling unit was allowed by right to be up to 50% of the size of the primary residence. The Code now says that the maximum size is 800 sqft. Mr. Rosen asked if the size of the existing one at 800 square feet was a coincidence? Mr. Towbridge stated that the design of the primary structure and all other structures are 20 x 20 design module size when built, not arbitrary by any means, but a part of the overall character. ZBA2020Ͳ01Ͳ14Filed1/28/2020Pg.2  Mr. Rosen began the discussion, saying that his first thought was that the property is a very big on a large highway and it is a very large-scale area. He did not feel that this would be a very big impact. Mr. King said he was curious why the Town to put that particular size as the maximum. Ms. Brock explained that Sue Ritter who is the Director of Planning was responsible for bringing proposed language to the committee drafting the legislation and this was based on a number of other municipal codes that used it, but she added that the focus was on smaller lots in the medium density zone where the minimum lot size is 15,000 sqft. For example, Salem Drive, Muriel St., and similar in the Northeast area of town. Ms. Brock explained that in the Northeast, there are a lot of very large principal buildings with attached accessory units that are 50% or less. The developer made the principal building very large in order to have pretty large secondary units. The houses also have two car garages and separate driveways. (photo passed around and added to file and a tax map showing parcel size with structures on them in the Northeast area) Ms. Brock said that Ms. Ritter hadn’t really thought about a lower density or larger lot having this issue. Ms. Brock read from the SEQR form associated with the legislation that set the 800’ foot maximum: “Current regulations limit the size of an ADU to no more than 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling. This can be exceeded in cases where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement. The new provisions eliminate this basement exception and establish a maximum size for an ADU of 800 sqft of floor area. This is to ensure that the size of the ADU is clearly subordinate to the primary dwelling unit and eliminates the unintended consequences of the current regulation promoting the development of atypically large structures with primary unit sized ADUs in neighborhoods. Controls on the size of ADUs along with the owner occupancy requirements are intended to protect the character of traditional single- family neighborhoods.” Ms. Brock added that the she and Ms. Ritter could not recall the discussions at the committee but did recall them saying an applicant could get a variance. The lot in question is in low density residential and far exceeds the minimum lot size for that zone of 40,000 sqft – this is 430K sqft. Mr. Squires asked if the addition to the ADU is going to be connected by another breezeway? Mr. Trowbridge said the former Code required a home office to be connected to the primary structure so it was built with the architectural bridge connection which will remain. Mr. Squires said it seems like there will be three buildings then. ZBA2020Ͳ01Ͳ14Filed1/28/2020Pg.3  Mr. Mosely said it will not, under NYS and Town Codes be a separate structure. Mr. Trowbridge added that it is a two-story connection; an architectural feature similar to the one on the primary residence connecting the garage. Some discussion followed on the drawings to determine what the primary structure is and the accessory structure. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Brent Katzman spoke saying that he is a neighbor and he also has 10 acres at his house and watched with interest when the town was debating the second dwelling unit laws and Ms. Brock has it right; the intent was to curtail and address some aggressive stretching of zoning, particularly on South and East Hill. He said he has no objections as a neighbor to this request at all. It is going to be in the front of the property, not encroaching on the back open space and it is going to make space much more useful to them and frankly better for the property value in the long term and is not an excessive request in his mind. Mr. Katzman added that he has an ADU attached to his house that is 720 sqft and there are days he wishes it was larger. As an immediate neighbor, he had no issue with it. There is a flag lot access in between me and them, but in essence, I am their immediate neighbor. There was no one else wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Ms. Brock stated that this is a Type 2 action not requiring SEQR because it is an expansion of a two-family residence on an approved lot. Mr. Vignaux stated that he thinks doubling the size of the guest house in conjunction with the size of the primary house and the size of the lot is insignificant and will do nothing detrimental to the neighborhood and will improve the property. There is plenty of room and existing utilities. Mr. King agreed with Mr. Vignaux, but he was worried about precedent due to it being a substantial request of doubling the allowed square footage but, that said, it is a very large lot and he didn’t see it being any issue affecting the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Jung said that she agrees, but we need to identify what makes it unique. Mr. Vignaux stated that to him, the unique aspect is the size of the lot; 10 acres is very large and if someone else came in requesting the same, it wouldn’t be an issue in that case either. The intent of the law was to stop small lots from cramming as much as possible on them; that is not the case here or in a similar request. Mr. Squires stated his only issues was that based on the drawings, it could be construed as a separate building, but Mr. Mosely has stated that it is not. ZBA2020Ͳ01Ͳ14Filed1/28/2020Pg.4  Mr. Williams said he had no objection to it and since the board’s decision won’t affect the zoning law, any similar situation would appeal to the board and we would weigh the same criteria and do the balancing test on a case-to-case basis. Mr. Filiberto stated that he lives just north of this property and although he didn’t agree with the restriction imposed by the Town Board, as a Board member he will enforce it. If the reason is not unique enough, everyone will want this variance. Mr. Rosen said the board seems to be in agreement that this is a valid variance and we will enumerate the reasons in the resolution. ZBA Resolution 0014-2019 Area Variance 1345 Mecklenburg Rd TP 28.-1-23.1 January 14, 2020 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Peter Trowbridge & Nina Bassuk, as stated in the public hearing notice, requesting an relief from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-219.6 B(1) to be allowed to increase the size of their existing accessory dwelling unit from 800 sqft to 1,600 sqft. with the following Conditions 1. That the building be built substantially as shown and described in the application And with the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically that: 1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given that the applicants wish to have an accessory dwelling unit that exceeds the allowed 800 sqft to allow for his daughter, husband and future children to live in, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this is a 10 acre lot, roughly ten times larger than the minimum lot size in the low density residential zone; the building exceeds the front yard setback by more than double and the side yard setbacks by 600% percent and the rear yard setback by acres. The change will not be undesirable in that the design of the addition is architecturally consistent with the existing principle structure and accessory dwelling unit in color, materials and style. Visibility from the public road is limited due to the vegetation, even in the winter months. There will be no change in utilities or driveway access or curb cuts, and 3. The request is substantial, given that 800 sqft is allowed and 1,600 sqft is being requested, and 1 Marty Moseley From:Peter Trowbridge <pjt@twm.la> Sent:Friday, January 10, 2020 4:53 PM To:Marty Moseley Cc:Nina Lauren Bassuk Subject:Fwd: Town of Ithaca zoning Marty Iwantedtosharethiswithyou Best Peter SentfrommyiPhone  Beginforwardedmessage: From:FrankTowner<ftowner@ithacaymca.com> Date:January10,2020at4:00:01PMEST To:PeterTrowbridge<pjt@twm.la> Subject:TownofIthacazoning Hi Peter, I received the Town notice and wanted to offer you and Nina my support if needed. Hope you are well! your friend, Frank  ͲͲ _ _ _ Frank Towner CEO YMCA of Ithaca and Tompkins County (607) 257-0101 www.ithacaymca.com We're for Youth Development, Healthy Living & Social Responsibility  OUR MISSION: WE HELP PEOPLE OF ALL AGES TO BE HEALTHY, LEARN, CONNECT, & HAVE FUN!  It is only with the generosity of people like you that allows the Ithaca Y to continue building stronger individuals, families, and communities. Please consider donating to our OPEN DOORS ANNUAL CAMPAIGN today! Click here to make your donation.  Page | 1 To: Zoning Board of Appeals From: Codes Department Subject: 1345 Mecklenburg Road Date: 1/13/20 Appeal No. 0014-2019 Tax parcel Number: 28.-1-23.1 Zone: Low Density Residential Zone Report: The applicant is seeking to have an accessory dwelling unit with a proposed addition to the accessory dwelling unit, at 1345 Mecklenburg Road (tax parcel # 28.-1-23.1). The total size of the proposed accessory dwelling unit is approximately 1600 square feet. The principal dwelling unit is approximately 3450 square feet. The property is located in the Low Density Residential (LDR) zone. The LDR zone allows for a two-family dwelling consisting of a principal dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit that complies with section 270-54.B of Town of Ithaca Code, which then requires compliance with section 270-219.6 of the Town of Ithaca Code. The accessory dwelling unit, with the proposed addition, would exceed the size limitation identified in section 270-219.6.B(1). Town Code section 270- 219.6.B(1) requires the floor area of the accessory dwelling unit not to exceed 800 square feet or 70% of the floor area of the principal dwelling unit, whichever is less. If one were to calculate 70% of the principal building, the total area of an accessory dwelling unit would be about 2,240 square feet, but since section 270-219.6.B(1) limits the accessory dwelling unit to a maximum size of 800 square feet, the applicant is requesting a 100 percent increase to sections 270- 54.B(3) and 270-219.6.B(1). The variance being requested is to exceed the limitations identified in Ithaca Code section 270-219.6.B(1). SEQR: Since the property at 1345 Mecklenburg Road is a proposed expansion of a two-family residence, the variance request is a Type II action and SEQRA is not applicable, as identified in 6 NYCRR sections 617.5(c)(11) and (17). Type II actions are not subject to review as identified in 617.5(a). (617.5(c)(11) construction or expansion of a single-family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections as provided in paragraph (13) of this subdivision and the installation, maintenance or upgrade of a drinking water well or a septic system or both, and conveyances of land in connection therewith; 617.5(c)(17) granting of an area variance for a single-family, two-family or three-family residence;) Page | 2 Tompkins County Planning Department GML 239 –l and –m: Tompkins County Department of Planning and Sustainability provided a response to the Town’s GML 239 -l and-m request. The County has indicated that they have reviewed the proposal, and they have determined that it will have no inter- community, or county-wide impacts. Flood Plains: The proposed project does not appear to be shown within any flood plains. Stream Setback: The proposed project does not appear to be within a stream setback area as identified on the Town’s Stream Setback map. Engineering: Engineering indicated that they did not see any issues with the proposed request from the ZBA. The Engineering Department has identified additional permits, or approvals from other departments, that will be reviewed during the building permit application process.