Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2010-08-16 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, AUGUST 16 , 2010 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P . M . Appeal of Elizabeth Simkin , owner, James Yarbrough , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-32A(3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing structure with an insufficient side yard setback located at 175 Calkins Rd , Tax Parcel No , 33 . - 1 -4 . 3 , Agricultural Zone . Appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-43K(8 ) (a) and Section 270-43K(9) " Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the allowable length and square footage located at 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . . 18 , -5- 14 , Lakefront Residential Zone . The owners are also requesting an interpretation of the setback measurement as regulated by Chapter 270 , Sections 270-43k( 10 ) and 270-43k( 11 ) and possible variance if required by the interpretation . ® Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request ; requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings . Bruce W . Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : August 5 , 2010 Published : August 7 , 2010 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SIGN - IN SHEET DATE : August 16 , 2010 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION r . ' S � � NSKY3 . - y FILE l DATE 9o?i o ZONING BOARD of APPEALS Monday, August 16 , 2010 7 . 00 p . m . Present: Kirk Sigel , Chair; Board Members : Harry Ellsworth , Ron Krantz, and James Niefer. Excused : Dave Mountin , Board Member. Staff: Bruce Bates , Director of Code Enforcement ; Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town . Others : Elizabeth Simkin , Linda and Timothy Hinkin . Call to Order Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m , and read the appeals before the board . Appeal of Elizabeth Simkin , owner, James Yarbrough , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=32A(3) "Yard ® Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing structure with an insufficient side yard setback located at 175 Calkins Rd , Tax Parcel No. , 33.-1 -4.3 , Agricultural Zone, Elizabeth Simkin introduced herself to the Board . Chairperson Sigel noted that the application materials were quite complete ; he asked Ms . Simkin if she would like to add anything in regards to her appeal . Ms . Simkin explained that she called the Town a few years ago to inquire whether a permit was needed and she got the wrong impression that she was able to put the structure on the property without a permit because of its cost, size and proposed location . She went on to say that she lives with her son and husband and that she uses the structure for practicing because her house is small ; the structure provides her with a private space to practice . Ms . Simkin then applied for a building permit to reroof her home ; Mr. Williams informed her at that time that the structure was illegal and that she would need to apply for a building permit retroactively and an area variance . She felt that it was an honest mistake in putting the structure up without a permit; she noted that she does have the support of her neighbors . Chairperson Sigel acknowledged the Board had received the letter of support from the Home Owner' s Association . Chairperson Sigel asked if there was a requirement that accessory buildings not be located in the front yard in the Agriculture District. Attorney Brock and Mr. Bates researched the Code . Mr. Bates referred to the LDR yard requirements and noted that it stated that accessory buildings cannot be located in yards other than the rear yard ; however, he did not find similar language in the Agriculture District requirements . Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved Chairperson Sigel assumed that the structure met the front yard setback requirements ; upon consultation of the drawings included in the packet , he determined that it was well within the front yard setback requirements . Mr. Krantz commented that the structure was pretty innocuous . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 11 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board . There being no one , he closed the public hearing at 7 : 11 p . m . It was noted for the record that SEQR was not needed for the variance . Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal with the condition that the setback from the side lot line be no less than 5 feet and that if the building is moved to a different location on the property that it fully comply with setback requirements , and finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , specifically listing how each criterion was met. Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010-022: Area Variance, Elizabeth Simkin, 175 Calkins Rd. Tax Parcel No. 33. 44. 3 ® Moved by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of Elizabeth Simkin requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-32A (3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing structure with an insufficient side yard setback located at 175 Calkins Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33. - 1 -4. 3, Agricultural Zone with the following: Conditions: 1 . That the building be no less than 5 feet from the side lot line, and 2. That if the building is ever moved to a different location on the lot that it comply fully with all setback requirements. Findings: That this Board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve could be achieved by other means, meaning that the applicant could move the structure, that the location the applicant has chosen is a reasonable one and does not appear to have any impact on the community, Page 2 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16 , 2010 ® Approved 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that it has existed in this location for some time without any complaint and is fully screened from the road and from any neighbors, 3. That while the request is substantial, but the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community, 4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Brock asked about the deck encroachment referred to in Mr. Williams' letter to ® Homeowner. Brief discussion ; board decided that staff would research the issue and the applicant would come back before the Board for a variance if it was needed for the deck. Appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=43K(8)(a) and Section 270=43K(9) " Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the allowable length and square footage located at 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18.=5= 14, Lakefront Residential Zone. The owners are also requesting an interpretation of the setback measurement as regulated by Chapter 270, Sections 270=43k(10) and 270=43k( 11 ) and possible variance if required by the interpretation . Tim and Linda Hinkin introduced themselves to the Board . Mr. Hinkin gave a brief overview of his appeal . Mr. Niefer asked if a new boat hoist would be installed . Ms Hinkin explained that the hoist itself was not damaged and that they planned on reinstalling their existing hoist. Mr. Niefer asked for a compelling reason of why the Hinkins wanted to increase the dock width . Mr. Hinkin said that it would be more convenient and stable for people getting in and out of the boat. Mr. Niefer asked if the length of the dock would remain the same . Mr. Hinkin responded that it depends on how the dock is measured ; he listed 40 feet on the application because that is the maximum allowed under zoning . Page 3 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved Mr. Hinkin then approached the Board and explained the dock measurements using the drawings in the Zoning Board application ; discussion ensued regarding the dock' s measurements . Chairperson Sigel asked the Board if they had any concerns or comments . Mr. Niefer said that he was concerned about increasing the dock width . Attorney Brock explained that the Code permits a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 8 feet for dock width . She added that the applicant was before the Board because of the existing decks that are being interpreted as docks , which means the applicant has over 500 square feet of dock space before the proposed dock is taken into consideration . Attorney Brock thought that the intent of the law was to prevent multiple structures from sticking far out into the water or impeding navigation . The existing docks are not sticking out into the water in a perpendicular fashion ; they follow the contours of the manmade parcel . Chairperson Sigel added that the decking essentially extends out the manmade portion of the land into the water. Mr. Hinkin noted that according to the survey, the work was done in 1932 . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board could make a reasonable argument to measure the length of the dock from closest point of the high water line . He noted that the dock ® first meets the high water line at the vertex . Mr. Bates asked if Chairperson Sigel was interpreting the high water line to be at the corner of the deck and concrete walkway. Chairperson Sigel confirmed that was his interpretation . Mr. Bates argued that the applicants did not own that property because the house was hanging over the water. Attorney Brock added that the State allows people to build docks out onto the waters of the State so the Board needs to determine where to measure the 40 feet from . She asked if the dock could be constructed in other than 10 foot sections . Mr. Hinkin explained that they only want to use 6 pilings . Attorney Brock stated that if they measure from the vertex and allow the dock to go out 40 feet, it won ' t be out as far into the water. Chairperson Sigel did not have a problem with the Hinkins exercising their right to go up to 50 feet . He thought that they choose anywhere in the range of 40 to 50 feet . He ' s inclined to go with the longest measurement because he 's worried about other situations where someone might have a dock or some structure that it interpreted as a dock that comes off at an odd angle , which resulted in a more significant difference between the shorter and longer measurement. Attorney Brock asked if the applicant was asking for a longer dock than what they previously had . Mr. Hinkin responded no and he went on to describe the dock as shown in the photographs . Attorney Brock confirmed that the water depth was not 5 feet before the dock reach 50 feet in length . She reminded Mr. and Mrs . Hinkin that they still have the right to , up to a year after the destruction of the dock , to rebuild it exactly as it was . Mr. Bates thought that the length of the dock would be close to 50 feet . Ah Chairperson Sigel questioned what the square footage would be , including rebuilding the dock. Mr. Bates explained that the maximum allowed for the dock under the Code Page 4of8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16 , 2010 ® Approved would be 400 square feet; the area of the existing dock ( area of the deck) is 432 square feet . Chairperson Sigel estimated that the applicant would be adding 200 square feet of dock. He thought that the easiest way would be to grant a variance for what is being proposed . Mr. Niefer asked if the wood deck overhang is considered part of the dock. Chairperson Sigel explained that a deck over the water becomes a dock . Attorney Brock then read the Code definition of a dock to the Board . Mr. Bates and Chairperson Sigel estimated the total area of dock to be 768 square feet and the applicant is allowed 400 square feet of dock. Chairperson Sigel then asked Mr. Bates if he wanted the Board to make an interpretation as to how the length of the dock should be measure . Mr. Bates responded yes , and then asked for an interpretation on how to measure the dock from the setback lines . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 :50 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board ; there was no one present but the applicant. Chairperson Sigel then moved to make a determination on how the measure the dock length . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote carried unanimously . Agww MM Ip ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=023: Interpretation, Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. =5- 14 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved, that this Board makes the determination that the dock length is to be measured from the point of furthest extent into the water along the longest line parallel to the direction of the dock until it reaches the ordinary high water line. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. SEAR Determination Chairperson Sigel moved make a negative determination of environmental significance based on part 1 of the environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in part 2 . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=024 & Environmental Assessment, Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. =5- 14 Page 5 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved, that in regards to the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental assessment significance based on Part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and for the reasons in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment Form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 56 p . m . The Board and staff discussed the sections of Code for which variances were needed . It was determined that variances were needed for Section 270-43K(9) and Section 270- 43K( 10) . ® Mr . Bates raised the concern of how to measure the setback line in the water. Staff and Board consulted the survey map to determine the location of the property lines . Mr. Bates explained that the Code instructs the measurement to be taken from the adjacent property line ; however it is difficult to determine the property line for the railroad property because it keeps going . Attorney Brock suggested measuring perpendicularly . Chairperson Sigel thought that if the lines were drawn straight out into the lake the dock would easily meet the 20 foot setback requirement. He suggested that a finding be made as part of the resolution that it appeared that the setbacks are greater than necessary . Attorney Brock agreed and suggested that the variance cover any potential deficiency without necessarily stating what it is . Brief discussion took place regarding the exact location of the proposed dock. It was decided that the dock would be built in the location shown on the drawing submitted with " Hinkin" written in the upper left corner. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal from the requirements of Sections 270- 43K(9 ) and 270-43K( 10) with the conditions that the total square footage of the dock not exceed 768 square feet and that it be constructed as shown on plans , and with the finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , listing how each criterion had been met . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote carried unanimously . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=025 & Area Variance, Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. =5- 14 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth, Page 6 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16 , 2010 Approved Resolved, that this Board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-43K(9) and Section 270- 43K( 10) "Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the square footage and potentially does not meet the 20 foot setback from adjacent property lines located at 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. -5- 14, Lake Front Residential Zone, with the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of replacing a damaged dock, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the replacement dock is approximately the same length and only 2 feet wider than the previous dock, AM 3. That while the request is substantial going over the allowable square footage by a large margin, but nevertheless the uniqueness of the property does make the request reasonable, 4. That the existing walks and seawalls are not jutting out in a perpendicular fashion over the water, but rather hug the property lines so their impacts on the lake, surrounding properties, and the ability of small boats to navigate are mitigated, 5. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that it is replacing an existing dock, 6. The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the dock was destroyed this past winter by ice damage, and 7. That while this variance is from Subsection 10, that nevertheless, this Board does believe that the 20 foot setback is easily met. Conditions: 1 . That the total amount of dock and other structure that overhangs the water not exceed 768 square feet, and 2. That the proposed dock be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant marked "Hinkin " in the upper left corner. Page 7of8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16 , 2010 Approved A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Hinkin and staff then discussed what would need to be submitted to the Town with regard to his building permit application . Adjournment There being no further business before the Board , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8 : 14 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chai person W AL Page 8 of 8 FILE DATE _ ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=022 Area Variance Elizabeth Simkin 175 Calkins Rd Tax Parcel No. 33 .- 1 -4. 3 August 16 , 2010 Moved by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of Elizabeth Simkin requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-32A (3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing structure with an insufficient side yard setback located at 175 Calkins Rd , Tax Parcel No , 33 . - 1 -4 . 3 , Agricultural Zone with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the building be no less than 5 feet from the side lot line , and 2 . That if the building is ever moved to a different location on the lot that it comply fully with all setback requirements . ® Findings : That this Board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety , welfare of the community , specifically : 1 . That while the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve could be achieved by other means , meaning that the applicant could move the structure , that the location the applicant has chosen is a reasonable one and does not appear to have any impact on the community , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that it has existed in this location for some time without any complaint and is fully screened from the road and from any neighbors , 3 . That while the request is substantial , but the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community , 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects , and 5 . While the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-022 PAGE 2 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August , 2010 , Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE E7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=023 Interpretation Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 18 .=5-14 August 16, 2010 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that this Board makes the determination that the dock length is to be measured from the point of furthest extent into the water along the longest line parallel to the direction of the dock until it reaches the ordinary high water line . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August, 2010 . �� n Deputy Town Jerk Town of Ithaca I E DINE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=024 Environmental Assessment Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 18 .=5-14 August 16, 2010 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that in regards to the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental assessment significance based on Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and for the reasons in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August, 2010 , Deputy Town erk Town of Ithaca FILE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=025 DATEAi JJ L Area Variance Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No . 18.-5-14 August 16, 2010 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that this Board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-43K( 9) and Section 270- 43K( 10 ) " Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the square footage and potentially does not meet the 20 foot setback from adjacent property lines located at 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5 - 14 , Lake Front Residential Zone , with the following : Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , specifically : 1 . The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of replacing a damaged dock, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the replacement dock is approximately the same length and only 2 feet wider than the previous dock, 3 . That while the request is substantial going over the allowable square footage by a large margin , but nevertheless the uniqueness of the property does make the request reasonable , 4 . That the existing walks and seawalls are not jutting out in a perpendicular fashion over the water, but rather hug the property lines so their impacts on the lake , surrounding properties , and the ability of small boats to navigate are mitigated , 5 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that it is replacing an existing dock , 6 . The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the dock was destroyed this past winter by ice damage , and 7 . That while this variance is from Subsection 10 , that nevertheless , this Board does believe that the 20 foot setback is easily met . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010-025 PAGE 2 Conditions : 1 . That the total amount of dock and other structure that overhangs the water not exceed 768 square feet , and 2 . That the proposed dock be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant marked " Hinkin" in the upper left corner. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: Ak I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August , 2010 , Deputy T Clerk Town of Ithaca