Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2021-09-14Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 14, 2021@ 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. The Zoning Board of Appeals has resumed in-person meetings. The Public Hearing meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. Agenda 0012-2021 Appeal of Susie and Eric Schneider, owners of 869 Taughannock Blvd., Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-25 0013-2021 Appeal of Cornell University, Owner; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure, Properties & Planning, Applicant/Agent, of Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2 0019-2021 Appeal Biltmore Northwest LLC, owner of 1120 East Shore Dr., Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-5.1 INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “JOIN Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929) 436-2866. To join the meeting directly, go to https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85255871576. On the evening of, 09/14/2021, at 5 minutes before 6:00pm, join in with your computer, smartphone, or telephone. You will be placed on hold until the meeting starts. Questions about accessing the Zoom video conference should be emailed to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us or (607) 273-1783 ext.2. ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 1 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 14, 2021@ 6:00pm Minutes Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members Bill King, George Vignaux, Chris Jung and David Squires Alternates David Williams and David Filiberto Marty Moseley, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:03p.m. 0012-2021 Appeal of Susie and Eric Schneider, owner, 869 Taughannock Blvd., TP 25.-2-25 Mr. Rosen read the public hearing notice and added that this is a return of an adjourned appeal from a previous meeting upon request of the applicants to revise plans. Emily Petrina, Architect, and the owners were present. Ms. Petrina shared her screen to show the changes from the previous plans. The north stairs are completely off so that side is compliant and reduced the size of the deck so the east yard is now in compliance and the south side always was in compliance. We have pulled the house to the west side, up the hill, away from the lake and the north neighbor and now asking for just under a foot on the west side. The revised proposal for the garage has been pushed to the west, within 5 feet of the front yard, reduced the depth and now have a single-story garage on stilts with reduced mass and the height variance request is less and necessary for the function of the stilts. She reiterated the constraints of the NYSEG poles and utility easements and the DOT appropriation of some of the front yard years ago. Ms. Petrina stated that they listened to the concerns of the neighbors and shifted the project and reduced the mass. She showed a chart of the existing lot coverage compared to what the proposed is. The last issue is the garage and that has been reduced. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Ms. Snow spoke, saying she is the smallest house on the block and she appreciates the changes made to address concerns, but she is still concerned about the overall mass of the house and the ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 2 small stream that is between her and this house. The stream is already very fragile with the loss of some trees and it would be nice to have added visual barrier of trees that might help with the stabilization of the stream and visually. Joe Frances, 865 Taughannock Blvd. spoke, saying that they are the adjoining house to the south. Last time we objected to the mammoth structure that was proposed behind the parking area. In this version, they raised it up on stilts and moved it just over the existing parking lot. The problem is, the perspective offered by the architect does not show the southern view, which is the one that impacts us and has the most impact to all. Mr. Frances referred to the pictures and commentary he had submitted to the department on this project which listed the balancing criteria of the variance process. He and his wife did not think that the changes proposed diminished the issues and detriment to their property. He then went on to suggest an alternate option to achieve the project. He stated that he did a lot of research and even talked to the DOT who said you can be in the ROW, as long as you are not on the line. His suggestion is to build the garage on the existing parking platform which would move the structure out of their viewshed. Start the garage on the existing parking pad that is built with or upon railroad ties. Mrs. Frances added that the reconfigured plan would be a 6’-7’ foot hangover. Mr. Rosen asked if they were suggesting that the garage be moved to closer to the NYS property line? Mr. Frances responded yes; the biggest constraint is the State ROW. Mr. Rosen asked if there was anyone online that wanted to speak and Ms. Rosa responded that there was no one indicating they wished to speak and she had not received any emails. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:28 and turned to the Board. No SEQR is needed as this is a single-family house. Board Discussion Mr. Squires started by saying the issue seems to be the garage. If there were no garage, the neighbors’ issues would be addressed. Ms. Jung said although she appreciates the changes made, she is still concerned with the mass. Mr. King asked if the house size has been reduced in this plan? ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 3 Ms. Petrina responded that the size hasn’t changed, we took some of the space that had the outdoor stairs and absorbed them into the house, but the size has not changed. Mr. King said that the house is still very big and he does not see anything in the packet justifying the size over what is allowed. Ms. Petrina responded that this is a family of four and the proposal is 3 bedrooms and there is not option for a basement, and it is unknown what small crawl spaces may be available until after construction. Mr. King asked about the garage, saying it is an improvement, but asked if the floor level is the same and if the roof is as low as possible. Ms. Petrina responded that it was not lowered, but the overall height has been lowered. We are lowering the current parking pad to move the garage to the west. Mr. King asked if the garage were moved closer to the road, what would that involve? Ms. Petrina said there is only 5’ feet to the property line and if it were closer, it would trigger a higher fire rating door. She shared the new version perspective and added that the north side is the more drastic slope and that is why she had focused on that side. Some discussion followed on other designs of the cantilever and placement. Mr. Vignaux said that he likes the new design of the garage much more than the previous and thought it altered the whole project. David Filiberto stated that he must recused himself from this application due to a working relationship with the applicant. Mr. Rosen stated that he still has concerns with the garage since it looms over the view of the neighbors. He does like that it is now built within the setbacks, but the lot coverage is still large and the intent of the zoning is to keep the wooded hillside, not a densely built row of buildings. Mr. Rosen said the major points are the lot coverage and the garage. Ms. Jung said the lot coverage is her concern because right now there is a lot of green space around the existing houses and what the zoning is looking to prevent is large house, large house, large house and would this set a precedent to allow other large houses pushing to the setbacks. It was noticed that the table submitted by the applicant was including the deck space as lot coverage and only covered decks are counted in lot coverage. The Board and applicant re-calculated the lot coverage, which is more accurately stated as just under 23% where 10% is allowed. Without the garage, it would be approximately 19%. ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 4 Ms. Brock added that when asking or looking at the need or rationale for a big house, legally, you do not look at the needs of any particular occupant or individual because the variance follows the property, not the family. They may live there a long time or not at all. Any individuals’ wishes or requirements is not what you look at because they will not be there forever, but the variance will be. Mr. King asked what the general compliance for lot coverage percentage was in this particular area of the lakefront. Mr. Moseley shared the GIS imagery from the County website and discussion followed. It seemed one close by was large and another was closer to the lot but there isn’t a lot coverage listed and so he couldn’t comment on that. Mr. Rosen stated that he has a sense that there are larger houses and coverage in this area. Ms. Brock noted that those could have been previously existing and grandfathered. Mr. Rosen agreed but said he thought there was some flexibility to lot coverage, but this is double what is allowed. Discussion followed with the Ms. Petrina noting that the appropriated land takes a lot of the parcel. Ms. Brock noted that the appropriation was many years ago and a known factor. The Board was concerned with size “creep” and discussed placement or moving of the different structures and the project. Discussion followed and the consensus remained that the size of the house in terms of lot coverage as insurmountable. Although some members felt the regulations should be reviewed by the Town Board for possible change, the fact remains the regulations are what they are. Discussion turned to whether to vote on the application or not, and the applicant asked for a vote because they don’t know what to shoot for in any revision. The Board attempted to draft a resolution separating the house and the garage, but in doing so, it became clear that the two could not be separated cleanly and the project was submitted with both structures and for the stated variances and addressing the garage separately, would require even more variances due to number of structures. The applicants asked for the matter to be adjourned to contemplate further revisions to the plans that may be submitted. Mr. Rosen called a break for the Board to stretch for 10 minutes. 0013-2021 Appeal of Cornell University, Owner; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure, Properties & Planning, Applicant/Agent, of Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2, is ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 5 seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-59 (Height limitations) and 270-61 (Building area) for a proposal to build an approximate 100,000 square foot building, 4- story building, located east of Rice Hall along Tower Road. The proposed building would replace an existing parking lot adjacent to Rice and Bruckner Halls Mr. Moseley noted that the drawings with the correct measurements and notes were submitted today to him; the advertisement was correct, but the drawings did not show the basement. Discussion followed and it was determined that the documents available to the public were appropriate and it was not a fatal flaw, and the action could continue. Ms. Michaels was present as agent for the applicant and went through a presentation depicting the project. The two variances are height, and because the town measures from the lowest grade and this does have a basement, the number is high, but the effect is not. The other is the lot coverage, but the lot is huge, and the coverage as it exists now is 10.5% where 10% is allowed and we are requesting The height of the proposed building is in line with the adjacent buildings, but the campus is zoned low density residential, so all our buildings are exceeding the allowed heights. In actuality, the proposed building is the same and has no impact, and the basement level, included in the height, is not visible. The Board felt the project fits with the existing landscape and building mass. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:09p.m. There was no one wishing to address the Board and Ms. Rosa verified no one was online nor were any emails or calls received and the public hearing was closed. ZBA Resolution 0013 -2021 Area Variance Cornell Atkinson Hall/Multidisciplinary Building TP 67.-1-13.2 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Owner, as stated in the public hearing notice, with the following Conditions 1. That the project be built substantially as shown on the submitted documents, and With the following Findings ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 6 That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit can not be achieved by any means feasible, given this design and size of building is needed in a college campus, and 2. That there will not be any undesirable effect on the neighborhood or character given the building is virtually similar to the buildings next to it and in the immediate area of the campus, and will in fact enhance the area and campus, and 3. That the request is not substantial for lot coverage, and although the height variance is substantial, the college campus is located in a low-density zone with necessitates variances for normal and usual academic buildings, and 4. That the alleged difficulty is self-created, however Cornell University is a campus and the zoning for its property is low density residential which necessitates the need for variances, when the buildings are in character of the other buildings and campus environment, and 5. That there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effects as stated in the Planning Board’s negative declaration as Lead Agency. Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: David Squires Vote: ayes – Rosen, Squires, Jung, Vignaux, and King 0019-2021 Appeal Biltmore Northwest LLC, owner of 1120 East Shore Dr., Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-5.1, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-46 A. (Yard regulations), 270-46 B. (Yard regulations), 270-46 C. (Yard regulations), 270-46 H. (Garages), 270-47 (Building area), 270-205 A. (Nonconforming structures) for a proposal to build an addition on to a single-family dwelling/house and the attached garage. Bruno Schickel, agent and architect for the applicant gave a description and presentation on the project. The Board had concerns about the expansion of the garage and the reduction of open space between the house and its neighbor but also recognized that this area of the lakefront is nonconforming in all cases. They looked at the google earth view and GIS views of the area and present façade. The Board discussed the garage at length and as it stands, the fence is there so the visual impact is not especially changed, but the greenspace between the two houses is affected. During discussion it was determined that the lot coverage calculation advertised was larger than what is requested, and the actual lot coverage would be just under 14% which is less than advertised and therefore not a fatal flaw. The Board spent a significant amount of time regarding the request for the side yard setback associated with the garage. The agent stated that they are trying to preserve the window and did not think it was out of character. ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 7 More discussion followed, and the main factor of the extension or lack of set back is adjacent to the neighbor’s garage, which mitigates the impact. ZBA Resolution 0019-2021 Area Variances 1120 East Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-5.1 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Biltmore Northwest LLC, owner of 1120 East Shore Dr., as stated in the public hearing notice, with the following Conditions 1. That the project be built substantially as shown in the documents submitted to the Board, and 2. That the shrubs on the south property line be maintained 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. That the benefit could be achieved by other means feasible; shifting the garage to the north would negate the need for a side yard setback variance, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties given that this density is similar to other houses in the neighborhood, and the garage is adjacent to another garage and that mitigates the effect, and the lot coverage is similar to others in the area, and 3. That the request for setbacks are substantial in that 30’ feet and 15’ feet are required and 6’ 11” feet and 5’ feet, and the front yard setback abuts a railroad; the lot coverage is substantial, but mitigated by the fact that many of the properties nearby have much greater lot coverage percentages than that sought by the applicant, and 4. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental impacts as evidenced by SEQR not being required, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the request is to expand the footprint, but nonetheless, we find that the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the neighborhood. Moved: Rob Rosen Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: ayes – Rosen, Jung, Vignaux and Squires nays – King Next meeting Mr. Moseley gave a preview of upcoming variances. ZBA 2021-09-14 (Filed 10/20) Pg. 8 Meeting was adjourned upon motion by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Jung; unanimous. Submitted by Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us All comments become part of the official record. Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “Join a Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866). 0012-2021 Appeal of Susie and Eric Schneider, owners of 869 Taughannock Blvd., Tax Parcel No. 25.-2-25, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-45 (Height limitations), 270-46 B. (Yard regulations), 270-46 C. (Yard regulations), 270-46 H. (Garages), and 270-47 (Building area) for a proposal to build a new single-family dwelling /house and a detached garage. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-45 requires that detached garages not exceed 15’ in height, where a height of approximately 24’-7.25” is proposed for the detached garage. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 C. requires a 30-foot front yard setback to be measured from the front façade of the building to the street right of way, where the front yard setback is proposed to be approximately 29’-1” (measured to the west property boundary lot line). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 H. requires a garage to be not less than 30’ from the front property boundary lot line, and not less than 20’ from a side yard property boundary lot line; where the detached garage is proposed to have an approximate 5’ front yard setback (measured to the west property boundary lot line) and an approximate 9’- 4.50” side yard setback (measured to the north side property boundary lot line). Town of Ithaca Code 270-47 allows for a building area of no more than 10%, where the proposed single-family dwelling/house and detached garage is proposed to have a building area lot coverage of approximately 26.97%. The current property is located in the Lakefront Residential District. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us All comments become part of the official record. Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “Join a Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866). 0013-2021 Appeal of Cornell University, Owner; Ramnath Venkat, Cornell University Infrastructure, Properties & Planning, Applicant/Agent, of Tax Parcel No. 67.-1-13.2, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-59 (Height limitations) and 270-61 (Building area) for a proposal to build an approximate 100,000 square foot building, 4-story building, located east of Rice Hall along Tower Road. The proposed building would replace an existing parking lot adjacent to Rice and Bruckner Halls. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-59 requires that a building is not to exceed 38 feet in height from the lowest interior grade nor 36 feet in height from the lowest exterior grade, whichever is lower, measured to the highest point of the roof, where the building is proposing to be approximately 90-feet in total height measured from the lowest interior grade to the highest point of the roof. Town of Ithaca Code 270-61 allows for a building area of no more than 10%, where the proposed building would increase the building area lot coverage to approximately 12.2%. The current property is located in the Low-Density Residential District Zone. Marty Moseley Director of Code Enforcement You are receiving this notice because you live within 500 feet of a property requesting a variance from the Town Code. Comments can be made during the meeting, or in writing via mail to 215 N. Tioga St., or via email to ctorres@town.ithaca.ny.us All comments become part of the official record. Town of Ithaca Notice of Public Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, September 14, 2021, at 6:00pm 215 N. Tioga St. The Public Hearing for the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held in-person and will also be streamed live. The public will have the option of attending the meeting in-person or by video conferencing through the Zoom App. The public will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments. INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY: If you have a computer, tablet or smartphone, you can access the Zoom meeting by going to www.zoom.us and clicking on “Join a Meeting”, and entering 852-5587-1576 into the Meeting ID. You can also call in to the Zoom meeting at +1 (929 436 2866). 0019-2021 Appeal Biltmore Northwest LLC, owner of 1120 East Shore Dr., Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-5.1, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-46 A. (Yard regulations), 270-46 B. (Yard regulations), 270-46 C. (Yard regulations), 270-46 H. (Garages), 270-47 (Building area), 270-205 A. (Nonconforming structures) for a proposal to build an addition on to a single-family dwelling/house and the attached garage. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 A. requires the front yard setback to not be less than 30’, measured from the front façade of the building to the street right of way, where the addition for the garage is proposed to be approximately 6’-11” and the deck is proposed to be approximately 25’ measured to the East Shore Drive right of way. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 B. requires a rear yard setback to be not less than 50’ in depth unless adjacent to a shoreline (which allows for a 25’ setback measured to the ordinary high-water line), where the rear yard setback is proposed to be approximately 5’ (measured from the west rear boundary lot line to the rear deck of the building). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 C. requires a side yard setback of not less than 20’, where the addition is proposed to be approximately 12’- 9” (measured to the southern side property boundary lot line). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-46 H. requires an attached or detached garage to be not less than 30’ for a front yard setback and not less than a 15’ side yard setback for a one-story garage, where the front yard setback for the one-story garage is proposed to be 6’-11” (measured from the from the East Shore Drive right of way) and the side yard setback is proposed to be 5’-1” (measured to the southern side yard property boundary line). Town of Ithaca Code 270-47 allows for a building area of no more than 10%, where the proposed single-family dwelling/house, and attached garage, is proposed to have a building area lot coverage of approximately 17.41%. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-205 A. requires that a structure not be enlarged or alters in any way that increases its non-conformity, where the applicant is proposing to construct an addition on the attached garage and construct a deck in the rear yard, that would increase its non-conformance. The current property is located in the Lakefront Residential District. Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement