HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2022-03-08 Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Tuesday,March 8,2022 @ 6:00pm
215 N. Tioga St.
Due to public health and safety concerns related to COVID-19 and NYS Legislation allowing
virtual meetings. The Public Hearing meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals will be held by
video conferencing through the Zoom App with no in-person attendance permitted. The public
will have an opportunity to see and hear the meeting live and provide comments through the
Zoom App. If the public would like to attend the meeting for viewing purposes only, it is
recommended to watch the livestream video on YouTube.
Agenda
• 0001-2022 Appeal of Hoffmire Properties LLC, Owner; Jason Demarest,
Applicant/Agent; of 961 Taughannock B1vd.,Tax Parcel No.21.-2-36
• 0003-2022 Appeal of Timothy Andersen,Owner of 1018 East Shore Dr., Tax
Parcel No. 19.-2-19
0 0004-2022 Appeal of Karenkumar Ahir,Owner; Jose Guisado,Agent/Applicant of
Tax Parcel No.32.-2-16
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY ON ZOOM: 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.tis/i/85255871576,
INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCESS THE MEETING VIRTUALLY ON YOUTUBE: If you have a
computer, tablet, or smartphone, you can access the meeting by going to The Town's YouTube
channel. To join the meeting directly, go to
htt. s://www, oaadube.com/chaor�el/L.�C�C�9v cXkJ6klVlib'hC' 7N 7/live
On the evening of, 03/08/2022, at 5 minutes before 6:OOpm,join in with your computer,
smartphone, or telephone. If joining through the Zoom App, you will be placed on hold until the
meeting starts. Questions about accessing the Zoom video conference should be emailed to
cdorres�c_r.:>.town J haca.py.,qs or(607)273-1783 ext.2.
................................................... ... .
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
March 8, 2022
Present: David Squires, Chair; Members Chris Jung, George Vignaux, and Stuart Friedman
Marty Mosely, Director of Codes; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the
Town
Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
0001-2022 Appeal of Hoffmire Properties LLC, Owner; Jason Demarest, Applicant/Agent;
of 961 Taughannock Blvd., Tax Parcel 21.-2-36, LF; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca
Code sections 270-205 (Nonconforming structures), 270-46 (F) (yard regulations), and 270-
219.5 (Stream setback). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-205 only allows for a non-conforming
building to be moved, altered, or enlarged in a specific manner, where the existing single-family
building is being demolished and a new building is proposed to be built not in conformance with
the Town of Ithaca Code stream setback requirements, as required per section 270-219.5. Town
of Ithaca Code section 270-46F requires buildings to be located at least 25 feet inland from the
ordinary high-water line, where the relocated shed is proposed to be placed approximately 21.9
feet from the ordinary high-water line.
Mr. Squires noted that this is a return of a previous appearance and asked the applicant to
highlight the changes from the last submission.
Mr. Moseley added that he received the SWPP analysis about an hour prior to this meeting and
sent it out to the Board and the applicant.
Jason Demarest, Agent, shared his screen depicting the project and started with a review of the
project to orient the Board to the current conditions by showing a survey with the current
footprint shown in the center and a carport and driveway shared by multiple properties off
Taughannock Blvd. on a slope to the lake.
He then shared photos of the views from inside the current house, looking at the stream that
abuts the side lot line, which is a bedrock stream basin, and the conditions of the creek and the
distance to the house.
Mr. Demarest stated that this is an intermittent creek and the photos shown the running after a
normal rain event, adding that in August, it will be a trickle of water.
He added that they spoke to the Wiggins family who said that in all their years owning the
property, they never really saw the water go much past top of the bank, it has run across the edge
of the property right here,but the site is sloped and it's an open rock basin stream, so it really
flows downhill.
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 1
Mr. Demarest turned to the current proposal and the differences, adding that the previous
submission was more of conceptual, and this is the actual proposal.
Of note, now:
• a 32' foot setback from the edge of the stream, where the current house is 5.8' feet
from the edge
• patio with a permeable surface
• walkway depicted is existing
• there is a natural shelf along the contours of the lot with a steeper bank
prohibiting moving the house footprint up as a limiting factor in design
• as of right, the current 4-bedroom house and footprint could be rehabilitated
without variances, but the proposal is a 3-bedroom house with a 1-bedroom
apartment, set much farther back from the stream bank of 1200 sqft resulting in an
8% encroachment into the stream setback area and any flow during rain events is
very channelized and the stream acts more as a drainage corridor than an
intermittent stream.
• There is an existing shed along the creek and an existing gazebo on the lake. The
gazebo will be removed, and the shed will be relocated, if it is determined it is in
good enough condition at that time, over to the existing shuffleboard court, which
will be used as a base for it, and we will tie it into the shed that is currently there.
• Moving the shed reduces the existing encroachment into the lake front setback
nonconformity.
• Some lawn area is planned around the house and trees and landscaping closer to
the creek for stabilization, and within entire existing footprint of the house and
any areas disturbed during construction
• The patio will be mostly gravel with some flagstone pavers
• House is moved completely out of Zone 1 of the Stream Setback, removing 1,079
feet of encroachment there, and increased the encroachment by 254 sq ft into
Zone 2 as a tradeoff, creating a larger buffer between the stream and the house
• Style will be similar to the neighboring house; Craftsman
• Letter of support have been submitted by the neighbors
• Could feasibly be rebuilt in its current location/configuration,but the proposal
decreases some nonconformities and mitigates others
• Reducing the overall footprint by about 1,000 sq ft by building up
• Overall, improving the site and respecting the natural environment
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m.
Public Hearing
Paul Fairbanks spoke, saying that he lives a few house down from the proposed house and he
could confirm what Mr. Demarest said about the gorge always having some water in it,but that it
stays within the gorge except the rare occasions it floods. It is a really deep gorge and there has
been work done to channel the water, and although it can flow ferociously at times, he has never
seen it go onto the Wiggins property. He added that the stream does not have fish or any plant
life in it.
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 2
He said he can't imagine a reason not to approve this request as it is moving the structure further
away from the gorge and increasing the current setbacks. He also verified that the gazebo is
falling apart.
He stated that he was fully in support of the request, and it is a beautiful design and Mr.
Demarest does great work, as he did on 955 Taughannock Blvd.
Stuart Friedman spoke, saying that the project looks great, and he was curious about the
comment regarding improving the energy efficiency
Jason Demarest responded that a big part is insulating above code and geothermal for which
there are tax credits and usually it really does pay for itself, but it's a bigger up front.
Air source heat pumps, high efficiency, LED lighting, spray foam.
Mr. Squires asked for clarification whether it will be a single-family residence or a two family?
Mr. Mosely responded that it's a two family with what the Town considers a primary single-
family dwelling with an accessory dwelling unit.
Mr. Demarest confirmed. The basement walkout apartment will be about 700 sq ft and occupies
less than 50% of the primary dwelling.
Determination
The Board felt it was a tasteful design and layout given the existing constraints.
ZBA Resolution 0001-2022 Area Variance
961 Taughannock Blvd
TP 21.-2-36, LF
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jason Demarest, applicant, 961 Taughannock Blvd,
Tax Parcel 21.-2-36, Lake front residential zone, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code
section sections 270-205 (Nonconforming structures), 270-46 (F) (yard regulations), and 270-
219.5 (Stream setback).
Conditions
1. That the project be built substantially as shown in the submission, and
2. The removal of the gazebo as described, and
3. That the shed moving will not encroach into the highwater mark more than shown on the
plans submitted.
Findings
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 3
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety or welfare of
the community, specifically:
1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means possible, given the existing
structures are in very poor condition and needs to be reconstructed, and the shed
relocation is wanted near the other existing shed and the limited options due to the
topography of the site, and
2. That there will not be any detriment to nearby properties, given that:
a. the new design will reduce the building footprint and move the building from
within 5.8' of the stream bank to a 32' setback, and
b. the 12x12 permeable surface patio will be the only part of the house remaining in
Zone lof the stream setback, and
c. the new structure will reduce the non-conformity whereas reconstruction would
continue a much greater non-conformity, and
d. the shed will be moved from a 4.5"non-conforming setback to abutting the
existing shed and out of the stream setback, increasing the viewshed for
neighbors, and the accessory buildings being removed(gazebo) or relocated
(shed) from the location of high-water mark are an improvement for the neighbors
and the neighborhood
e. the proposed house fits in with the existing neighborhood in style and scope, and
3. The request is substantial in that the request does not conform to the stream setback
requirement with the patio remaining in Zone 2 however, the applicant has reduced the
encroachment in Zone 1, and the shed moving from the high-water mark is not
substantial, but a benefit, and
4. There will not be any significant environmental impacts in that no SEQR is required, and,
there will be a benefit to the existing environmental impacts as mentioned above by
moving further away from the stream setback, and
5. That the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build a new house on
portions of the existing footprint, maintaining some of the preexisting nonconformity,
but, nevertheless, this Board has determined that the benefits outweigh any detriments.
Moved: David Squires Seconded: George Vignaux
Vote: ayes— Squires, Jung, Vignaux, and Friedman
003-2022 Appeal of Timothy Andersen, owner, 1018 East Shore Drive, TP 19.-2-19, LF,
seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code Section 270-47 (building area) which requires the
building area not to exceed 10% and the existing lot coverage is 27% and the proposed shed
would increase the building area to approximately 29%.
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 4
Mr. Andersen gave an overview, saying that he wants to place a pre-made shed on the property
that will match the house and he has spoken with both neighbors who had no issues with the idea
and thought it would be a nice addition rather than seeing his tools and such against the house.
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. there was no one wishing to address the
Board and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Friedman asked if the nonconformity will be increased.
Mr. Anderson responded that lot coverage will go from 27% lot coverage to 29%.
Mr. Squires asked if most of the properties in the area have the same issue.
Mr. Moseley responded that the majority of the properties are legally existing nonconforming.
Ms. Brock added that this area was built prior the enactment of zoning and compounded by a
land swap with the City of Ithaca.
Some discussion followed on screening of sheds in the neighborhood and the applicant thought it
would just obstruct the view of the lake from the road. The Board felt the request was usual for
the area and fits in with the character given the unusual circumstances of the lakefront in the
area.
ZBA Resolution 003-2022 Area Variance
1018 East Shore Drive
TP 19.-2-19, LF
Condition
1. Be built substantially as shown.
Findings
1. That the applicant cannot achieve the benefit requested in any other way feasible, given
the topography and size of the existing lot and the lack of a basement or attic, and
2. That there will not be any environmental impact as evidenced by the SEQR not being
required, and
3. That there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood in that
the neighborhood is well known for existing nonconformities in lot coverages and many
of the homes have sheds and this particular shed is built to match the existing home, and
4. That the request is substantial in that the lot coverage is currently 27%where 10%is the
maximum, but the increase associated with this request is only 2%, and
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 5
5. That the difficulty is self-created, in that the applicant would like to have a shed,
nevertheless, this Board grants the appeal for the reasons stated above.
Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung
Vote: ayes— Squires, Jung, Friedman, and Vignaux
0004-2022 Appeal of Karenkumar Ahir, Owner; Jose Guisado,Agent/Applicant of Tax
Parcel No. 32.-2-16; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.5 (Stream
setback). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-219.5 requires that certain disturbance activities not
occur within the designated stream setback area(s), where the project includes two stream
crossings to occur to install a driveway.
The current property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone and is contiguous to 268
Seven Mile Drive and 260 Seven Mile Drive.
Mr. Squires opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Ms. Cobb read her submitted letter:
Kelly Cobb: My name is Kelly Cobb and I am property owner of 260 Seven Mile Dr, the parcel
directly adjacent to the one under review tonight.
Right now, the stream that is impacted by the building of the bridge in the driveway goes into the
front of my property every time it rains and every time that there is any type of precipitation, that
stream goes into my property and subsequently floods on to Seven Mile Dr., so I've got a large,
vested interest in what happens with the drainage pertaining to this particular stream.
In my reading of the variance application, there was a lot that was included on the deed transfer
that happened in 1991, and some stipulations that were listed in 1991 that I did not see addressed
within today's variance applications.
My concerns regarding the proposed variances are the following: the modification of the slope
indicated on page nine of the application, there is no information provided regarding the impact
of the proposed variance on soil erosion, streamflow, or wastewater management.
Additionally, any plans to mitigate, and subsequently address, those problems that may arise
from the modification of the slope to the stream are not addressed.
There's no language regarding responsibility for maintaining the existing natural flow of the
stream and responsibility for correcting any future drainage consequences.
The 1991 deed variance that was granted for the use of property for residential building listed
several elements not included in the request.
Those elements include a stipulation that any driveway constructed is under the town's
supervision, which is noted at the top of page 18 of the current request. There has not been any
indication of what elements of the driveway construction will be subject to review and
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 6
supervision, nor is there any consideration being given for the scope of said review and
supervision. The utilization of the property should be restricted to prevent disturbance to the
water sources located on the parcel and to avoid diverting seasonal water flow, which is on page
24 of the existing application.
This has not been addressed in the variance application specifically noting the impact of the
slope modification, as well as the impact to the soil and areas around the stream from any heavy
machinery that would be used to build the bridges or driveway and it will create a disturbance to
the water first and subsequently my property.
All reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve the maximum amount of vegetation also on page
24 of the attached request for on page nine it's not indicated that the existing vegetation will
explicitly remain.
I did see where a large tree is stated as remaining however, most other vegetation noted within
this application is just noted, it doesn't indicate whether it will stay or whether it will be removed
for the purpose of this driveway or subsequent construction.
Unless and until the elements are addressed, and specifically stated in the variance request, I
would request the decision on this application be deferred. The variance requested needs to say
that the owners of tax parcel 32.-2.14 and that includes any current and subsequent owners
should deed transfer at a later date, shall be responsible for the impact to drainage into the stream
from their property and all construction related activities that take place.
The project plan on page nine should indicate specifically what the scope modification plan is
and the impact to the stream, as well as any proposed changes to the existing vegetation on the
lot.
The elements of the driveway construction and associated bridges will be reviewed and
supervised by the town shall also be noted, thank you.
<1:15:17>
Khalida- Mother owns 10 Apple Blossom Ln which is downstream from the subject parcel, and
we have had flooding issues in the past already, so we are very concerned about any change to
the stream. I did note on the application a proposed house utility trench to run parallel to the
proposed driveway. It isn't clear if the new trench will go underneath or above the stream and if
there are any concerns with possible ice jams or flooding with the trench being broken open and
the water being exposed to anything it shouldn't be.
Son of Christine Wells—Christine owns 265 Seven Mile Drive directly across from the subject
property. Our concerns are that the plan for the property does correctly and adequately manage
the stream so that the flow and speed of it does not change.
Asif Chaudhry—Owner, 12 Apple Blossom Lane. I support Kelly and others seeking more
confirmation and details on how the property owner and architect plan to address the concerns
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 7
raised. The creek in question runs along the boarder of my lot. Any change in the behavior
activity of the creek would directly impact an entire side of my parcel.
Maxine—Owner, 245 Seven Mile Drive. Share concerns with the other commenters. Over the
past few years, with climate change we've noticed a major change in what comes down from
West Hill to our property, so we care concerned with the any possible consequences of change.
Public hearing was closed.
Jose Guisado, Architect- This approximate 1.9-acre property has a complex geography in terms
of contour and the creek. In terms of a bridge, we are talking more of a fjord. We are not
reducing the slope of the creek only crossing it and reducing the slope of the driveway. The
length of the driveway will be 470 feet from front of road to house. In terms of the two crossing
points of the creek, there will be very little effect post temporary disturbance during construction.
One side of the property looks very wooded however about 60-70% of the existing vegetation is
shrubs and bushes. We will have to sacrifice an estimated 15-20 mid-size trees to allow for
construction. This happens all the time and happened along Seven Mile Drive where many
single-family homes were erected. We are taking into consideration all aspects of environmental
impacts. We submitted our erosion and sediment control plan and other requirements to the
town. We are working and will continue to work very closely with the Town, we welcome the
towns presence. We want to have as low impact as possible including leaving as much vegetation
intact as possible.
Mr. Vignaux stated that with erosion controls taken into consideration and all aspects of the
culvert bridge taken care of alongside the town engineer, if we specify that the approval of town
engineer at every phase of the work vis-a-vis the stream bed are taken into consideration then I
would have no problem voting in favor of this project.
Ms. Jung asked if the town engineer involvement is only during construction phase or long-term
stormwater and water control?
Mr. Mosely responded that after the project is completed and the engineering department finds is
acceptable, they sign off. They no longer monitor water quality aspects of a residential home.
Ms. Jung asked if the engineering department evaluates the grading, surfaces, and run off when
plans are submitted? Some waterways are chronic and long-term problems, has there been
known issues with this stream going down?
Mr. Mosely responded no, the engineering department does not evaluate beforehand and did not
have an answer as to any known complaints with the stream.
Mr. Squires referenced town code 270-219.5 section i the applicant should provide a proposed
mitigation plan that offsets the affected proposed encroachment into the stream setback. I didn't
see that in the application.
ZBA 2022-03-08 Filed 5/16) Pg. 8
r, tiarisaaclo replied that rrrost ofthe driveway will lre outside the 5' strc,aarn setback. We are
willing to provide as more detailed plan to showy we have the saarrie ggoU ,is the board and
neighbors,
fwfr. Squires res and Ms, Jung f°eel there needs to be more specificity irnclrrclirrg; how and where the
stream will be crossed,, more cletaril about the bridge, how- the streaarrn banks will he aafl'c,ctecl and
strearrar flow post construction,
Ms. Jung inquired who can the board expect rlr.rrapif ed stream engineering inforrcraaration trorn?
Mr, Mosely responded that the towns engineering department can review (hy: application package
and evaluate stream flow, ;any carlvems and bridge proposal,
Mr. Vigxrnaarawa moved to table the appeal for applicants to provide as rnorc detailed plan involving
the streaarnn, Mr. Squires seconded; unanimous.
Mr. Mosely commented, for clarification., that the applicants did not recla.rest additional naal variances
I'm firorntaagge or width at front yard setback, because the variances were granted in I991 and
theref'rrc WOUlcl become as morn-conformirngg, lot ofreco rcl over the years based cntn ecrrrernt rornirngg.
In addition. the variances that were granted in 1991, some of those are still in effect so sornnc, cad"
the: iterrns raised tonight like oversight from the; t:crwrn of as driveway would still need tc) p:ne
satisfied. likely that would go to our cangg,irac:erirngt department to review that during the
construction project itselfaarnct wor.rlcl he a rclrrninistraative review and not specifically board review,
o, sornne cat`those iterrns, many of"t.he conditions typically identified in any ofthc variances that
tpne board previously awarded Marc; in a rcfrrnirristraativc review aafi er that based on caalcrrlaatiorns or
irnlorrnnaat.io n provided from the applicants engineering teaarnn to our engineering neerirngg; teaarnn.
yds. Brock stated SFQR is rnot rccperirewt as it is as granting of'aa a individual setback variance,
Mr. Mosely asked if't:hcr•e wars as rccoranmerncfart:io n ofaa /BA member to the C OC° corn~rannittee:, Ms.
Jung stated them she, was willing to be ar member and the Board unanimously agreed to forward as
recornnrnnernclartiorn to the Tower Board for action,
Mr. Mosely commented that in person meetings will resurne sOcnrr awnless there are extenuating
c,irccarnnst.aarnces preventing as member f'rorn.a attending in person in which cause, that rnrerrnkner Would
creed to make notice of rernnote attendance to the town clerk.
Mr. Squires slated that aalterrnarte member David l iliberto resigned and we now have two arlt.errnaate
positions and as regular to till; please reach out to anyone YOU know that, might he interested and
ask the°rnr tco contact Ms. Rosa for an application.
Submitted bn
l e:ek.y Jorcl r tep utmy Town C°ler°lc