Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2016-06-20Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 20, 2016 Minutes There is no audio for a large portion of these minutes. Until audio restoration is noted, these minutes are compiled strictly on memory. Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, George Vignaux and Karin Rubin Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Christine Decker and Chris Jung absent Anneal of Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff, owners, 1114 East Shore Dr., Tax Parcel 19.-2-6, Lakefront Residential (LR), requesting an area variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270-43 K(8-10) "Permitted accessory structures and uses", to keep an existing dock that is 70' long where 50' is allowed and which is 866 sq ft in area where 583.5 sq ft is allowed and to add an additional 17.5 sq ft; and to increase the existing encroachment into the required setback by an additional 1 foot. Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff were present to answer questions from the board. Ms. Gordon had pictures on her cell phone of the old dock posts but the Board could not accept or review the pictures because they could not be submitted for the record. The Board and the applicant discussed the project which had started without a building permit which was discovered and a stop work order issued. Two posts have already been installed. Lengthy discussion focused on whether the existing dock was a legal non-conforming dock or had been lengthened after the passage of the Town's Dock Law. The applicants stated that it was purchased as is but there was nothing in the Town's records to detail what was in existence prior to their ownership. The measurements of the dock to include the decking over the boat hoist would put the square footage over the allowed maximum and would therefore increase the amount requested through a variance. The Board wanted more information on when the dock was increased by the addition of the platform above the boat hoist. The applicants stated the dock is in disrepair and the additional 2 feet to allow for the new pilings was necessary and the minimum amount needed to make the dock safe and usable. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board on this appeal and the hearing was closed. Mr. Rosen moved to adjourn the meeting until July to allow for the applicants to meet with Mr. Bates and produce more information on the history of the dock. Seconded by a board member, unanimous. Appeal of ICS Development Partners Inc, owner, Om Gupta, agent/applicant, 930 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel 40.-3-9.2, Industrial (I), requesting an extension of an existing Use Variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Sections 270-158, "Permitted principle uses" and 270-159 "Prohibited uses" to allow mixed office, restaurant, bank ATM and retail sales to the acceptable uses. Mr. Gupta was present to answer questions from the board. The Board discussed the appeal and felt this was a routine extension of a variance to allow more time for the appellant to secure tenants. ZBA Resolution 007-2016 SEQR Use Variance Extension 930 Danby Rd, 40.-3-9.2 June 20,2016 Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on Pars 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the SEQR form prepared by staff. Vote: Ayes - Rosen, King, Vignaux, Rubin ZBA Resolution 008-2016 Use Variance Extension 930 Danby Rd, 40.-3-9.2 June 20,2016 Motion made by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King Resolved that this board grant the appeal of ICS Development to extend by granting again the existing Use Variance granted December 15,2014, ZBA Resolution No. 2014-027 with the same Findings. Vote: Ayes - King, Vignaux, Rosen and Rubin Anneal of Bella Faccia Construction, LLC, owner, Paul Owen and Gary Bush, PE, agent/applicant, 210 Eldridge Cir, Tax Parcel 46.-1-15.48, Low Density Residential (LDR) requesting an area variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-219.5 D, E & F "Stream setback" to be able to place a home in the required setback Zones 1 & 2 of a regulated stream. The request is for an 18 ft setback in Zone 1 where 20 ft is required and a 0 ft setback in Zone 2 where 15 ft is required. Anneal of Bella Faccia Construction, LLC, owner, Paul Owen and Gary Bush, PE, agent/applicant, 210 Eldridge Cir, Tax Parcel 46.-1-15.48, Low Density Residential (LDR), requesting an area variance from the requirements of Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-219.5 D, E & F "Stream setback" to relocate a regulated stream which would require activities that are prohibited in the required setback Zones 1 and 2 of that regulated stream. Activities that are prohibited in one or both Zones include alteration of the stream's bed and banks, performance of land-disturbing activities, and disturbance of vegetation. By moving the stream they would be able to build a home outside of the newly created setback of that stream. The Board discussed the request to locate the house as presented and they were not in favor of encroaching on the stream setback to the extent requested. Discussion focused on the Board's belief that there are other options available to the applicant with the applicant stating that this is the best location to maximize the type of house and its selling potential. The applicants also stated that the stream does not flow year round and could be moved as detailed in their other appeal to relocate the stream. They had checked with DEC and the County and been told there would be no problem. The Town then reviewed the building permit application and found the need for the variance(s). Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. There was no one present wishing to address the board on this appeal and the hearing was closed. Audio came back on at approximately 7:13 p.m. The applicant stated that through a miscommunication with his contractor, the foundation has already been poured. The Board and staff stated that the applicant and owner are prominent people in their fields and should have been aware that building permits are issued by the Town. The application was submitted on Friday, April 28*'' and the pre-site inspection happened on May 9*'' so only 5 business days had elapsed from submission of a building permit application and the discovery of a foundation having been put in. The applicant stated that it was a miscommunication with the contractor. The site work had been done a month previous. Discussion focused on other areas of the property where the house could be located which would require a smaller variance and leave the stream where it is. The applicants insisted that the proposed location is the best aesthetically and the moving the stream would actually improve the stream and its flow. The Board thought the house could be redesigned to accommodate the stream as it lays. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Mr. DeGrassia stated that he was the owner of the lot adjacent to the one in question and he was one of the original developers of the Southwoods development and this lot received approval at that time for development and between that time and the present, this stream designation was imposed and the lot that has a house on it next door has the same so-called stream runs through a two foot diameter culvert under the driveway. He is a licensed engineer and was responsible for the design of the hydro-geological planning for the development and so am aware of what was there before and what is there now and to call this a stream is a very big stretch. It has water in it a few weeks of the year as run off. When trying to protect a stream one is trying to do four things; protect a possible drinking source, fish life, insect life or erosion. Given that there is only water in the stream when there is very heavy rainfall or snow melt for a few weeks of a year it is a stretch. There are no fish or insects in the stream and if the stream were to be reoriented whatever erosion issues were of concern could be controlled. This is not a water supply and this was a real stretch to designate this as a stream and absurd. The last owner did complain to the Board about this designation. Mr. Rosen interrupted for clarification stating that the previous owners complained to the board but didn't tell the current owners about the stream and the law as evidenced by their assertion they were not aware of it so it seems they withheld that information. Mr. DeGrassia responded that he didn't know, not knowing either of those parties but stated that he didn't know; no one notified him that that stream was going to be designated. He summarized by saying he was not trying to cause problems but simply give the board context. What is at issue here is the stream and if you haven't been up there, it is a gully, and even when it does have water, it doesn't even run consistently and he didn't understand why it couldn't be reoriented so that it exits and enters at the same place but would allow the owner to do what they would like and what they could have done before this stream designation went into effect. The applicant noted that the pictures they submitted show no water in the stream but Mr. Bates stated that his pictures show water in the stream a week later. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing and turned to the comments from staff submitted to the board. Mr. King stated that he did visit the site and looked at the stream and his sense was that it is very close to the house and it seems we have been having more flooding events and when those happen he could see this stream cutting into this house and the setback has a purpose to protect property as well as the stream. If it was moved, it might go back to where it was because streams go to where they want and he doesn't think it is a good idea. The applicant noted that there is a stream reconstruction plan included in the application that would make the stream better than it is and Mr. King stated that that is a lot more costly than simply moving the stream but the applicant responded that it goes to the salability of the house and moving it all the way to the right will eliminate the side yard. The applicant asked if he could change the request right now to get a variance and be able to move forward. Ms. Brock responded that legally we cannot because we did not advertise that request Mr. Vignaux and Ms. Rubin stated they would rather see the house moved than the stream moved, saying that would be the smaller of the two options to take to bring it into compliance. Ms. Brock clarified that there are two appeals on the table now; one simply encroaching albeit a large encroachment and one to move the stream. The Board responded that they understood that but do not support either appeal because the criteria as listed by the State are not met. It is feasible to move the house, both requests are substantial, and they are both self-created. The applicants did state that they thought they had done the right thing by contacting the DEC and the County. The Board discussed the first appeal regarding the setback only and there was no support for that. The applicants withdrew the appeal. The Board discussed the second appeal regarding moving the stream and Mr. Thaete, Town Engineer, has stated that we would need more information regarding that and the Board agrees. The applicant noted that the culvert is very small for the size of the culvert that was made and if there is going to be flooding; it will be at that point, not the stream. They thought the DEC would have expressed concerns if they had them and they didn't. They reiterated that they have a lot of experience in this and in two years you would never know the stream had been moved and it would be a much better stream than what exists. The applicants expressed their concerns about the costs and losses involved in this also, saying they already purchased plans etc. and the cost of adjusting plans may just make the owner walk away and leave it. The stream is so insignificant that it is ridiculous that we are here but it is what it is and the only person that will be affected is the owner of this property; it is entering and leaving the property at the same location. Ms. Brock responded by reading the Purpose of the Stream Setback Law which illustrated why the Town goes to such lengths to protect streams. The Agent responded that what they were proposing to do actually improves most of what she just read; adding trees, riprap, changing a straight shot to a bend etc. Lengthy discussion followed on how the stream would or could be moved and it was noted that the Town Engineer could be in control of inspecting and making sure it is done correctly, but the sense of the majority of the board was not in favor of moving the stream and the applicant withdrew their second appeal. Other Business A gentleman was present who had wanted to speak to the East Shore Drive. Neighbor to the north - Mr. Rosen gave him privilege of the floor and he stated that he doesn't care about the square footage of the dock, but his question was why they had to put pilings in a new location instead of replacing existing pilings that would not increase the encroachment because it already encroaches significantly on his property. He was opposed to it being extended one foot either way. He has lived in the current location only 6 months but on the street for 11 years. Ms. Brock asked when changes were made to the dock and he stated that nothing has happened in the last 10 years and he had no idea when the dock over the hoist was put in but thought it was there 10 or 11 years ago when he was at another address close by. • Agenda was reviewed • Mr. Bates asked members to check their training requirements • Ms. Terwilliger asked for Ethics Disclosure Forms that haven't been turned in • Congratulations to Mr. Vignaux as new regular member Minutes Ms. Rubin moved approval of the minutes, seconded by Mr. Vignaux; unanimous. Meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 8:45 p.m. Submit Paulette Terwilliger