Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2016-07-18Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals July 18, 2016 Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Christine Decker and Alternate Karin Rubin Absent: George Vignaux and Chris Jung Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Continuation of Appeal 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. Mr. Bates explained the CAD drawing produced by Public Works to establish the property line and the water rights of the parcel. He explained that the town went by the Code which says to take the high water mark and the property line where they intersect on the property and the neighboring property to establish the arc. The town pulled the high water mark and drew it at a right angle to each property and the black line bisects the two for the halfway point and each property line; the furthest line to the left is the squaring off of the property line to the right and the green line is squaring off the property line to the left and the line in the middle is where the actual property line should be. The lines are not printed exactly on the map but the best we can get. Discussion followed with Mr. Silcoff asking how this helps if it is not accurate and Mr. Bates responded it is not accurate to scale, but gives an idea of about where the property line should be. Ms. Brock added that the town always knew the dock was close to the neighboring property line and that you are looking to increase the encroachment into the required setback by another foot, so all of that is still true. Because this is not perfectly accurate, this should not be used as evidence but just an illustration of the known fact that they are close. Mr. Bates added that one would need surveys of all three properties, the applicants and both neighbors, to get a 100% accurate map. In 2009 the Dock Law was adopted and the town developed this way to determine property lines on lakefront properties in the state’s ROW; the State actually owns the waters of the State and this is used for measuring. Mr. Rosen Rob stated that it is a legally non-conforming dock on or very close to the property line. Mr. Rosen asked how we can determine how close it is to the neighbor and Ms. Brock responded that is what our law did, it determined how to measure the line whether you have a convex or concave property, and states that you have to be 20’ feet away from the water rights line. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. Filed with TC July 23, 2016 ZBA July 18, 2016 pg. 1 Jason Sokoloff, next door neighbor, stated that he would like to see the plans for the dock since he hadn’t yet. Staff showed him what we have from the packet. Mr. Sokoloff looked at it. He said he did not have any problem with the dock as to square footage but he didn’t want it any closer to the property line. He thought it would be just as easy to place the posts for the dock in another location, or where the existing posts were, rather than put them where indicated which extends the infringement of the setback. He asked if the proposal would only be the posts and nothing else. Mr. Silcoff responded that there is a support between the posts but that wouldn’t extend out and Mr. Knewstub said he could put them where they exist now, but that would be a huge project and significantly more expensive than putting the posts and support where indicated which increases the infringement by one foot. Mr. Sokoloff stated that if there is a way not to go the further foot then that would be good and Mr. Silcoff told him the difference between the two options, the one being presented is about $5K and doing it on the inside would involve removing some of the steel structure that is there and that would cost $30K. Mr. Sokoloff responded that he understands that then and he is fine with the one foot given the price difference. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:35p.m. and returned to the appeal to the board for discussion. Ms. Rubin stated that it looks like the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment given that it is only one foot and there is no feasible alternative. Ms. Decker agreed and added that there will be no change to the neighborhood and cost is a factor, and it is an existing dock and this is a minor modification that is necessary for safety. Mr. King also agreed saying that they really aren’t adding ay real square footage to the dock but basically repairing it and it is already there and legally non-conforming. Mr. Rosen agreed and Ms. Brock stated that this is exempt from SEQR given it is “an expansion of minor residential accessory structures.” ZBA Resolution 0006-2016 Area Variance - Dock 1114 East Shore Drive 19.-2-6, Lakefront Residential (LR) July 18, 2016 Mr. Rosen moved that this Board grant the appeal of Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff, owners, 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 with the following Conditions: 1. That the dock be built substantially as shown in the drawings submitted, and Filed with TC July 23, 2016 ZBA July 18, 2016 pg. 2 2. That the extra width be no larger than one foot on each side. And with the following Findings: That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the alternative would be to rebuild the entire dock at an estimate of approximately $30K more than the proposed project, and 2. That there will not be an undesireable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the dock is a legally non-conforming dock and this is a minor increase to the non-conformity, and 3. The request is not substantial given there is already a significant legal non-conformity and this is a minor increase in that non-conformity, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the fact that SEQR is not required, and 5. That while the difficulty is self-created in that the owner desires a les expensive method to repair the dock, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Seconded by Christine Decker Vote: Ayes – Rosen, Decker, King, and Rubin Ms. Brock noted that the County was not in favor of granting this appeal but added that she thought they did not understand that the dock was a legally non-conforming dock already in place and that the actual variance was only for 17’-18’ total not hundreds of feet. Mr. Rosen responded for the record to the County’s GML response that the dock was a legally non- conforming dock with a net increase of 1 foot encroachment and approximately 18 square feet in area and therefore this Board unanimously granted the appeal. Other Business Discuss draft Chicken law Devon Buckley, Ridgecrest Rd resident was present and wanted to comment. Ms. Buckley stated that she used to have chickens but had to remove them because she is in the medium density zone with less than 2 acres and she would really like to have them again and wanted to hear what was going on. Mr. Rosen and Ms. Brock stated that under the proposed law, she would be allowed to have them as long as the coop was more than 20 feet from her property lines with no permit required. No roosters and no more than six hens and some other common sense requirements. She was very happy and thanked the Board. Filed with TC July 23, 2016 ZBA July 18, 2016 pg. 3 John Lewis, W. King Rd which is in low density residential also spoke in favor of the draft law. He stated that he has been following this but hasn't seen the latest rendition. He stated he isn't concerned about himself personally but thought allowing as many people as possible to have their own is great. He added that often dogs are more of a hassle than roosters. Mr. Rosen asked about the provisions for LDR and MDR as currently written and the LDR would be allowed roosters as he reads it and Ms. Brock responded that yes, they are. She summarized the Codes and Ordinances Committee (COC) process and the range of comments they got from no chickens anywhere to whatever wherever. The COC decided to focus on the chickens since that is what the ZBA was getting the most requests for. Mr. Rosen stated that he thought it was a very good idea and it was very well written except for the "rodent proof container" where rodents are being singled out where other animals such as raccoons, deer, bear etc. are a concern and it should say "animal-proof container" because there are many other animals that could get in a metal container that may be "rodent proof but a dog could knock it over. Mr. Rosen suggested "protected against gnawing rodents and other animals" would cover it. Ms. Rubin stated that she thought it was high time this law was changed and chickens allowed and Ms. Decker agreed, stating that it seems each month there is a chicken variance on the agenda so this is great. Ms. Brock stated that the COC worked a long time on this and came back to dealing just with the chickens and a simple rewrite of the law. Discuss draft Solar Law Ms. Brock summarized by saying the Town's law is about 10 years old and now that the State has a new law allowing shared solar facilities where arrays are not located on your own lot but the electricity goes to the grid for you to buy it from, we had to look at our law because it doesn't allow that and we now have the experience of the last 10 years to draw on and the new technology as well as people being more comfortable with solar arrays. Ms. Carin stated that she is very happy with the direction this law is going in to promote and encourage wind and solar and Ms. Decker agreed. Review Minutes Mr. Rosen moved the approval of the June minutes; seconded by Mr. King; unanimous with Ms. Decker abstaining. SubmittecLby Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Filed with TC July 23,2016 ZBA July 18,2016 pg. 4 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Lori Kofoid , being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT /Jnotice of public hearings Ithaca Journal, Legal Section Monday July 11, 2016 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting; Town Clerk's Office 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Date of Posting: July 7, 2016 Date of Publication: July 11, 2016 Lori Kofoid Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this \ "1313. 2016. day of Notary Public PAULETTE TERWILLIGER Motaiy Public, State of New Yoric No. 01TE6156809 ^ Qualified In Tompkins County Commission Expires December 4,20^ TODAYS I .LUAI. N(Jl -ite. Town of Ulysses. Per- ijns wishing lo appear at such hearing may do so in person or by Olhw represen tative. Communicattons in writing in relation thereto may be filed with the Zoning Of fice at KlleyOulya8es.ny.uB or at the folMng address: Town of Ulysses' Zoning Of fice. 10 Bm Si. Tnimansburg. NY 14886 7/11/2016 s TOWN OF ITHACA I- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS )f NonceoFPUBuc ft HEARINGS 1- Monday July 18,2016 n, 215NordtTlogaStreet. Id Ithaca .t- 6K)0 P.fM. >g Continuation of the of •ly Ondy Gordon ard Howard m Silcoff, owners. 1114 East ig Shore Or.. Tax Parcel 19,-2- p- 6, L^efront Retidentiel (Lfl). di- reqi«stlng an area variance ol from the Town of Ithaca rty Code. Chapter 270-43 K{8- he 10) 'Pemiitled accessory In structures and uses', to keep ,cl. an ewstlng dock that is 70' at long where SO' is allowed and vd. vdiidi is 666 sq ft in area cd where 563.5 sq ft is allowed and to add an ^idonal 17.5 »en sq ft; and to increase the ex- Ing Isting encroachment into the required setback by art addi- , tional 1 foot. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273-1783 Dated: July7.20l6 7/11/2016 PUFISUANT TO HEM YORK UMffED UA8IUTY COMPA NY LAW SECTION 206fc) NOTICE OF FORMATIW OF Itheca Appliance Serwce, LLC- The name of the limited liability company ia Ithaca Ap pliance Service. LLC. The dale of filing of the ar^ctes of organization with the Dept. of State was June 27, 2016, The county In N.Y. In which the office of Ihe company Is located is Tom^dns. The Secretary of Slate has been designated as agent of the company upon vrfwm proc ess may be served, and the Secretary of Stale shall mat copy of any process egainsl the compwy served upon him or her to Kennein Keough. The business pu^ pose of the company is id engage in any and all busi ness activities permitted un der the ^w9 of Ihe Slate of N.Y. 7/11. 7/18. 7/25. 8/1. 8/8. 8/15/2016 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us CODE ENFORCEMENT - BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR Phone (607) 273-1783 n Fax (607) 273-1704 codes@town.Ithaca.nv.us AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL mm STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Lori Kofoid , being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent Is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York 14850. That on the 8th day of July 2016 , deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document, of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: *** 1114 East Shore Dr *** *** Tax Parcel 19.-2-6 Tax Parcel Tax Parcel Tax Parcel Area Variance By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. r\ Lori Kofoid Town of'lthaca Depruty Town Clerk Sworn to beforeTme Notary Public PAULETTE TERWILLIGEH Notary Public, State of New York No. C1TE6156809Qualified In Tompkins County Commission Expires December 4,20 Tammy Livengood & Daniel Conley 199 Van Ostrand Rd Groton, NY 13073 Shelley T Mulvaney 1040 E Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Paula Winner & Joseph Russo 1113 East Shore Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 \l\M eWTT SHo^ 4\?- Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff 1114 East Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 David and Nancy Gersh 1052 East Shore Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 Jason Sokolo^ 1126 East Shore Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 ATAMAP. Inc 496 N Lake Way Palm Beach. FL 33480 Sunita Sah and Mark Nixon 1111 East Shore Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 Christopher & Brenda Piince 1106 East Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 David S Mooney 1111 Triphammer Rd Ithaca. NY 14850 Stephanie Owens 1053 East Shore Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 Peggy Ann & Charles House 1132 East Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Jonathan Russell-Anelli & Katherine McComas 1134 East Shore Dr Ithaca. NY 14850 Heritage ParkTownhouses Inc 680 Ridge Rd Lansing. NY 14882 Laurie Sedgwick 1103 East Shore Dr Ithaca, NY 14850