Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2017-01-23Filed with TC 2/8/2017 ZBA 2017-01-23 Pg. 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday January 23, 2017 Minutes Board Members present: Rob Rosen (Chair), Bill King, Chris Jung, Christine Decker and George Vignaux; Alternates: Carin Rubin and William Highland Staff present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. Appeal of Melinda Staniszewska, owner, requesting a use variance from Chapter 270-77 Principal Uses, of the Town of Ithaca Code, to add 2 additional dwelling units to an existing single-family dwelling, located at 220 Coddington Rd, Tax Parcel 41.-1-19, High Density Residential (HDR). Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. and received clarification that the proposal was to add two units to the existing single unit as well as an additional room on the second floor of the existing unit for a total of three units. Mr. Highland recused himself because he used to represent Ms. Staniszewska. Mr. Highland moved to the audience to simply listen to the appeal. Mr. Rosen asked if Ms. Staniszewska had anything to add to her application and she stated that she would like to explain her circumstances and the need for the extra units. Ms. Staniszewska explained that her house is a lovely two-bedroom, one-bath cottage she bought ten years ago with the intent of it being her retirement home. She stated that she was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease at age 70 so for the past 6 years she has had to deal with increasing medical expenses with her disability and she has used up her other resources; she had owned a duplex on Pennsylvania Avenue but she was forced to sell that. She stated that she has been living on savings and her social security of $905 a month with is $10,680 a year. Ms. Staniszewska stated that she purchased the house not only because it was perfect for her but also because it would allow her to have a student rental as income in her later years. She went on to say that she is asking for the increased units because she incurs an average of $500-$600 a month between medical copays, prescriptions and such and that is why she is here. Mr. Rosen stated that it is a tough situation, saying that she is up against the Town of Ithaca Zoning Law and the Town has said that there can only be two-family units in that neighborhood. The State law says that we have to treat all applicants equally and look at a specific list of criteria. This Board would have to go through the criteria and you would have to satisfy each criteria. Ms. Brock added that the criteria is aimed at the property, not the owner or the owner’s circumstances. Filed with TC 2/8/2017 ZBA 2017-01-23 Pg. 2 Ms. Staniszewska stated that she though she met the criteria by her diagrams showing that she can only build half the size of the original property and she explained to Mr. Bates that she was adding a bedroom and bathroom to the front of the house because she will eventually need in- home care. She stated that the neighborhood is zoned for multi-family and there are duplexes and quads in her neighborhood so as far as adding a second and third unit, they would fit between her house and the garage and is in line with what is going on in the neighborhood now. Ms. Staniszewska did not think it would impact the neighborhood and added that the College owns the property around here. Mr. Bates and Ms. Brock noted that there are houses on her side of the street that are one-family homes and Ms. Staniszewska stated that they are student rentals. Mr. Rosen stated that he drove through the neighborhood today and he saw a lot of duplexes, but not 4- or 6-units. Ms. Staniszewska stated that those are closer to the entrance of the college and Ms. Brock stated that there was a 6-unit closer and another lot with several buildings on it, but that happened decades ago and was involved in some kind of transfer of development rights. Ms. Brock stated that she looked up the properties around Ms. Staniszewska and went through the parcels in the neighborhood according to Tompkins County Assessment. Mr. Rosen stated that in his opinion, a 3 or 4-unit would not be out of character, but that is only one of the criteria that the Board has to look at and he didn’t think the other three are met. Mr. Rosen asked the Board if anyone thought a 3- or 4-unit would be out of character; all board members except Ms. Decker indicated that it would not be out of character. Ms. Decker stated that the Board would need to see plans to make that determination, saying that some things can blend in but others wouldn’t and the sketch is very limited. She thought there is a potential for an impact given there are no plans. The Board asked about the plans and Ms. Staniszewska stated that it would be one building containing three units extending toward the back and her house is set back as it is so one would not see much from the road. Ms. Decker added that the fact that the college surrounds this house makes it a very unusual property because Ithaca College could do something there and it changes her thought process about this project. Mr. Rosen stated that there are a lot of properties abutting Ithaca College so he did not feel that made this unique. Mr. Rosen turned to the other criteria Mr. King asked what Ms. Staniszewska is allowed to do by right and Mr. Bates clarified that she could add the rooms to her residence and then one rental unit, even under the current moratorium because it is owner-occupied. Mr. King asked then that the only thing making this a Use Variance is the request to add two rental units as opposed to one and Mr. Bates responded that that was correct. Mr. Rosen asked how many bedrooms were proposed in each rental unit and Ms. Staniszewska responded two bedrooms, one bath in each. She did not think that she was over building in any way and this is the smallest she can do because she can only add half of the total square footage of the primary residence. Filed with TC 2/8/2017 ZBA 2017-01-23 Pg. 3 Ms. Brock and Mr. Bates went through the Code again and noted that with the one addition of a rental unit, she would lose the one boarder allowed as of right to the single-family residence. Mr. Bates added that he did not look at some other Code restrictions such as lot coverage but it looked like it might be ok there. Mr. Bates added that he had sat down and explained this to Ms. Staniszewska and showed her where one option affects other requirements and so on and so forth and this was her best option in her mind. He added that she did not want to go to the expense of real drawings without coming here first. Ms. Rubin asked about the financial information in the criteria and Mr. Rosen responded that she didn’t submit anything other than her personal circumstances and what is needed is some kind of tax return, prospective rental income, appraisal of the new house, efforts to sell the current house and efforts because it might be valuable given it is so close to the College. Ms. Staniszewska asked what the Board wanted her to bring as proof of hardship. Ms. Brock stated that she would have to show for each and every criteria where a reasonable return could not be met. Mr. Rosen thought it should be a valuable house given the area and that would be “a benefit achievable by other means feasible” because the price someone would pay is part of the financial information needed to show that you “cannot achieve a reasonable return. Ms. Brock expanded on that saying she would have to show that for each and every use that is allowed under code, it makes no economic sense to have this property so she would have to show she can not rent it as a single-family dwelling, she can’t sell it, it won’t sell because it has been on the market and nobody wants it because it is odd compared to what is around her, things like that and the courts require dollar and cents proof of that. Mr. Rosen added that she would have to show why just adding a two-bedroom addition wouldn’t work, but Ms. Brock stressed that the board does not look at personal situations, just the property; can this PROPERTY be rented or sold. The use variance stays with the property regardless of who owns it so you cannot and do not look at the owner and his or her circumstances. This board cannot consider that a particular person needs X amount of income, you look only at if there is any use of this property that makes any kind of financial sense and you have to look at every use that is allowed and the applicant would have to show that NONE of the uses would make any sense. Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Brock if what she is saying, that the applicant needs income to support in- home caretaker is irrelevant and Ms. Brock answered yes, you have to look at the property, you cannot look at the individual’s situation. Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Staniszewska if she understood that and she replied that she is having a hard time following the discussion. Mr. Rosen responded that the board is tied to the Town of Ithaca zoning which only allows one or two family houses in your neighborhood and to get a use variance, we have to follow very strict NYS law and only look at four things, and one of the things we cannot look at is whether you need a bedroom for an in-home caregiver. That is not something we can look at under the law and is deemed irrelevant unfortunately. Ms. Brock clarified that she is allowed a boarder in her primary dwelling but what she is asking for is a three-unit. What you are really looking at is would a two-family building make any Filed with TC 2/8/2017 ZBA 2017-01-23 Pg. 4 financial sense for any property owner or is the building now so out of character that nobody would ever want to use it as a single-family or two-family residence. Mr. Rosen responded that in his mind the house or property is clearly suitable for a single- or two-family residence. He stated that the applicant has not shown any evidence to the contrary and Ms. Staniszewska responded by asking what kind of evidence would she need? Mr. Rosen responded by saying that she would have to show that it had no market value as a single-family or two-family housing and the only way somebody would buy your property is if someone would tear it down and build a three-unit house or add to it to make a three-unit house; that it has no value as is; that is what the criteria is. Ms. Staniszewska responded that the best way she can use this house is as a rental for income and since there are other multiple houses, there is a quad and a sixplex down the road and Mr. Rosen responded that he is open to holding this appeal for her to get more information but he didn’t think it was out of character for the area, but that she would have to prove financial hardship as explained. Ms. Staniszewska responded that there is no other way for her to make income on a regular basis and if she were to sell, she would have to invest that money in something and she is reinvesting in her own property by upgrading it and increasing the tax base. Mr. Rosen responded that everyone would want to do that; everyone who retired from work would want to build on an extra one or two units and while he is not saying that is good or bad, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code has decided that only two-family houses are permitted and to make an exception to that, this board has to follow the four criteria set forth. Ms. Staniszewska asked again if she needed to get more information to the board and Mr. Rosen responded again that she would have to prove the four points in the criteria and although he has not made any decisions on the matter, one thing she could definitely do is add an apartment to the existing and she would not need any variance. Ms. Staniszewska responded that she understood that but her expenses are going up so high that in order for her to stay in place, which she would like to do, she will need some other resource and she is trying to make the best of what resources she has. Mr. Rosen stated that he is sympathetic and if he were in her position he would be thinking the same way but the Code is the Code and the hardship is not unique to this property. Ms. Brock stated that the applicant does not have the information that the board needs. Ms. Staniszewska stated that she is at a disadvantage because Parkinson’s makes it difficult to keep a train of thought for very long and she would need help in trying to respond to the board. Mr. Rosen stated that he understands and that is why he suggests that the appeal be adjourned and take the time to try and understand and she said she would need someone to help her tell her what she needs. Ms. Brock responded that she would have to show the board her efforts to sell the property; how long it has been on the market, what she bought it for, what she was willing to sell it for and compare that to assessed value. Ms. Staniszewska responded that to sell the property will not Filed with TC 2/8/2017 ZBA 2017-01-23 Pg. 5 give her the kind of income she would need. She stated that property values have gone up so much that she cannot afford to buy back in to a rental property and colleges buying up properties and knocking them down and taking them off the tax rolls is not good and she looked at the prices the college has paid for houses on her street and they are not willing to pay much at all. She said she would be lucky to get $140K for her house and Ms. Brock responded that there are a couple of developers that are building a lot of the student duplexes in that area and in fact across the street so there might be some value there. Ms. Staniszewska stated that that is a finite amount and Ms. Brock responded that she might want to have an attorney look at the criteria and help her get information for the board. She stated again that the board can’t look at an individual’s personal financial situation; that is not what NYS Law allows us to look at. We have to only look at the property, so could this property be used in a generic sense to realize a return by either selling it or renting it and we know there are single-family homes across the street being rented right now. We know there are two-family homes in the neighborhood so she could do that. The maintenance of the property is more than covered by that type of use. Ms. Brock added that a use variance is really when you have a property, maybe a very small property in an industrial zone, for example, that is too small for anyone to want to use it for industrial purposes, and they have had it on the market for five years and nobody will buy it and they want to have a retail sales in it but that isn’t allowed in an industrial zone and they can show by the listing and the property taxes and insurance that they haven’t been able to rent or sell it and here is the assessment and the list price and because of the odd shape etc etc. That is the sort of thing this board could grant a use variance for. Not a single-family home that has been continuously used as a single family home for many years and there are still single family homes nearby, both owner occupied and rentals. Mr. Rosen stated that she could build a bigger addition and it might be financially good and Ms. Brock responded that she could, but it would have to be to a family, not four students for example. The Town has a definition of a family and she would have to meet the 50% rule. Mr. Rosen thought that might be the one limiting factor because the market is for student rentals. He stated that there are a lot of things to consider but there are a lot of options other than what was presented for a use variance. Mr. King asked if she wanted to go larger than the 50% rule, that would be an area variance correct and Ms. Brock responded that it is but that may not help because it would still be limited to renting to one family not unrelated students. Mr. Rosen thought if it was nice, it would command a good price and Ms. Staniszewska responded that when she does the math it doesn’t meet what she needs. She added that she thought this was the way the neighborhood was going and she wouldn’t be doing much different than what other people were doing in the neighborhood. Mr. Rosen responded that he thinks the board agrees that there will not be any change in the neighborhood but that is not the criteria.