Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2017-06-19 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, June 19,2017 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; Jasmin Cubero, Deputy Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of Marcelo Auuiar, agent, #12 The Bvwav, TP 66.-1-9, MDR, requesting a variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270-205 A "Non-conforming structures" and 270- 71"Yard regulations" to be permitted to make modifications to an existing building that is within the required side-yard setback. Mr. Rosen opened the meeting and read the first appeal and stated that Mr. Highland and Mr. King wanted to recuse themselves from the appeal. Mr. King stated that Taitem Engineering, his employer, has been approached for potential work and he thought there might be a conflict there. Mr. Rosen stated that he works for Taitem Engineering also but in a different department and he did not feel there was a conflict. Mr. Highland stated that his brother used to live in the house and he used to visit him there and he felt too emotionally invested in the memory and did not think he could be objective about the house. Both alternates were present and will vote on this appeal; Mr. Highland and Mr. King left the room. Mr. Rosen said that he thought the mass of the house seemed to be in line with some of the other houses in the area. Mr. Vignaux thought it would improve the house and the neighborhood. Ms. Rubin said the request seems very minimal. Ms. Decker said she did not think it would change the character of the neighborhood at all. Ms. Jung stated that the improvement requested is incredibly understandable and not outlandish at all. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 1 Bruce Brittain stated that he was a historian for Forest Home and the house was the original office and warehouse for the adjacent mill. The house was built 1840 and converted to a residence in 1906 and it is listed on the national register and it is a historic structure in the Forest Home Historic District. The period of historic significance is 1830-1948 including the transition of the community from a mill community to a residential enclave, including this house's conversion to residential. The house is specifically mentioned in the narrative "a number of 19`h century buildings and structures such as small warehouses and workrooms were later converted into residences, an example includes the dwellings of 12 and 16 The Byway, formerly associated with the Everett's wool mill." Mr. Brittain added that the house has not been owner occupied for about 30 years and it has deteriorated and Marcelo did a great job reaching out to the community. Mr. Brittain said that was all fine and good, but, that being said, went through the variance criteria saying; there would be significant change to the character of the neighborhood by raising and rotating the roof because the house would be changed beyond recognition and no longer eligible to be listed on the Historic District or a supported structure for the other adjoining houses. He said it will encroach more on the Cutting house at 10 The Byway by more mass and introducing a craftsman style to The Byway and The Byway is the oldest enclave in Forest Home and it would be changed beyond recognition. Mr. Brittain provided a feasible alternative saying that the roof could be insulated in the space between the rafters instead of raising the roof. Mr. Brittain said the request is substantial because the house would be changed beyond recognition and further encroach on the neighbor. The hardship is self-created because the owner has lived there for a number of years and if he doesn't like one and a half story houses he can walk away from it. There are other people who would love to live in that house. He realized it has been neglected and needs freshening up, but not something so drastic. Mr. Brittain stated that he and an architect that lives in Forest Home went through the house and came up with some ideas where you could preserve the two public facades and keep the roof but open up the part that faces the creek and make that a really dramatic area to open up the house. He said he does not support the current plan. Mr. Rosen stated that he did not believe the house was in a historic district and Mr. Brittain responded that it is, it is in the Forest Home District but Mr. Rosen thought there was a separate authority that has to sign off on that? From the State? Mr. Bates responded that under the Historic Designation, it makes them eligible for other financial advantages because it is in a historic zone so there are grants available, but the historic designation under the Town has no regulations and under the State determination it is just the fiscal relief. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 2 Mr. Aguiar clarified that Mr. Brittain may not be aware of it, but he was a tenant for 10 years and now he is the owner of the property. Mr. Vignaux asked how removing this house from the historic district would affect the area and Mr. Brittain responded that it would weaken it. Elizabeth Sanders stated that her house was the Mill House that this house was the warehouse for and she said that every house on The Byway has been drastically changed since they were two room little cottages for mill workers; everybody has added on, including making significant changes to her own house including adding a bedroom and enclosing a sunroom and she described changes to other houses in the area. Ms. Sanders stated that she does not agree with Mr. Brittain and him saying that the area would be changed beyond recognition is simply not true and it won't encroach more on the neighbor he indicated and in fact the only encroachment may be towards her house with the deck and she has no objections to that. She does not believe there will be no effect and she wasn't sure the house was listed individually or as part of the neighborhood. Ms. Sanders stated that she felt bad for the graduate students who were renting the house because the previous owner made not improvements or repairs at all so her family is completely delighted that this house is going to be fixed up and it will not change the character of the neighborhood. She added that the exterior will still be stucco and it is going to be a little taller. Ms. Sanders added that Mr. Aguiar has been a wonderful supporter of historical preservation and how she got to know him was when he was renting there and Cornell was going to fence off the beautiful meadow and old path with chain link fences and she spent a lot of time researching the deeds and found that the deeds prevented them from doing that and he was with her in that effort and that was when he was a renter, not an owner, so she fully supports this request and although it will be a little disruptive during construction as it always is when anyone on the road does improvements because we are so close together, it is going to be wonderful when it is done. Doug Brittain spoke saying he is from Forest Home and wanted to start by saying that he appreciated Marcelo letting them look through the house and he and Todd are nice guys, and his original reaction was, nice guys, they want to make some improvements, go ahead but the more he thought about it the more he realized there were issues. This is not a social issue but a structural one and fifty years from now, Marcelo will be gone, but the house and whether it is historical or not, will still be there. People will look at it and they won't see an old building but something else and he thought that was worth paying attention to. Mr. Brittain handed out a sketch of a photograph from 1919 and whether the board approves it or not, he was hoping to convince the applicants to consider some different modifications and explained that what being on the registry does is prevent state or federal money from being used to mess up the structure. Typically that means protection from road expansions funded by state or federal money, or Cornell being a state college, wanted to tear down the house to put in a pipeline. Being on the registry would preclude that so taking it off the registry is something to really think about. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 3 Mr. Rosen had a question saying that many houses in Forest Home, during his term on the board, have been granted variances to be altered and he asked if they were then all off this protective registry and Mr. Brittain responded that it depends how much they do and if it looks like the same house after it is done, it probably stays on but if you change and rotate a roof, then it doesn't look like the same house and it may not. Mr. Rosen asked if they knew for sure it would be kicked off the registry and who determines that and Mr. D Brittain said the State does. Mr. D Brittain also ran through the criteria and said if you look at the drawing it looks like a mill house and you look at it know and you can tell it is related but Mr. Vignaux broke in saying the current house does not look anything like the sketch right now anyway; it is stucco and has a porch but Mr. D Brittain responded saying it is the same front door, the same roof, the same size as before the stucco went on. Mr. Vignaux brought up a picture of the house as it is currently is and stated that is shows no resemblance to the sketch and people driving through the neighborhood looking for that sketch wouldn't find it now so it has already been markedly changed and to maintain it in the form that it is now is not going to preserve the history as it was because it looks so different already. Mr. D Brittain responded that he did not do a good job explaining; it looks now the way it was when it received historic designation and the sketch is what it looked like prior to that, but what he is proposing or suggesting is that the public sides stay.... Mr. Vignaux spoke up saying that it seems he is trying to preserve what it was in 1835 and if that was the case he would have more empathy toward the historic argument, but to preserve what it was in 1998, not so much. Mr. Rosen pointed out that the sketch looks nothing like the current house and he could not see how the two depictions can be thought to be the same house. Mr. Rosen pointed out differences about how the sketch was made from a negative of a picture and it is not altogether accurate. Mr. D Brittain saying that it is on the register now and if you make changes now you could make changes more toward the historically correct style rather than towards the proposed craftsman style and he would like to be historically sensitive. He thought there were ways to get the increase in natural light by putting in skylights and staying true to the period. Mr. Vignaux thought that was not realistic and skylights would absolutely change the style to less historical. Ms. Sanders noted that The Byway is aprivate road owned by the residents so the State cannot come in and widen the road or bulldoze a house. The owners have purposely kept it that way to keep Cornell from doing anything. She thought the idea of the house being taken off the registry is a red herring saying that none of the houses that have been changed, even the drastically changed ones. That and the idea of the road being widened and houses bulldozed. Mr. Bates verified that it is a privately owned and maintained and the Town Official Map has it listed as a privately owned road which is different than a"use by right." Ms. Sanders also stated that the interior of the house has already been remodeled to the craftsman style. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 4 Cindy Bowman, stated that she just came to this after hearing about it today and she is concerned because The Byway is a beautiful and extremely unique historical area and she is concerned and feels there needs to be sensitivity to that. She was also concerned that this hearing was in June because the neighbors are out of country and they should have a say in it. She stated that she hasn't looked at this long, but the sunroom does not tit with the historical style and although she agreed with some of what the previous speaker said, she did think when you walk down The Byway, you do feel like you are in a different world and she was simply asking that they take their time and think about it. She also thought they should hold off to hear from the other neighbors since they didn't know and she wondered about the notification. Ms. Bowman said she hopes the Board takes into consideration how important the historical nature of Forest Home is to some of the residents. Mr. Rosen stated that the public hearing was advertised as provided by law and if the neighbor had someone picking up their mail or forwarding it, or a neighbor who emailed them they would have known, but the legality was met. Todd Sadler, Architect for the project He clarified that by changing the gable to an eave, it is going to seem like the existing encroachment is decreased and the new eave will not shade the neighbor. He stated that he looked up into the rafters and there isn't the room up there; maybe 4" inches at best and you need 19"inches for net zero. He also said that it was his understanding that the neighborhood was a historic district but not this individual house. Mr. Sadler said that they could change the lines and build within the setback or even demolish the house and build within the setbacks but they don't want to do that and they were looking at a stainless steel roof to accommodate the solar panels but thought that didn't fit in as well so they decided against that. They also decided to keep the stucco because there are other stucco houses in the area and it would blend better but it would be cheaper to not fix the stucco. He added that he looked at the Town's Comprehensive Plan and this is keeping within the stated goals of reducing fossil fuels and being net zero and redeveloping existing built environment. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:47 pm. Ms. Brock stated that the request is a Type 2 under SBQR because it is a single family residence so SBQR is not required. Mr. Rosen brought the matter back to the board and stated that it seems there are two opposing views and he had to say that for his time on the Board, we have approved major changes in Forest Home and his impression is that it is a living neighborhood and it is evolving and houses in the neighborhood have changed significantly over time and continue to do so. He said they have heard from the town historian that putting a solar array in a front yard is in keeping with the vibrant, living character of a neighborhood, and that is his view. Structures will change to meet peoples' needs. Ms. Rubin said she is unsure what is not being preserved here because the changes are not inconsistent with other changes in the neighborhood or other houses in the neighborhood. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 5 Ms. Decker agreed and said that it would be a little different if the whole neighborhood was preserved in time from the 1800 and if this was saved as a warehouse and such, but it is a living neighborhood and the changes are not over whelming and will make the house better. Mr. Vignaux felt it would improve the neighborhood rather than detract from it and in keeping with the progression of the neighborhood from the mill with outbuildings to residences. He added that it is probably the shabbiest in the enclave right now, and to improve that building will lift the entire community, even if it isn't in the style of 1830. ZBA Resolution 0018-2017 12 The Byway Area Variance Tax Parcel 66.-1-9 Monday, June 19,2017 Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vignaux Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Marcelo Aguiar, 12 The Byway, TP 66.-1-9, MDR, requesting a variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270-205 A "Non-conforming structures" and 270-71"Yard regulations"to be permitted to make modifications to an existing building that is within the required side-yard setback, with the following Conditions 1. That the building be built substantially as shown in the drawings submitted for this appeal, and 2. That the encroachment into the front yard setback not exceed an additional 2'feet 6" inches, and 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 the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be realized in any other feasible way given that the roof is too low for enough insulation and to allow for better natural lighting and to hold solar arrays and the desire to make it a net zero structure, and 2. There will not be an undesirable change in the overall character or to nearby properties given that the proposed renovation is in keeping with the character of the other houses in the neighborhood, and 3. This request is not substantial given that it is only increasing the setback deficiency in one location of a legally non-conforming structure, and the height increase is staying within the zoning restrictions, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental impacts given that SBQR is not required, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, in that the owner wishes to renovate his house, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community for the reasons stated above. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg-6 Vote: Unanimous; Rubin, Decker, Jung, Rosen and Vignaux Highland and King abstained Appeal of Julie Crowley, owner, 987 Taughannock Blvd, TP 21.-2-27, LR, requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-45, "Height restrictions" to construct a building exceeding the allowed height by 3ft. 3in.; and 270- 46 C "Side yard setback," to build within the required 20' ft. setback on both the north and south sides of the property; and 270-47, "Building area," to exceed the allowed 10% building area on the lot by 2.5%. Mr. Demarest handed out a more detailed site plan drawing with a google earth aerial photo to show the tree density and a birds eye view. There was a minor correction to the percentage of lot coverage to 12.7% not 12.5%. Mr. Demarest stated that the existing garage and shed would be torn down as part of this project. The arial photo also shows the properties to the south; the immediate property is owned by Ms. Crowley also and was a project he was involved in and received a variance from this board. The plan is to develop on this parcel which is very constrained with only 37' feet between the required setbacks on the side yards and the site is very steep with contours at 5' foot intervals with a 20% slope at the upper driveway. There is some regrading proposed to allow for access to parking. The existing cottage is in very rough shape and this is a continuation of improving the area. Mr. Demarest went through the site plan showing a four bedroom house with a creek that starts here and goes through two other properties which is really a drainage ditch which runs to culverts and is dry sometimes; the streams that require setbacks per town code are indicated on the site plan. The existence of that drainage ditch does control the orientation of the house. Mr. Demarest stated that footprint A shows the 10' foot setback which increases the set back where footprint B shows how if the only the garage bumps over the 20' foot setback, we would have one corner in the creek or drainage ditch. Mr. Demarest added that the design shown is very draft in nature in that we need to know if we are getting the variance before we proceed. Mr. Demarest turned to the birds-eye photo which shows the density of the trees on the properties in the area. They are proposing adding some plantings along the property line we are encroaching on. The closest point from one house to the other is 50' feet so if the intent is to keep structures 40 feet away from each other by having the setbacks, this distance is met by the location of the current and proposed structures. Ms. Crowley added that if they could have done this without encroaching on the 997 side they would have done it because she owns 993 but the creek is what is driving the placement of this house. The overall structure is going to be lower than the existing structure by basically taking a floor off the existing structure. Mr. Demarest responded that the ridge lines are about the same, ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 7 but by removing the carport, the impact to the view from the lake is reduced. There is a pretty good buffer between them and the parcel to the south. Because of the grade, it is hard to meet the height requirements as measured from grade and the request is really just the peaks of the gables. Mr. Rosen turned to the Board for preliminary discussion. Mr. Vignaux asked about the sewer pipe and Mr. Demarest responded that it is a shared sewer system from 985 and it isn't mapped, but it runs up the north property line so it is a detail that will have to be worked out; how to maintain that utility easement from 985. Mr. King stated that in looking over the submitted variance criteria form, they did a good job explaining the need for the setback variances, but wanted them to address the overall need for the size of the building, both square footage and height since both those variances could go away if the building was built smaller. So why does the building need to be that size? Mr. Demarest responded that the cottage at 985 was designed to be a stepping stone to facilitate the renovation of two failing cottages and the first was done about 10 years ago and now this is supposed to be the primary residence to accommodate family and friends. By virtue of the elevation, the basement has a walk out which inflates the footage. Ms. Crowley added that most of the living space is on the second floor so one can age in place. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing. Neighbor to the north spoke saying she just got back from California and didn't know about this project and she is concerned about the setback she would be losing. She said she is not really here in opposition, but she hasn't had a chance to see the plans and she is concerned about losing 10 feet of the buffer between the properties. She showed a picture from her tablet and there is a path along the property line with the chain link fence actually encroaches on our property about 3 feet and she is also concerned about the large Oak tree that is on the shared property line. She was also concerned that if the drawings are not final, couldn't they change them to bigger and the Board assured her they could not do that. There was some discussion amongst speaker and applicant regarding the creek and possibly relocating it which Mr. Highland picked up on and asked if the creek could be moved which would allow the house to be moved substantially down the hill. Mr. Demarest responded that there is a very steep bank and moving it would create very big erosion problems. The Board took some time to look over the plans given the comments so far. There was some back and forth between the neighbor and the applicant and Mr. Rosen asked her if she had any other comments for the Board. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 8 The neighbor responded that she isn't sure because she can't tell what this will really be. Mr. Rosen noted that there is no existing elevation diagram and Ms. Crowley responded that there is no structure in the area she is concerned about. Mr. Rosen stated that the appeal could be adjourned so the neighbors can discuss the details, but this type of side conversation is not appropriate for the board. Mr. Rosen asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak; there was no one and the public hearing was closed at 7:33pm. Mr. Rosen stated that the Board has heard some concerns from the property owner to the north who is going to have a house at 10' feet away instead of 20' feet away and it seems that is the major issue. There are questions about whether the house can be rotated and in his opinion, the property line should be moved so the board can grant the minimum variance necessary and if we can avoid a variance by moving a property line, then that seems like the thing to do. Mr. Highland asked which line that was and Mr. Rosen said that the applicants have said that one of the variances would not be necessary if they were to move one of the property lines between the two properties that the applicant owns. Mr. Rosen thought that was something that could and should be done. Mr. Highland stated that he thought there should be an adjournment to allow the neighbor some time and Ms. Brock responded that the notice was sent out at the appropriate time and whether or not someone saw it and read it is not an issue that would justify an adjournment. Mr. King stated that it is a unique lot and that does justify some setback variance but it also seems like it is a very large house that is trying to be squeezed on there. The lot coverage and the height variances could be negated if the house were a little bit smaller. Ms. Jung said she agreed with Mr. King because if the house were smaller some problems would disappear and it is a substantial increase from what is existing; 2,600 to 3,800 roughly Mr. Vignaux said he was looking at the 10' foot setback and he is not concerned because there would still be at least 20 feet between the proposed house and the existing house to the north. The house to the north isn't likely to be added to and so there is not impact. Ms. Brock added that the Board shouldn't look at an adjacent property and assume that something won't be done. The Board should look at the applicant's property and whether the request meets the criteria. Ms. Caren thought the 10" foot encroachment into the required setback was substantial and she wasn't convinced it is unavoidable and she thought it would be reasonable to ask the applicant to look at that again and see if it could be mitigated. ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 9 Ms. Jung agreed and reiterated that if the proposal was slightly smaller there would be no issues. Mr. Rosen thought it looked like the existing house comes down half as much from west to east as the proposed house so there is going to be a lot more mass of house, from one end to another. Mr. Vignaux asked why the house had to be rectangular rather than trapezoid and Mr. Demarest responded that if you looked at the floor plans, they are trying to put the master suite and the great room with a view of the lake. The rooms are not that big for what this house is trying to be; a comfortable place to age in place; a dream house. He said if they were to comply with the 10% they would have to cut out 700 square feet out, it is basically a 4,000 sqft house. Mr. Rosen responded that what he is hearing is a lot of concern with the 10' foot setback and although he is sort of neutral about the size of the house but the board is showing concerns about the setback so the choice is to vote now or ask for an adjournment to reevaluate. Mr. Demarest asked to add a few comments saying that some of the concerns about setback are bolstered by the neighbor's concerns and if the house were to be rotated and make it really narrow to fit in the 37' feet they are allowed, it could be slid further down toward the lake as of right and it would obstruct more of the neighbor's view. Mr. Demarest then talked about the plantings and the difference between 10' and 20' feet is really not that big. More discussion offline between neighbor and applicant. Discussion followed on the options for the applicant; a vote could happen but it seems it would not be approved. If a vote is taken now the appeal cannot be heard again without substantial changes being made, if an adjournment happens, it gives you the opportunity to make changes after hearing the concerns raised by the board and the neighbor. Mr. Rosen adjourned the appeal upon request of the applicant to the next available meeting, not to exceed more than one year from tonight at which time it will be effectively withdrawn. Meeting was adjourned at 7:53pm Submitted Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk ZBA 2017-06-19 pg. 10