Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2017-03-20Public Hearing Notice Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals March 20,2017 6:00 p.m. 215 N.Tioga Street Appeal of George Johann, owner, 1447 Slaterville Rd,Tax Parcel 58.-1-25, MDR, seeking a Special Approval from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 section 69C to allow the keeping of domestic animals (4-5 ducks) in an accessory building and section 69C(1) for an area variance to allow for the keeping of domestic animals on approximately a half an acre where two acres is required. Appeal of Aden Moyer, owner, 699 Coddington Rd,TP 48.-1-12.1, LDR requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 section 62C to meet the required width at the setback where 150' feet is required at 60' feet deep. Appeal of NYSEG, Joshua Silver, agent, 1260 Trumansburg Rd, MDR, TP 24.4-5.1 requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 Section 70"Height Limitations" to be permitted to erect a 100' foot mono pole where a 30" foot pole is allowed. Appeal of NYSEG, Joshua Silver, agent,210 Maple Ave, MDR, TP 63.4-5 requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 Section 70"Height Limitations" to be permitted to erect a 100' foot mono pole where a 30" foot pole is allowed. Bruce Bates, Director 607-273-1721 3-13-2017 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals March 20, 2017 6:00 p.m. 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; Jasmin Cubero, Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of George Johann, owner, 1447 Slaterville Rd, Tax Parcel 58.4-25, MDR, seeping a Special Approval from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 section 69C to allow the keeping of domestic animals (4-5 ducks) in an accessory building and section 69C(1) for an area variance to allow for the keeping of domestic animals on approximately a half an acre where two acres is required. Mrs. Johann was available for questions. Mr. Rosen asked if they roost at night and she responded that they do and would be in an enclosed run around a basic chicken coop. Mr. Rosen asked about the composting and she explained that she would be mixing the droppings with straw and composting it for her garden. Mr. Highland noted that her lot is half an acre where two are required and she responded that she is asking for three ducks who need technically a foot of space each but they would have more than that to be more comfortable. Mr. Rosen asked about the kiddie pool for the water they need and Ms. Johann responded that they don't need the water for drinking, they just like it and she would be changing it daily or so and she wasn't concerned about the work involved. Mr. Vignaux asked about winter keeping and Ms. Johann responded that they are better in the winter than chickens because of their down so she is not concerned. Mr. Vignaux asked about raccoons, foxes etc. and Ms. Johann responded that the pen will have a cover and be dug down 6 inches. Mr. King asked Ms. Brock and if these were chickens they wanted, would they be allowed and Mr. Bates responded that chickens would be allowed because there is no minimum lot size in medium density residential under the new law. The Board discussed if they could simply substitute the ducks for the chickens, but all other fowl as well as other"domestic animals"require the two acre lot size. Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 1 Mr. King asked if the board could grant a time limited variance to make sure there are no issues and the applicant responded that she was concerned about what would happen to the ducks if she were required to get rid of them because their life span is up to 15 years. Ms. Johann stated that she thought the addition of ducks would be no more bothersome than chickens and would add character to the yard and help her garden and property. Mr. King noted that the chicken regulations were done quickly and there was no deliberate attempt to exclude ducks and the impetus was to regulate guinea fowl which were an issue at the time and other domestic animals were to be considered at another time. Mr. Bates added that ducks were mentioned but only briefly and the focus was on chickens. The board discussed previous applications for area variances for the keeping of chickens and they have been granted and denied. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Board discussion—Ms. Rubin thought the issues were the same as chickens and if the same criteria were followed, she would have no concerns. Ms. Jung agreed and added that she is requesting only three and she had no problem with them. Mr. Rosen asked how she felt about the time limit and she responded that she is concerned about how to evaluate at the end of a given time. Mr. King was comfortable with allowing ducks and also with a time limit with the idea that the law may be changed soon and/or they could return for a permanent variance in three years. Mr. Vignaux stated that he had no problem with three ducks at all adding that he had eight ducks at one time and they are no problem. Mr. Highland thought the lot was to small, requiring a 78%reduction in what is required under the code. He thought the chicken law applies to chickens only and the deviation is too substantial. Mr. Rosen stated that he is fine with the ducks given they are so similar to chickens, and the time limit he thought was a good way to make a change if a sanitation problem arises, but Mr. Vignaux said they would be dealing with that and would be the first to take care of the problem. He thought the board was spending too much time worrying about three ducks. ZBA Resolution 0007-2017 0004-2017 SEQR Area Variance and Special Approval 1447 Slaterville Rd, TP 58.-1-25 March 20, 2017 Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information given in Parts 1 and 2 and for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung. Vote: Ayes- Rosen, King, Jung, Decker, and Vignaux Unanimous ZBA Resolution 0007-2017 Area Variance 1447 Slaterville Rd, TP 58.-1-25 Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 2 March 20, 2017 Resolved that this board grant the appeal of George Johann, owner, 1447 Slaterville Rd, Tax Parcel 58.-1-25, MDR from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270, Section 69C(1) for an area variance to allow for the keeping of domestic animals on approximately a half an acre where two acres is required with the following Condition That there be no more than three ducks. 1. The ducks be runner ducks. and with the following Findings 1. The benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the zoning requires a two acre minimum for ducks, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that chickens are permitted and this board finds that ducks, for these purposes, are very similar to chickens, and that their impacts in terms of noise will not be greater than and may be less than the impact of chickens, and 3. That the request is substantial given that two acres is required and .44 acres is available, a 78% difference, and 4. The request will not have physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in the SEQR, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to keep three runner ducks, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Vote: Ayes —Rosen, King, Vignaux, Decker, and Jung ZBA Resolution 0007-2017 Special Approval 1447 Slaterville Rd, TP 58.-1-25 March 20, 2017 Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. Vignaux Resolved that this board grants the appeal of George Johann, owner, 1447 Slaterville Rd, Tax Parcel 58.-1-25, MDR, seeking a Special Approval from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 section 69C to allow the keeping of domestic animals in an accessory building based upon the reasons stated on the application's Special Approval Criteria Form restated here: Findings That the following standards have been met: Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 3 a. That the health, safety and moral and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of this chapter will be promoted given that having three ducks is very similar to having hens and the duck pen will be well maintained; and b. that premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the yard is fenced in and the ducks will be kept in an enclosure. The recommended space to keep ducks is similar to chickens; and c. that the proposed use and the location and design of any structure is consistent with the character of the district in which it is located given that the duck houses are very similar to chicken coops but with a wider door; and d. that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants given that the duck area will be farthest from neighboring properties as possible; and e. that operations in connection with the proposed use will not be objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance and that any permitted uses in the particular zone given that the traffic on Slaterville Road is much noisier than ducks; and f. that finding that the community infrastructure can service this including but not limited to protected services, roadways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities are currently or will be, adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, answer- yes; and g. that the proposed use, building, design and site layout does comply with all provisions of this chapter and to the extent considered by the reviewing board and other regulations and ordinances of the town that the building code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations and the towns comprehensive plan, this board finds that to the best of its knowledge all of those conditions are met given that the keeping of up to three runner ducks was granted by an area variance by this board, and h. that the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safe to design and the site lay out has adequate access for emergency vehicles, based on the advice of Code enforcement, this board finds that this condition is met given that the duck area will not block any entrances and will be designed to be structurally sound, and i. that the general effect of the proposed use on the community as a whole including such things as traffic, load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer system is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, given that the dicks require a kiddy-sized pool of water for wading and some in a separate container for drinking, approximately 5 gallons for the pool and one gallon for the drinking dish, which will be changed daily and the area will be kept clean and the ducks in good health; and Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 4 j. that the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and the access,parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize the impact and that those conditions have been met given that the pen location will not block any entrances or exits or be placed in any parking area; and k. that the natural surface water drainage is adequately managed according to good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable town or local law or ordinance and existing drainage basins are not adversely affecting the properties, this board finds that on the advice of Code Enforcement, this board finds that those conditions were met given that there will be no alterations made that affect drainage on the property; and 1. that to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the reviewing Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in this chapter. This question is not applicable. and with the following: Conditions: 1. That no more than three runner ducks are allowed, and 2. That the coop be kept in a sanitary manner to prevent odors, and 3. Keeping the ducks in a humane condition, and 4. Feed shall be kept in a rodent-proof container, and 5. The ducks shall be confined on the property on which they are kept. Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. King Vote: Ayes —Rosen, King, Vignaux, Decker and Jung Unanimous Appeal of Aden Moyer, owner, 699 Coddington Rd, TP 48.4-12.1, LDR requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 section 62C to meet the required width at the setback where 150' feet is required at 60' feet deep. Aden Moyer was available to answer questions from the board. Mr. Rosen noted that since the application was received, the Town Board enacted a local law allowing the existing barn so the remaining issue is the lot size is deficient at the front yard setback at the 60' foot setback line. Ms. Brock noted that the lot is deficient at the 60' foot setback mark, but is sufficient at the 62.7' foot setback line. The board looked at the new lot lines of the subdivided lot. Mr. Bates explained that he tried a number of ways to measure to scale given the drawings and came up with a measurement at the required 60' foot setback, the width is approximately 78'- 80' feet where 150' feet are required. Mr. Rosen asked about the street line measurement and was told that that was met, it was the setback line that was deficient. Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 5 Mr. Rosen reviewed the options for getting the required setback but on the one side is the South Hill Recreation Way and at the other side it would encroach on the existing driveway and residence. Mr. Moyer stated that he is hoping to build his own residence on this property and his parents may be living in the other house. They need this variance to begin in earnest the design plans. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board on this appeal and the hearing was closed. Ms. Brock reported on the discussion at the Planning Board regarding the County's GML response because it was not clear what they meant by an "added driveway" because there is an existing grass lane there which acts as a driveway and the Planning Board did not think a shared driveway was necessary because there is an existing driveway on each parcel so they did not add that condition. Mr. Rosen stated that the State shows that as a driveway so that is an existing driveway. No one on the board had any concerns with the project, stating that any variance would be minor in effect if not numbers given the width is met such a short distance in from the required line. ZBA Resolution 0005-2017 Area Variance 699 Coddington Rd, TP 48.4-12.1, LDR March 20, 2017 Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Aden Moyer, owner, 699 Coddington Rd, TP 48.-1- 12.1, LDR requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 section 62C to meet the required width at the setback where 150' feet is required at 60' feet deep with the following Conditions 1. That there be no additional driveway location added on the lot other than the grass driveway shown on the existing survey and DOT acquisition map, and With the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, specifically that 1. The benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that there is a different owner on the one side with lot size restrictions and City of Ithaca owned property on the other side which is not for sale, and 2. There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood or to nearby properties given that the lot meets the minimum size for a low density zone except for the one minor deficiency as determined by this board and the lot is substantially larger than the minimum lot size required in other aspects in this zone, and Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 6 3. The request is substantial given that the width at the required front yard setback is approximately 80' feet where 150' feet is required, but this is almost completely mitigated by the fact that the 150' foot width is met just 2.7' feet deeper into the lot, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects as evidenced by the fact that SEQR is not required, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to subdivide his property, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated. Motion made by Mr. Rosen, seconded by Vote: Ayes —Rosen, King, Vignaux, Decker and Jung Unanimous The next two appeals are the same owner and agent at different locations. Ms. Brock explained that these are poles that NYSEG is proposing at the two locations and because of the way telecommunication facilities are defined in our law, we are not treating them as such but simply as poles that need a height variance. Appeal of NYSEG, 1260 Trumansburg Rd, MDR, TP 24.4-51 requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 Section 70 "Height Limitations" to be permitted to erect a 100' foot mono pole where a 30"foot pole is allowed. Appeal of NYSEG, 210 Maple Ave, MDR, TP 63.-1-5 requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 Section 70 "Height Limitations" to be permitted to erect a 100' foot mono pole where a 30" foot pole is allowed. Joe Papa, Murray Law Firm and Pete Stritzinger, NYSEG, Agents, had a powerpoint presentation. Mr. Stritzinger summarized saying that they are designing a wireless system for Smart Grid Communications which works over a wireless system which reaches out to the distribution devices. This design makes segments that will sectionalize any disruptions in service during any break down. All the devices have to talk to each other and these towers need to be in place. Currently there are 69 devices out there at about 25' feet above ground which are substation level, what we are requesting is a higher pole to get to 100% coverage versus 75%. Mr. Rosen added that this smart grid is a huge energy saver and this tower is a necessary infrastructure to keep this technology going. Mr. King added that it will also eliminate bigger outages and repair efforts. Mr. Stritzinger expounded on that aspect as well as expanded services and the ability for the consumer to view current usages and levels and the ability to change habits to avoid peak times etc. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. There was no one present and the hearing was closed. Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 7 Board comments Mr. King stated that since we are required to grant the smallest variance that will suit the purpose, he thought the presentation cleared up any questions on the height requested, which is significant. ZBA Resolution 0012-2017 and 0026-2017 SEQR NYSEG Poles —Height Variances Both Locations TP 24.4-5.1 & 63.-1-5 March 29, 2017 Resolved that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance cased on the information in Parts and Parts 2 and the for the reasons stated in Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: Ayes —Rosen, Vignaux, King, Decker, and Jung Unanimous Area Variance discussion (Height) Ms. Brock gave the board information on the standards to apply to the height variances because the applicant has asserted they are public utilities and certain standards do not apply. The case law is not clear, but what is clear is that if they were applying for a use variance, because they are a public utility, they have a different test to show unnecessary hardship which the courts have set forth. That is aimed at use variances, not area variances and she has not seen any court cases that say to not consider the five area variance factors and has actually seen one case where the courts walked through the five factors. Ms. Brock recommended going through the five factors. This is a balancing test and there is nothing in the test or the factors that go to unnecessary hardship and it is not a pass/fail as a use variance is. ZBA Resolution 0012-2017 and 0026-2017 NYSEG Poles —Height Variances Both Locations TP 24.4-5.1 & 63.-1-5 March 29, 2017 Resolved that this board grant the appeal of NYSEG, 1260 Trumansburg Rd, MDR, TP 24.4- 5.1 and NYSEG, 210 Maple Ave, MDR, TP 63.-1-5 requesting a variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270 Section 70 "Height Limitations" to be permitted to erect a 100' foot mono pole where a 30" foot pole is allowed with the following: Conditions 1. That the towers and appertentices be built substantially as shown in the submitted elevation drawings C4 of the engineering drawings, with a maximum height of 120' feet for the top of the whip antennae, and With the following: Approved April 3, 2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg. 8 Findings 1. That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community, and in fact is a benefit to the entire community and improves the health, safety and welfare of the community by improving communication capabilities and supporting renewable energy; specifically, that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the explanation in the record from Mr. Stritzinger and shown in the poster board shown at the meeting, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties given that there are already electrical substations on both sites and that the proposed construction is at the scale of a tall tree, and 3. That the request is substantial given that the existing height is 30' feet at both sites,but that height requested is the minimum necessary as explained by the applicant, and 4. That the request will not have adverse environmental impacts for the reasons stated in the SEQR form, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to improve communications network, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community for the reasons stated above. Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King, Vignaux, Decker and Jung Unanimous Submitte Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk Approved April 3,2017 ZBA 2017-03-20 Pg.9