Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2017-10-23 Public Hearing Notice Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, October 23, 2017 6:00 pan. Town Hall 215 N. Tioga Street Appeal of Jacqueline Eddy, 430 Bostwick Rd, TP 15.-1-6.1 requesting an area variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-32 A (1) (3) Front yard depth at setback and side yard setback to be able to keel) a garage that does not meet the required setbacks to allow the subdivision of the property. Appeal of Shan Varma, 940 East Shore Drive, TP 1.8.-5-5 requesting variances from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-205 A "Nonconforming structures" and 270-46 (C)"Side yard setback" and 270-47 "Lot coverage" to be able to add a roof over an existing porch on the north side of the residence; and from 270-43 K (10), "Permitted accessory structures and uses" to allow a dock to exceed the 3'ft width and encroachment into the required 20'ft setback on the north side Information is available from the Town Clerk at townd — tr Questions, comments or concerns can be sent via mail, email or in person, Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk 10/16/2017 There is no affidavit(so for this meeting. I affirm that they were done - Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Monday, October 23, 2017 6:00 p.m. Town Hall Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Chris Jung, George Vignaux, Caren Rubin, and William Highland Absent: Christine Decker Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town and Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk Mr. Rosen called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Appeal of Jacqueline Eddy, 430 Bostwick Rd, TP 15.4-6.1 requesting an area variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-32 A (1) (3) Front yard depth at setback and side yard setback to be able to keep a garage that does not meet the required setbacks to allow the subdivision of the property. Ms. Eddy and Mr. Baker, the buyer of one of the lots, were present. Ms. Eddy stated that she has owned the property for over 50 years and she will continue to live in one house and rent the other. There are two wells that serve the two houses and the line was drawn in part because of that and also because there is a conservation easement that would not allow farming. Mr. Baker added that he will be drilling a well for the crops and barn he has planned for the lot. The board discussed the boundaries but did not thing there would be any change or detriment to the area in allowing the subdivision as drawn. Mr. Highland noted that there was a letter from the Health Dept. and the letter is moot since the zoning and conservation easement prevents any further subdivision of either of the lots. It was noted that the two houses are pre-existing and currently are a non-conforming two residences on one lot and will continue to be. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed. Ms. Brock stated that SEQR is not required given that this is an individual (one project on one lot) setback. The setback variances are on one lot. ZBA Resolution 0025-2017 Area Variance 430 Bostwick Rd., 15.-2-6.1 October 23, 2017 Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jacqueline Eddy, 430 Bostwick Rd, TP 15.-1-6.1 requesting an area variance from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-32 A (1) (3) Front yard ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 1 depth at setback and side yard setback to be able to keep a garage that does not meet the required setbacks to allow the subdivision of the property with the following: Condition: That the proposed property lines be exactly as shown on the submitted survey depicting the subdivision, 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 achieved by any other means feasible given that the buildings are existing on the lot and this is the most feasible way with the least amount of variance granted to subdivide the property, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the buildings and there locations are already existing and in character with the neighborhood, and 3. The request is substantial given that 30' feet is required in the front and 5' feet is provided and 15' feet is required on the side and 9' feet is provided, 4. The request will not have an adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the fact that SEQR is not required, and 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to subdivide the property, 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, Jung, Vignaux and Rubin Unanimous Appeal of Shan Varma, 940 East Shore Drive, TP 18.-5-5 requesting variances from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-205 A "Nonconforming structures" and 270-46 (C)"Side yard setback" and 270-47 "Lot coverage" to be able to add a roof over an existing porch on the north side of the residence; and from 270-43 K (10), "Permitted accessory structures and uses" to allow a dock to exceed the 3'ft width and encroachment into the required 20'ft setback on the north side Mr. Varma was present to address the board and answer questions. Mr. Highland asked if Mr. Varma was requesting the 50' foot dock because his boat could not come any closer to the shore and Mr. Varma responded that he was required to have a water table study done which showed that at 50' feet out, the water level was 2'6" feet. Mr. Santelli, the engineer from TG Miller who worked with Mr. Varma added that the profile of the property is the depth at 50' feet out is 2.6' feet and at 40'feet out it is 1.9' feet. ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 2 Mr. Rosen stated that a 50'foot dock length is allowed as of right in the Code because the water is so shallow and the only non-conforming part is the L-shaped projection off to the side; that is what the variance request is for, along with width to be 6'feet wide and the steps. Mr. Rosen asked why the request for 6'feet wide and Mr. Sharma responded that 6'feet wide is the standard for docks and 3'feet is hard to navigate with more than one person on it. He added that he looked at his neighbors' docks and they are all at 6'feet so that is what he is proposing. Ms. Brock noted the wording in the Code saying that "In the case where the parcel is too narrow to meet the 20'foot side setback requirements, then such structure shall be centered between the adjacent property lines and the maximum width of any dock on such parcel shall not exceed 3"feet, including all extensions." Mr. Rose asked then if the dock were allowed by right to be 6'feet wide between 20'foot setbacks? The drawings seem to show there is 20'feet on each side so is the Code saying that the dock has to go down to 3'feet wide once there isn't 20'feet on either side which happens on part of the property? Ms. Brock read Chapter 270-43 K(7) which says "The width shall be a minimum of 3'feet and shall not exceed 8'feet. Any extensions, such as an L. T, or U shall not exceed 8'feet in any one dimension." Mr. Rosen stated that there is a 12'foot extension so it is 4'feet wider than it is allowed to be and Ms. Brock said it is also encroaching into the 20'foot setback by about 7'4"feet. Mr. Sharma spoke and stated that the neighbor on that side is in support of the dock as requested and it is his property that is impacted. He added that he thought there would be an issue with the other neighbor on the south and so he carefully maintained the 20'feet setback on that side, and this variance is really about the neighbor to the north who it affects. Mr. Rosen responded that it isn't only that because the other neighbor brought up the view. Mr. Sharma responded to that by saying we are in an area where everyone is in each other's pocket, literally, so one thing begets another and if they had issues about view, there are other places on the lake where there is plenty of property on either side but we are in a very circumscribed space and any and everything we do requires a variance. He said from his perspective it seems like not a solid argument; they aren't individuals who are out there a lot and and...Mr. Roesn broke in and says, so you are in a very crowded situation to begin and Mr. Sharma continued, saying that the he did a little research and the neighbors who are in opposition of his request have sought and gained their own variances, so literally, we are in each other's pocket. Mr. Sharma stated that if there was another place on the lake where he could live he probably would but, this is where there is some cooperation and some neighborliness that exists for the most part in our community. ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 3 Mr. Highland asked if the statement about the variance(s) was true and Mr. Bates responded, yes, multiple variances for different projects they are working on, but, he pointed out that the reason Mr. Varma is here is 1) he would be able to build a dock if it wasn't as wide as he wanted and 2) if it didn't reach into the side setback area to the north. Ms. Brock stated that it could be 6'feet wide but no extension. They are requesting the extra 7.4'feet. Mr. Rosen said this is definitely a neighborhood full of docks that stick out in front of the neighbors' view, there is no question about that; the neighbors picture that the neighbor to the south sent in does not show any other docks in that area though. Mr. Varma noted that his submission shows the neighbor three houses up has a dock similar to what he is requesting but the extension goes the other way. If you go up and down that whole area, there are lots of things that people have done over time that are nonconforming. Mr. Rosen said it is fair to say that every single house in that neighborhood has zoning variances. Mr. Kwortnicking asked Mr. Sharma why he wanted the extra wide platform at the end of the dock and Mr. Sharma responded that that extension would allow him to sit in that location and look up the lake. Part of why people have a dock is because they want to be able to go further out and have a different perspective of the lake and this would allow us to do that. Mr. Rosen turned to the other variance regarding the porch cover and Mr. Sharma responded that it is the same steps on the north side and there is no awning right now and it is on the north side so the weather just comes right in. The neighbors on both side have some sort of awning and we are keeping the existing footprint but replacing the deteriorating wood and covering it. Mr. Rosen and the rest of the board thought that was a reasonable request. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. for the two variances as listed in the public hearing notice. Mr. Clark and Ms. Augusta spoke saying that they had sent in a letter, and as stated in that, they do not oppose the porch, that is very reasonable and standard with minimal intrusion. Ms. Augusta stated that we do understand that docks come on the lake, boats come on the lake, we understand that, but our neighbors are more social than we are, and by adding the additional platform that they want, not only does it add to our visual, but its voices... it is fires... it is into the evening... We have a different schedule than they do and it is intrusive and we are in close proximity to each other. When we go outside, we are mindful of our voices, how loud we speak, because we want to try and give people a certain amount of their own distance from what we have going on. By adding that additional platform out in the lake, voices carry, and we feel it is beyond the need for accessing their boat. Ms. Augusta went on to say that they are reasonable about the boat, we aren't happy, but it is what it is. That being said, the variance should be minimally intrusive to achieve their need and ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 4 if the need is to access their boat, it should fall within the guidelines and beyond that they are not supportive. Mr. Highland asked what they thought the dock should look like to them to be minimally intrusive and Mr. Clark responded that if it was built to Code, they would have not objection. Ms. Augusta said in order to access the water depth, they are allowed to go out 50'feet plus 10' for any additional foot out to 100'feet....(Ms. Brock and Mr. Bates did not think that was correct). Mr. Highland continued to question, asking about the platform, asking if the platform was the issue, not the width of the deck and Mr. Clark responded that ideally they would like the 20'foot setback to be empty, but we know it's not because people can park boats there and they had asked Mr. Sharma if he could park the boat on the north side they would drop their opposition but that was rejected. So we are going to have a boat right next to that extended mutual property line regardless. Mr. Rosen stated that you are allowed to park a boat in the setback. Mr. Vignaux stated "Isn't that the reason for the setback; to park a boat?" and Ms. Brock responded yes, "to allow adequate vehicle access to neighboring waterfront parcels." Some discussion followed, but it was clear that the Code does not regulate where you park your boat. Mr. Clark stated that the neighbor to the south of them had a boat lift that was within our virtual space and the setback and that's what we have had to deal with in the last few years also. There are images in our letter. So if there is a new structure going in, let's do it by code. Mr. Highland asked if they had their own dock and (I think they said no, they have a mooring) and Mr. Vignaux went on to say that it would not be to Code to the property to the north and Ms. Augusta stated that is correct and they (neighbors to the north) would not be able to park a boat there. Ms. Augusta stated that they are also concerned with the drainage situation outside of the little channel that is shared between the two properties; she did not know what is happening there but it has accumulated the last three years and she isn't sure if it is going to continue to correct itself every spring, but it is a mound that has grown this year throughout the spring. She wasn't sure that if a boat were parked there it would interfere with the natural leveling of the deposit. Mr. Highland asked if mooring is allowed along any of these frontages? Can anybody moor the boat a distance from the shore and take a smaller boat out? Ms. Brock stated that there are different rules for mooring from the State. The Town has no say in that. ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 5 Mr. Clark stated that they cannot object legally to anything that is built to Code, but for the reasons stated in their letter, they object to the party platform and they are disappointed that the boat will always be parked there because it does affect our view and our enjoyment of our property. Mr. Highland asked if they could point to anything in the Code that gave adjacent owners protection of the view shed? Mr. Clark stated that it is the 20'foot setback and there are height limitations in the Code for structures. Mr. Rosen stated that the board should keep on topic; we are talking about a dock, not a boat. Ms. August responded that they are not opposing that they are putting a dock in and parking a boat there, they are allowed to do that, their objection is the platform. The additional space; it adds to what is already being put there and all the things we have listed in our letter regarding voice, traffic, more in our view... privacy. Mr. Clark added that there is no other precedent in our neighborhood and Ms. Augusta added that the other L-shaped dock that Mr. Sharma is referring to is a very old structure that is grandfathered in which there is a lot of up and down the lake, but some of this Code came in to play to set some standards and we are asking for that Code to be applied. If the applicants wanted to have more room, as he said to us, they should have gotten 100'feet of lakefront somewhere else. That is also how we feel about them. To take an adequate sized deck like everyone else has and then to put a double deck in the middle doesn't feel fair. Mr. Highland said so you feel a dock should be a dock and Ms. Augusta responded that in this case, where we live in such close quarters, 40'feet is what a lot of us have for lakefront, if you have 45'feet you can have a dock with 20'feet on either side. That is the neighborhood we live in. We don't live in Lansing where people are required to have 100'feet. Mr. Rosen stated that he thought he could summarize this by saying they are objecting because it ruins the character of their property and Ms. Augusta responded that it detracts beyond what is reasonable for the need to get to the boat and get in and get out. Mr. Rosen stated that he thinks the Board got that and asked if there was anyone else wanting to speak. Rob Kwortnick, 934 East Shore Drive, a couple houses south to the applicant; there is a little cottage between me and where Mr. Clark and Ms. Augusta. Mr. Kwortnick wanted to provide a little context. He stated that he supports the request and doesn't see any real issue with it saying that the dock will be in his field of view as well and he doesn't see a problem. Mr. Kwortnick stated that we anticipated that Ms. Augusta and Mr. Clark would complain as is their pattern, and he has plenty of support for that, to give context....Mr. Bates said to keep it to the variances we are dealing with.... ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 6 Mr. Kwortnick said their complaint about the field of view stands in complete contrast to how they take care of their own property saying that the view that he has from his dock of their property, at 932 East Shore Drive which is in disrepair and so the idea that they would complain that their field of view is somehow being harmed is just incredibly ironic and hypocritical. Mr. Highland said we are not here to talk about 932...Mr. Kwortnick well, if we are talking about a view of the lake, my view from my home has been obstructed by their home; not sure how they got away with building something that high....He said his point is just to say that their arguments, I would like to see the Zoning Board take in context. Mr. Rosen asked if he is saying that these types of irregularities, crowded and interspersed structures are typical of the neighborhood? Mr. Kwortnick said they are typical and the community in general, other than Mr. Clark and Ms. Augusta, try to cooperate and generally get along very, very well, so they are a bit of an outlier and their objection to this is no surprise. Mr. Highland said but a minority has rights so we need to look at their complaint on its merits, and Mr. Kwortnick agreed, but this is a very litigious couple. Mr. Highland said he is not providing anything to say that this dock is a good idea and Mr. Kwortnick said he has no objection to it and he didn't see how having a platform at the end is going to create any additional obstruction of view than a dock that extends out 50'feet and is 6' feet wide or 10'feet wide; he thought it was a specious argument. Mr. Rosen closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Mr. Rosen asked about SEQR and Ms. Brock stated that there is no SEQR because for the side yard and lot coverage, those are affiliated with an area variance for a single family residence and exempt from review and for the dock set back, another section says that the construction of minor accessory or pertinent structures are also exempt and they give examples such as barns, garages, pools and she thought a dock would be considered a minor accessory structure like those examples because it is not out of scale when compared to those examples. Mr. Rosen summarized saying the board doesn't have any problem with the porch and everyone agreed. Discussion turned to the dock. He said we have heard a couple of points of view as to whether it is in character or not and whether it is significant or not and he asked what the board thought. Mr. Vignaux stated that if he were next door to a house that had a very large deck right next to the house and a 50' foot dock, he would rather have the guests 50' feet out than on the deck right next to the house. He thought the fact that there is a platform 50'feet away might make it preferable to having people right at the house 10'feet away and he would look at that as a positive thing. Mr. Highland asked why the Clarks didn't look at it that way and Mr. Vignaux responded that is not for him to judge. ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 7 Mr. Rosen said that is a difference of opinion and asked Mr. Highland what he thought. Mr. Highland stated that he doesn't understand whether a platform is a standard feature or if it is necessary. He understands it is desirable and probably everyone wants one, but is it necessary. Mr. Rosen said that is the crux of the matter; why are people getting variances... why don't they just change the Code so that everyone can have 12'foot wide platforms. That is the other side of the coin, but asked what he thought of this project; good or bad? Mr. Highland asked if there were other platforms in the immediate area and Mr. Vignaux responded yes, three houses away and Ms. Ruben said yes, the grandfathered one. Mr. Rosen said there are other such platforms around and he has driven along the lake and a lot of the docks have platforms that are wide but he didn't know how many predated the Code. Ms. Brock noted that the Codes and Ordinances Committee for the Town worked for a couple of years on the dock regulations and every facet of them was looked at very, very carefully in terms of length and extensions and setbacks. The Town Board actually took several meetings to review it and made some revisions and this is what they wanted for the criteria. Mr. Highland asked what the platform violates and Mr. Bates responded that it violates the setback to the north. Ms. Rubin said that is what she is having an issue with; that is 7'6"feet of encroachment that doesn't seem to be relevant whether it is on the north or the south side, it is a significant encroachment so if you look at that, as desirable as it might be for the applicant, it is still significant. Mr. Vignaux said he looked at this area last week and there was a floating dock attached to 940A which is the house immediately to the north and as he looks at the pictures provided by 938, the aerial shots, there is no dock so he questioned the age of the pictures. Mr. Rosen responded that the one thing we know for sure is that the Town Board wanted 20'feet on each side so 40'feet between docks to keep the water open; that was clearly the intent. Mr. Highland asked why we don't just follow that and Ms. Brock responded that every time someone comes for a variance is because they don't want to follow the zoning or they can't follow it so this board has to go through the criteria the State has set. Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Jung what she thought and she said the purpose of a dock... having such a large dock is more than the purpose of the dock because the regulations are for a dock for your boat. A variance to have a dock that would be for more than your boat is more than the basic purpose of a dock and she wondered that with such a crowded location, it's an appropriate variance. She said there is a part of her that says when it is this crowded to stick with the Code. ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 8 Mr. Rosen asked Mr. King his thoughts and he said he felt similarly to Ms. Jung, that it is a substantial variance. He said that he is comfortable with a small variance of letting them have the 6'foot width which is a small variance, but the platform he... to me they haven't provided that the benefit is so significant that it is justifiable. Mr. Rosen said that he was a little bit in Mr. Vignaux's camp; it's a deck, but it sounds like it is 3 to 2 and he can definitely see the other side of the coin so he would make a motion on behalf of the majority to deny.... Mr. Vignaux offered a friendly amendment before he composed the resolution saying that the board allows the 6'foot width but not the extension or platform. ZBA Resolution 0026-2017 Area Variance—Dock 940 E Shore Dr., TP 18.-5-5 October 23, 2017 Resolved that this board grant a modified variance from the appeal of Shan Varma, 940 East Shore Drive, TP 18.-5-5 requesting variances from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter from 270-43 K (10), "Permitted accessory structures and uses" to allow a dock to exceed the 3'ft width with the following: Conditions The maximum width of the dock where it encroaches cannot exceed 6"feet, and that the northwest corner encroach no more than 1'foot 4" into the setback and there is no encroachment into the south side. 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 to the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the applicant wishes to have a dock that is 6'feet wide, and 2. There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or nearby properties given that a 6'foot wide dock is in character with other docks, and 3. The request is not substantial given that it only encroaches 1'foot 4"inches along one side into one setback at one corner and doesn't encroach at all along most of the dock, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given that SEQR is not required, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build a 6'feet wide dock, 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 Mr. Rosen, seconded by Ms. Jung. Vote: Ayes —Rosen, King, Jung, Vignaux and Rubin ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 9 ZBA Resolution 0023-2017 Area Variance—Porch 940 E Shore Dr.,TP 18.-5-5 October 23,2017 Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Shan Varma, 940 East Shore Drive, TP 18.-5-5 requesting variances from Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 270-205 A "Nonconforming structures" and 270-46 (C)"Side yard setback" and 270-47 "Lot coverage" to be able to add a roof over an existing porch on the north side of the residence, with the following: Conditions 1. That the porch roof be built substantially as shown in the submitted drawing, and 2. That the lot coverage not exceed 65% where 64% exists as legally non-conforming, and 3. That the setback will not be less than 4.7'feet from the side lot line. 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 to the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the applicant wishes to put a roof over existing nonconforming porch, and 2. There will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or nearby properties given that many of the nearby properties have similar nonconformities, and 3. The request is not substantial given that the it increases the existing lot coverage by 1%, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given that SEQR is not required, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant wishes to build a roof over the porch, 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 Mr. Rosen, seconded by Mr. King. Vote: Ayes—Rosen,King,Jung, Vignaux and Highland Unanimous Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Sub Paulette osa, Town Clerk ZBA 2017-10-23 Pg. 10