Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2015-06-15 ,,. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday June 15, 2015 Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Members: Christine Decker, Chris Jung, Bill King, John DeRosa and Alternate Caren Rubin Staff: Bruce Bates, Direct or Codes; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk and Lorraine Moynihan-Schmitt, Attorney for the Town Appeal of Kristin Letourneau and Diane Sullivan, owners, and Michael Reed, Agent, is requesting relief from section 270- 219.1 B(1) "Solar collectors and installations", of The Code Of The Town Of Ithaca, to be able to install freestanding solar collectors in the rear yard that do not meet the required 50 ft. set back in an agricultural zone, located at 461 Bostwick Rd., Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-2.1, Agricultural Zone (AG). Mike Reed, Direct Energy Solar and Kristin Letourneau and Diane Sullivan were present to answer questions from the board. Mr. Rosen noted that the board received a statement from a neighbor and Ms. Terwilliger noted that was a prepared statement from a member of the audience here for the public hearing on the appeal. In general terms, the request is to put the array 4 feet from the property line where 50 feet is needed. Mr. Reed explained that there is a septic system already in place and some electric wires that make the placement necessary where they are asking and they are trying to match the garage that is already on the property line on the south side. Mr. Rosen stated that it does not look like it matches the garage setback from the photos submitted. Mr. Reed responded that if you go with the 50 foot on the rear and 40 foot setback on the sides, it takes you right over the septic system and they were looking at the back corner at four feet from the rear and side lines. Mr. Rosen responded that the septic is just shown as a spot, not an area. Mr. Rosen asked why it couldn't be lined up with the garage and lined up with the overhead lines. The board and Mr. Reed discussed the diagrams submitted to get a feel for where the septic and leech field is and where the proposed array would be. The Health Department will not allow anything on top of a leech field. Mr. King asked how far north the array could go on the property but off the leech field and Mr. Reed thought you could move it about 20 feet from the line if you removed the two trees and a hedgerow throws too much shade for the side yard placement. Mr. Rosen asked why they couldn't be placed next to each other one in front of the other rather than side to side and Mr. Reed stated the one would probably shade the other but Mr. Rosen thought it is common to arrange them that way and Mr. Reed responded that he doesn't have those measurements with him today. 1 Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Maria Mallon, neighbor, read from a prepared statement (Attachment 1) In summary, Ms. Mallon was concerned that the 4 foot setback would cause problems for her tree farm and the associated equipment. She felt that there must be some other location on their property to place the solar panels and that the request was significant. She does support alternative energy but this is extreme and there must be a solution. There is already a driveway easement on her property for their driveway and is her access to her trees. She was also concerned about the property located on the other shared lot line that is vacant but if someone were to build there, this array would be right in the viewshed and on in their front yard or in some way problematic. Mr. DeRosa asked what the specific hindrance to her business would be and Ms. Mallon responded that the equipment is large and would add undue stress to her and her contractors trying to be especially careful to stay on the roadway etc. Mr. DeRosa responded that she does not have a right to that property whether there is an array there or not and she said she understands that but it is a tight access as it is. The board looked at aerial photos of the property and neighboring parcels from Google Maps provided during the meeting by Mr. Bates and after a lot of back and forth the Board seemed to get a better idea about the locations of the lot lines and the applicants' property. The consensus of the board is that a revised plan would be in their best interests with a different location for the array and their agent, Mr. King, requested a postponement of the appeal to gather more information and pursue other location options. Mr. Rosen clarified with the owners that they understood what their agent was asking, and they agreed. Public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. and a postponement granted. Appeal of Ithaca College, owner, Steve Dayton, Director of Planning, Design and Construction, agent, requesting relief from section 270 -70, "Height limitations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to add a 40 ft. plus addition to house an elevator, to the existing structure of Friends Hall that would exceed the allowed 36 ft. from the exterior grade, located at 145 Textor Cir, 953 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 41.-1-30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR). Steve Dayton, Ithaca College was present to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Rosen thought that since the building is on campus and would provide better access and the building itself is already above the height limit the impact is negligible and the 2 variance request simple and almost a technical variance. The Board agreed. There seemed to be no discussion needed. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board on the topic and the hearing was closed. Ms. Schmitt noted that this is a Type 2 action and no SEQR is required and the County has responded to the GML with a negative determination. ZBA Resolution 040-2015 Height Variance Ithaca College — Friends Hall — Elevator 145 Textor Circle, TP 41.1-1-30.2 June 15, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King Resolved that this board grant the appeal of Ithaca College requesting relief from section 270-70 "Height Limitations" to add a 40+/-ft addition to the existing structure of Friends Hall to house an elevator that would exceed the allowed 36' ft. from exterior grade with the following: Findings 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible in that the addition is needed for an elevator and this is the only location for it, and 2. That there will be no undesirable change to the neighborhood character given that this is an institutional building in the center of campus and is almost an imperceptible change to the existing building, and 3. That the request is not substantial in that the allowed is 36ft, and 4. That there is no negative environmental impact because it is a Type II action and based upon our own review of the project and the statements above, there will be no environmental impacts, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created but is mitigated by the fact that the State requires access for mobility impaired and it will be a desirable change for the health, safety and wellbeing of the users. With the following: Conditions 1. That the building will be built substantially as shown on the plans submitted to this board for this meeting with a height not to exceed 42' ft. from grade. Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, DeRosa, Jung, and Decker 3 Appeal of Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff, owners, requesting relief from Section 270-46 A& C, "Yard regulations, front and side", 270-47, "Building area", and possibly 270-50, "Parking" of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. The applicants wish to expand a single family home by adding an addition between the house and current garage, and also convert the garage to living space, located at 1114 East Shore Dr., Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-6, Lakefront Residential Zone, (LR). Ms. Gordon and Mr. Silcoff were present to answer questions from the board and had a slide show to the current house and conditions and to help describe what they are asking for. Basically the house is an existing nonconforming residence on East Shore Dr. with the usual deficiencies in setbacks and lot coverage. They would like to enclose the area between the house and the garage which has a kind of concrete pad there with steps and the existing footprint would not change. They reviewed parking options because 2 are required by code and there is one spot in the front of the house and the front of the street as well as maybe using half of the garage still as parking and the other half as a mudroom type space. They will not be adding anything to the front area so it has complied in the past and will still comply. They would not be going any closer to the road or that setback. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:16p.m. There was no one wishing to address the board on this appeal and the hearing was closed. The board discussed the project and all members thought it would be an improvement to the site and the changes to the existing nonconformities were modest and worth the end result of an improved site. Ms. Schmitt stated that this was a Type 2 action and no SEAR was needed. ZBA Resolution 0041-2015 Area Variance - Setbacks Silcoff/Gordon Single Family Residence Expansion 1114 East Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-6 Lakefront Residential June 15, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Chris Jung Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff, owners, requesting relief from Section 270-46 A & C, "Yard regulations, front and side", 270-47, "Building area", and 270-50, "Parking" to expand a single family home by adding an addition between the house and current garage, and also convert the garage to living space, with the following: Findings 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 4 2. That it will not cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood character but will in fact improve the character of the neighborhood, and 3. That the request is not substantial given that the resulting building will occupy space that is currently held by the existing buildings and concrete slab and will be within the existing front and side set back lines and will therefore not be increasing the deficiency, and 4. That the request will not have any adverse environmental effects given the statements above. And with the following: Conditions 1. Outline of the new construction will not exceed the existing front or side yard setbacks Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, DeRosa, Jung, and Decker ZBA Resolution 0057-2015 Area Variance - Lot Coverage Silcoff/Gordon Single Family Residence Expansion 1114 East Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-6 Lakefront Residential June 15, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff, owners, requesting relief from Section 270-46 A & C, "Yard regulations, front and side", 270-47, "Building area", and 270-50, "Parking" to expand a single family home by adding an addition between the house and current garage, and also convert the garage to living space, with the following: 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 2. That it will not cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood character but will in fact improve the character of the neighborhood, and 3. That the request is not substantial given that the deficiency will be increased by only 2%, and 4. That the request will not have any adverse environmental effects given the statements above. Conditions 1. That the lot coverage will not exceed the current buildings plus the 20x23 new construction as shown on the sketch presented. 5 ZBA Resolution 0056-2015 Area Variance - Parking Silcoff/Gordon Single Family Residence Expansion 1114 East Shore Dr., TP 19.-2-6 Lakefront Residential June 15, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by John DeRosa Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Cindy Gordon and Howard Silcoff, owners, requesting relief from Section 270-46 A & C, "Yard regulations, front and side", 270-47, "Building area", and 270-50, "Parking" to expand a single family home by adding an addition between the house and current garage, and also convert the garage to living space, with the following: Findings 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given the topography of the lot, and the front is big enough to fit 2 cars but covers more than 15% but this is acceptable to the board and the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 2. That it will not cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood character because the spaces are already being used as a parking space and is not out of character to the neighborhood given that everyone parks in small frontage in that area, and 3. That the request is substantial given that it is increasing the usage of the front yard from 15% to approximately 30% but this is normal in this area, and 4. That the request will not have any adverse environmental effects given the statements above. Vote: Ayes— Rosen, King, DeRosa, Jung, and Decker Continuation of Appeal of Jennifer and Terry Fee, owners, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-71(E) "Yard regulations, accessory buildings, to place a 8' x 16' accessory structure in the front yard, located at 107 Birchwood Dr. Tax Parcel No. 70.-10-1.23, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Mr. Rosen explained that the applicants have returned with a revised plan showing the shed moved back toward the garage beyond the front wall of the house so that should get it out of the line of sight of the neighbors and he thought that was a big improvement. Ms. Fee said they looked at the other side but it would have been much closer to that side of the house and they also asked the builder if it could be disassembled and they provided a letter from the company which stated that it could not be disassembled. The shed will be half in the front yard and half in the side yard although what the average 6 person would think is that it is in the side yard altogether because of the L shape of the house. Mr. Rosen responded that this has been a long and tough appeal and this is huge progress to address the board's concerns. The shed will be behind the leading edge of the house and in line with the garage so it is only 8 feet in the front yard. From the neighbors view, their house is also at the setback line so the shed is behind what they would see when they look down the street which was one of their concerns. Ms. Jung asked how far away the shed is from the garage and whether what is presented meets the code for being close to the garage. Mr. Bates responded that that had been a question but upon further review, there is not space between the two needed. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. There was no one in the audience and the public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the application and the efforts made by the applicants to address concerns raised by the board and public. At issue is not wanting to set a precedent and although the board realizes that this was an honest mistake, if they had come in before the shed was built, the variance would probably not have been approved. Ms. Schmitt noted that the criteria is a balancing test over the five points and not all five have to be no effect or not mitigated; it is overall. The applicants reiterated that they called the town and asked if they needed a building permit and were told no so they never questioned anything else. This was an honest mistake by homeowners, who thought they had asked the right questions. The board was sympathetic to the applicants. In discussing the criteria, the board noted that the applicants will be planting buffer plants to shield the view of the shed from the neighbors and that it is as far back as possible which both mitigate the effects of the placement and given the shape and slope of the yard and the large front yard that seems to be a side yard also mitigates the placement and variance requested. In addition to that, they also spent considerable thought and money to have a shed that matches the quality and style of the house and garage. It could have been built in place but it is a prefabricated shed which they could not fit by the house into the backyard. It was also noted that the applicants have been willing to work with the board and go to some significant expense to try and rectify the matter which is not the same as someone coming in and saying, well it's there already you have to approve it and the board felt that was significant. Mr. Rosen also stated that when you walk around the neighborhood there are a number of sheds in side yards. The consensus was that on balance, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Mr. DeRosa noted that he is looking at the benefit of this particular shed versus the benefit of another shed that could have been built without the need of a variance while some others may be looking at the benefit of not having to move a shed that has had a substantial amount of money invested in it. 7 ZBA Resolution 0024-2015 Area Variance Jennifer and Terry Fee / 107 Birchwood Dr. TP 70.-10-1.23 June 15, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Jennifer and Terry Fee, owners, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-71(E) "Yard regulations, accessory buildings, to keep an 8' x 16' accessory structure in the front yard with the following Findings 1. That the benefit to the applicant could have been achieved by other means but given that the shed is already in place and onsite due to a mistake by the applicants but bought in good faith, and the property does not lend itself to placing the shed in the backyard given that this particular property has trees that would have to have been removed so therefore the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character because the shed is set back out of the view line of the neighbor and the public, and the shed matches the character, style and materials of the house, and 3. That the request is substantial in that in that it is being placed outside of the backyard in a side yard and partially in a front yard where none is allowed, but it is mitigated because given the design of the house, the front yard is unusually shaped in an L shape and the general public would not consider this substantial in that the view of the shed seems to be in the side yard from the road and neighboring lots 4. That there are no environmental impacts given that this is a Type 2 under SEQR and the trees will not have to be removed if the shed is allowed to be placed as presented in the changed plan. 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the shed was built and placed incorrectly, but this is mitigated by the applicants moving the shed further back so that it will not impinge on the neighbors view and they will put plantings to further obscure the sight of the shed. With the following Conditions 8 1. That the shed have screening on the side facing the road and the side facing the neighbor to cover at least 75% of the shed with plantings within fiveyears, and 2. That the back of the shed be as close to the pine tree as possible and no less than 5 feet from the side lot line. Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, Decker and DeRosa Nays — Jung Motion passes 4 to 1 Update Mr. Bates gave an update on the Forest Home Drive screening issue where a resident had removed shrubs that were a condition of a variance. The owners have submitted a plan to replace the shrubs and Mr. Bates showed the board a rendering of them. The board was happy with the submission. Meeting a adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Su i d aule a Terwilliger Town Clerk 9