Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2015-09-21 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday September 21, 2015 Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, and John DeRosa; Alternates George Vignaux and Carin Rubin Absent: Christine Decker, Chris Jung (7:00) Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Appeal of Daniel Benedict, owner, requesting an area variance from the requirements of Chapter 270-71E "Accessory buildings", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to have a 7 x 14 shed in the front yard, located at 410 Teton Ct, Tax Parcel No. 44.4-115, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Withdrawn prior to meeting by applicant Continuation of Appeal of Bryan Warren, owner, Gary Bush, Agent, requesting area and use variances from the Town of Ithaca Code Chapters 270-43 and 270-43 K(10) "Permitted accessory structures and uses", 270-46 B,C,F "Yard regulations", and 270-47 `Building area", to be allowed to add to an existing nonconformity by converting an existing porch to livable space and adding a second story to the porch; to build a new dock that is not centered within the side property lines which exceeds the 3 foot width maximum and to add an outside fireplace which is not a permitted use and will increase the lot coverage percentage. Property is located at 1020 East Shore Dr., Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-18, Lakefront Residential (LR) Mr. Rosen disclosed that he has used Warren Real Estate in the past and Ms. Brock responded that that is not a conflict of interest. Bryan Warren and Gary Bush were present to answer questions. Mr. Vignaux asked if the issue regarding the dock has been resolved and Mr. Bush responded they have been talking to the neighbor but it is not resolved and they are asking for the variance as presented. Ms. Brock noted that this Board should not be concerned with the deed restriction issue as that is a matter between the neighbors and will be resolved through other channels. If they grant the variance, it would be up to the property owners to take whatever actions are necessary to protect their rights if they feel they are being violated. The Board discussed how to approach this appeal given the number of variances requested. Mr. Rosen stated that there are two variances requested for the dock; one for width and one for placement of the dock. Ms. Rubin asked what the rationale was for the 5 foot width and Mr. Bush responded that it was for convenience to fit two people wide. Mr. Vignaux stated that it seems most of the neighbors appear to have docks that are wider than 3 feet and he wondered why this one is so ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 1 much narrower. Mr. Bush did not know why except that it came that way; by the old code, the setback is 20 feet on each side which would leave a negative area to build so it defaults to the 3 foot width but everyone else's docks are much wider than that. Mr. King asked if the width was measured by the L shape in its entirety or the longer part of the L only. Mr. Bates responded that it is just the longer part of the L; the other part is an "extension" and both parts count toward the length and both count toward the setback and placement lines. The width would be 12 feet when the extension is added. Mr. Bush added that they are asking for the extra length because the lake is very shallow right there and to get a medium to large size boat there, the added length is needed. Mr. Bates noted that the code takes that into consideration and has requirements for that type of need but the applicant hasn't submitted anything to verify that lack of depth. Discussion followed. Ms. Brock added that the Codes and Ordinances Committee spent a couple of year revising the Dock Ordinance in 2009 so there are a lot of docks that do not meet the current code requirements. Mr. DeRosa asked if the applicant had a sense of the difference in depth from the end of the L and the end of the L extension. Mr. Bush thought it might be 4 or 5 feet and the reason for the extension is to allow the docking of the boat onto a length of dock broadside versus straight in. Mr. Rosen stated that he wasn't aware the dock law had recently changed and assumed that it was to keep from having the lake front covered in docks and to protect neighbors' views and Ms. Brock agreed. Mr. Bates asked if the dock were to be built to the letter of the existing code, would it interfere with the neighbors' dock and Mr. Bush responded that yes, because it would have to angle out to the lake if it was centered and would slope toward the neighbors' dock. He added that the farther away from shore a boat is docked, the less it obstructs the view from land. There was some discussion on the size of the boat and whether it would fit at the dock. The current applicant's boat is larger than the property itself. Mr. Bush responded that the boat is kept at the Ithaca Yacht Club and would only be docked to pick up guests and supplies. The Board turned to the variance requested for the porch. Mr. Bush summarized; the side lot line setbacks are 20 feet and the lot is 36 feet which leaves a negative amount to build so anything that is built does not meet code. They would like to tear down the existing screened in porch and replace it with an identical sized addition to the living space and add a partial second story enclosed space as an extension of the master bedroom. No extension of the coverage on the first level and partial on the second level with an open porch on the second level. Mr. Rosen noted that there is a privacy wall on the second story near the proposed hot tub. He was not concerned about the first story proposal but increasing the bulk of the house by ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 2 /"^ extending the second floor forward does block the view from down the lake shore. Mr. Bush responded by asking the board to look at drawing C 1 which shows that given the layout of the neighbors' house the sight lines are not affected except for one very small corner of the house. Pictures of the existing houses on each side showed no blockage of views. There are existing trees that shield the house from the one neighbor even if they were to build a second floor. Mr. Rosen noted the other variance is a use variance for the fireplace and the criteria for a use variance are very definite and this would not meet all the criteria. Mr. Bush stated that there was a question about how the fireplace was defined because an outdoor fireplace is not defined in the code. Mr. Rosen stated that it is not a fence and not a deck so it is not listed and therefore not allowed. Mr. Bush responded that he felt it was a fence or a wall. Discussion followed on different definitions in the code and Ms. Brock stated that it doesn't fit under any accessory structure in the Lakefront Residential zone and therefore is not allowed. It is not movable and has a foundation so the determination was made that it is not allowed and would need a use variance. Mr. Vignaux asked if a temporary fireplace would be allowed such as a truck tire surrounded by stone like people used to; a homemade fire pit. Mr. Bates stated that that would be treated as a fire pit according to the State Fire Code. What the applicant is proposing is something entirely different because it is large, permanent, and above ground and fits the definition of structure according to our code. Mr. DeRosa added that it seems counter-intuitive because it is not the fact that the structure will hold a fire but that it is a structure. Mr. Bush withdrew the request for the fire place; use and building area variance and rear setback variance are no longer needed. Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Linda Falkson, neighbor to the north (Handout—Attachment#1) Ms. Falkson asked if the Board had received a copy of the easement and she had a memo summarizing her position on the appeal and pictures. She also had a letter from another neighbor who couldn't be there tonight. Mr. Rosen noted that the easement was mailed to the Board when the application came in but it was not in the board packet for the meeting. Ms. Brock reminded the Board that the issue(s) around the easement are not within their jurisdiction and should not be considered. Mr. DeRosa, after reading the memo, asked Ms. Falkson if it was correct to think that the remaining concern was the deck now that the fireplace was off the table and she responded yes, that we are very close in the neighborhood and they have talked and given that the applicant has agreed that there would be no railing, she has no issue with that. Mr. Rosen noted that the railing is depicted in the submitted materials and she stated that they have agreed that there will be no railing on the north side. ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 3 Ms. Falkson spoke to the dock, and she thinks it is a 12 foot dock and she felt it was deep at the end of the dock and the problem is the placement of the dock. She is concerned with the possibility of the size of the boat that could be kept at it. She turned to the pictures of her dock and a picture of a 46 foot boat for reference. Mr. Rosen stated that it has been docked there before and she responded that it has been but if the changes to the dock are allowed, it can be docked there for longer periods of time and make it more difficult for them to swim and use that area. She felt it was not appropriate for this area and would change the character of the neighborhood and that size boat would hinder everyone's enjoyment of the area. Mr. DeRosa responded that it seems if the applicant had a fear of boats and would never have one, you don't have any objection to the dock as he plans to construct it; you're concerned about the size of the boat. Ms. Falkson responded that the size of the boat and what it invites in the future is a worry and it is a problem for her smaller boats to navigate in and out because most people have such a small amount of frontage in that area. So it is both issues. She added that the code is known and the applicant is in real estate so he is and was aware of the code. Ms. Falkson turned to the pictures that show the character of the neighborhood and the shoreline from a kayak. Mr. Rosen responded that he visited the area and it is very crowded. Ms. Brock gave the history of the area which used to be in the City of Ithaca and the Town and City did a swap; so the houses and lots that were existing were built to City codes and zoning which is much denser and many predated zoning. John Barber, neighbor to the south Mr. Barber explained that he is in the process of purchasing the house to the south and he would like to be a good neighbor so he was not opposing the changes to the structure because the footprint isn't being changed and the second level is not problematic. He is concerned with anything that might interfere with the sight line of the lake. A dock that is going to house a 46' long boat that will be parallel to the shoreline is like having a small house that would inhibit the northern view and although he says it won't be there, it will be at the Yacht Club, he is concerned that there is no way to regulate that once the dock is built. He stated that he think the applicant is a man of his word, but his concern is not having a boat of that size there and inhibiting his sight lines. Mr. Rosen asked if he is concerned with the boat or the dock and Mr. Barber responded that he can park his boat now, there is no law against it, but with the new dock, he can park parallel to the shoreline as opposed to nose-in which will obstruct the view more than nose-in. Mr. Barber was concerned about the railing on one side of the dock and Mr. Rosen responded that a stone wall is what is being proposed and that is as of right and no variance is needed. The board discussed the wall and whether it is a wall or a retaining wall and decided below the dock is a regular wall or fence, not a retaining wall, and the portion above is a wall or fence that can only be 3 feet above the deck, for a total wall height of 6' above the ground. The deck on the ground is only regulated to the extent that it can't be more than 3 feet. The public hearing was closed at 7:36 p.m. ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 4 /"" The applicants came back to the table and addressed some of the concerns raised, and Mr. Warren stated that it is not his intent to be a bad neighbor and he continues to work with his neighbors. He added that there is an existing boathouse that is between him and the northern property which obstructs views now and is in bad shape and that is another reason for the move to the north a little. In regards to the retaining wall, in the past that house has been a little bit rough and it was to block some of that view but he believes the new owner, Mr. Barber, will be neater so that won't be a concern. Mr. Bush added that at any time either of the neighbors could buy a large boat and dock it at their docks so it shouldn't be considered and Mr. Warren said it doesn't make sense to dock it at the house given the size. Ms. Brock added that our Code does not regulate boat size for this very reason, we regulate land use and people and boats may come and go, we regulate the dock and land use. The Board continued to discuss the dock with Mr. Rosen stating that the porch is not controversial and the fire place was removed so he would consider separate resolutions for the remaining variances. Ms. Rubin asked to discuss the width of the dock and stipulate that 5 feet is fine, but the L of it which makes it 12 feet is. She suggested a compromise of removing the L; Mr. Rosen liked that idea and the Board discussed that. Mr. Rosen moved a resolution for the variance for the porch, no SEQR is needed as it is a Type 2 for a residential single family residence. ZBA Resolution 2015-0053a Area Variance - Porch 1020 East Shore Drive, TP 19.-2-18, Lakefront Residential September 21,2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by John DeRosa Resolved that this board grant the appeal of Bryan Warren, requesting an area variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270-46 B, C and F, Yard Regulations, to be allowed to add to an existing nonconformity by converting and existing porch to livable space and adding a second story to the porch with the following Conditions 1. That there be no further encroachment into the rear yard, and 2. That the south-side yard setback be no less than 1' 6" and that the north-side setback be no less than 15' feet, and 3. That the new construction related to the porches will not exceed the footprint of the existing building and will be built substantially as shown on the drawings submitted for this meeting; and with the following, ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 5 Findings 1. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that zoning prohibits this sort of construction, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the mass is basically the same as the existing building and the views of the lake from nearby properties will not be affected or substantially changed, and 3. That the request is substantial given that the set back is supposed to be 20'feet and this will be 1' 6" in the most extreme portion but this is typical of this neighborhood and those encroachments already exist, 4. That the request will not have any physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the fact that SEQR is not required, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created, but 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, DeRosa, Vignaux and Rubin The Board turned to the variance for the dock for placement and size. Mr. Vignaux thought the compromise on the "L" of the dock mitigates any of the potential problems and Mr. Rosen added that it does allow a bigger new dock. Mr. DeRosa and Mr. Vignaux talked about mooring a boat that size anywhere on the lake and how far out anyone owns. Mr. DeRosa stated that it doesn't matter if the boat can moor at the dock or not because it could moor by anchor in front of the house anyway. Ms. Brock stated that the State owns the water and the Town got permission and the right to regulate docks but she did not know about mooring in the lake. Ms. Rubin stated that she does not think that it is this Boards job to determine whether a boat that size can be docked but to look at the size of the variance they are requesting on the width of the dock. Mr. DeRosa responded that if the board is saying the reason the applicant cannot have the L is because it is out of character with the neighborhood that's one thing, but if the board is saying you can't have the dock because you can park a boat of that size there, that's another thing. Mr. King thought that everyone else has a larger dock and it isn't fair to tell one person they can't. Ms. Brock noted that the Committee reviewed and studied this issue for over a year and took that into consideration and determined that 3 feet wide was sufficient. Discussion continued and Mr. Bush noted that the neighbors on either side have docks that are 10'feet wide so their proposal is not out of character. Mr. DeRosa noted that removing the L will not prevent the boat from being docked there; it can still go in bow or stern. Mr. Bates noted that the Board still has to look at the placement of the dock. Mr. Bush went into detail on the Code as written and bisecting the angles, the neighbor's dock encroaches on their space to build. The proposed placement allows for everyone to have access and Mr. ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 6 Rosen agreed that it is more harmonious with the other docks and is definitely an improvement on the existing dock. In crafting the resolution, a lengthy discussion followed on the proper measuring of the dock for extension into the lake. Because the dock and shoreline is angled, the dock is measured from the longest edge of the dock from the ordinary waterline. Mr. Rosen did not agree with Mr. Bush's interpretation to measure from the center line of the dock and thought it should be measured from the longest side of the dock. Ms. Brock agreed that there is nothing in the Code that could be interpreted as allowing a measurement from the center line of the dock. ZBA Resolution 2015-0053b Area Variance - Dock 1020 East Shore Drive,TP 19.-2-18,Lakefront Residential September 21, 2015 Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux Resolved that this board grant the appeal of Bryan Warren, requesting an area variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 270-43 K Permitted accessory structures and uses, to be allowed to construct a wider dock and place it not centered on the shoreline, with the following Conditions 1. That the width not exceed 5' feet and positioned as shown in the drawings without the 7' foot extension to the south, and 2. That the dock be no closer than 12' 8.5" from the northern neighbors' property line as measured perpendicular from the northern property line and extending into the lake no more than 40' feet along the dock's longest edge and no more than 40' feet from the ordinary high water line along the longest edge of the dock, and 3. That the existing boat hoist be removed as indicated in the plans submitted to this board, and With the following: Findings 1. That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to build a new 5' foot wide dock, cannot be done without a variance and the neighbors docks are wider, and 2. That there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that there are other docks similar in width or greater and the position of the dock as granted will be more in line with the docks to the north and south of the property, and ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 7 3. That the request is substantial given that the allowed width is 3' feet and the variance is allowing a 66% increase to 5' feet, but, the improvement will be in keeping with the other docks in the neighborhood, and 4. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the request is to build a new dock, however the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety or welfare of the community for the reasons stated above, and 5. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by no SEQR being required and for the reasons above. Vote: Ayes—Rosen, King, DeRosa,Jung and Rubin Mr. Bush asked if they decided not to do the second story would they need to come back. Some discussion followed and Mr. Bates and Ms. Brock responded that they couldn't answer that question at this time. Other Business Mecklenburg Road Cell Tower Ms. Brock gave an overview stating that the new laws regarding cell towers have very strict guidelines and timelines and the Town has 30 days from the receipt of the application to go through the application and compare it to what is required to be submitted and notify the applicant what information, if any, is missing. If the Town does not do that within 30 days of when we receive the application, we cannot ask them for any additional information ever. Therefore, even though it is not before the Board for any action, this was received Friday afternoon at 4:00 before the holiday weekend which started the clock, staff would like to know if the Board thinks there is anything missing that they would like to see so we can ask them for it. Some discussion followed on what will be asked and Ms. Brock responded that they will need a Special Permit from the Planning Board and a height variance from this Board because they are asking for 100' feet in an Ag Zone where 80' feet are allowed. One thing that was not included which is required by our law is a Visual Analysis and she asked the Board what they would like to see included. The Planning Board talked about certain vantage points where they would like to have an analysis done. Discussion followed and the Board would like to see a color, graphic depiction of 80' foot height and 100' foot height overlaid on the existing scene from Mecklenburg Rd (Route 79) looking north and Rachel Carson Way intersection with Mecklenburg Rd(Route 79) and at Sheffield Road, looking east. The Board would like to have a balloon test also so members can drive around and see the impact. ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 8 /10"IN Approval of August 17, 2015 Minutes Postponed. Mr. Rosen had a change to one section. Mr. Bates will review if it is simply a terminology change. Meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. Submittpqy Paulette Terwilliger Town Clerk ZBA 9-21-2015 pg 9 TOWN OF ITHACA ° >, 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 18 21 - �»� y www.town.ithaca.ny.us yo, CODE ENFORCEMENT- BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR Phone (607) 273-1783 ■ Fax (607) 273-1704 codes@town.ithaca.ny.us AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I, Lori Kofoid, being duly sworn, depose and says, that deponent is not a party to the actions, is over 21 years of age with a professional address of 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca,New York. That on the September 10, 2015, deponent served the within Notice upon the property owners listed on the attached document, of the following Tax Parcel Numbers: 410 Teton Ct, Tax Parcel No. 44.-1-115 1020 East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No. 19.-2-18 By depositing same enclosed in a postpaid addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. L -kofold, Deputy Town lerk Town of Ithaca Sworn to before me this 10`i' Day of September 2015. otary.Public ( , Debra De ugistine Notary Public-Mate of New York No.01 DE6148035 Qualified in Tompkins County My Commission Expires June 19,20 C