Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2024-12-16TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals December 16, 2024 Minutes Present: Board Members David Squires, Chair; Chris Jung, Kim Ritter, Larry Sallinger, and Matthew Minnig Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Squires opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-24-18 Appeal of S Roberts WC Land LLC, owner of 111 Wiedmaier Ct., Ithaca, NY, 14850; Jared Lusk,Applicant/Agent; Requesting Extension of"Shot Clock" from December 16, 2024 until January 28, 2025 meeting of the ZBA. The Applicant would like more time to provide the information the ZBA requested in the November 26, 2024 meeting. Motion to extend the shot clock to January 28,2025. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Chris Jung Vote: Ayes -Squires, Jung, Ritter, Minnig, and Sallinger ZBAA-24-29 Appeal of LaTourelle Partners LLC, owner of 1150 Danby Rd., Jason Sidle Applicant/Agent, Special Land District No.1/MDR, TP 36.4-4.5 seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-68C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) and 270- 71E(2) (Accessory buildings)to be permitted to place an accessory building in the side and front yards where they are not permitted and the aggregate total of accessory buildings is exceeded. Mr. Sidle explained that the request is to allow the 5 existing accessory buildings on the property where only 3 are allowed. The fact that the gazebos were not permitted was discovered during a site visit after the October variance for the additional she. The gazebos will remain where they are with substantially the same footprints and the storage building be sized and placed substantially as shown in the application materials of October 22, 2024. Public hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. ZBA 2024-12-16(Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 1 Determination ZBAA-24-29 Area Variance 1150 Danby Road Special Land District 1, MDR, TP 36.4-4.5 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of appeal of LaTourelle Partners LLC, owner of 1150 Danby Rd., Special Land District No.1/MDR, TP 36.-1-4.5 seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-68C (Permitted accessory buildings and uses) and 270-71E(2) (Accessory buildings) to be permitted to place an accessory buildings in the side and front yards where they are not permitted and the aggregate total of accessory buildings is exceeded, with the following Conditions 1. That the accessory buildings will be placed/remain as depicted in the application materials submitted, and in the same general footprint and with the following Findings That the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community is outweighed by the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, specifically 1. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood given that 4 of the 5 buildings have been in existence for many years and some are shielded from view by the L shape of the building and it is a 15 acre parcel with only one building visible from the road, and 2. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible means given the need is for storage close to the building and not interfering with space for hosted events and the building is L shaped and the open areas are used for events, the gazebos align with the size of the 54 room hotel and they are heavily used and located for maximum views of the natural area, and 3. That the request is substantial in that 3 accessory buildings are allowed and the applicant will have 5, 1 new storage shed and 4 existing gazebos, and 4. That there will not be any adverse environmental effects as no SEQR is required, and 5. That the difficulty is self-created in that the applicant desires 2 more accessory structures and some of these structures are placed in areas that are not allowed by zoning, however the balance of the benefits of the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health and welfare of the community. Moved: David Squires Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: Ayes - Squires, Jung, Ritter, Minnig and Sallinger ZBA 2024-12-16(Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 2 ZBAA-24-30 Appeal of James and Patrica Maybee, owners of 805 Coddington Rd., Ithaca, NY, 14850; are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 allows a maximum fence height of 6', where the applicant is seeking an area variance to exceed 6' in height. The property is located in Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 48.-1-14.5. Marty Mosely addressed the board. He explained the applicant received a building permit from the Codes Department in error. They built the fence with what they thought was a valid permit. It was not anything the applicant did or was aware of until I made a trip to their house to discuss it with them. They proceeded thinking it was legal to erect the fence as provided in the packet. Susan Brock addressed the board stating the application and the permit does say an 8 foot high fence. The permit was issued in 2022. The applicant proceeded to build the fence pursuant to what they thought was the authority the building permit gave them. When a municipal staff member makes a mistake there is a principle that says no estople against the government. Meaning the applicant cannot just work outside the law because a mistake was made by the government. The remedy for this is for the applicant to apply for a variance. Public hearing opened. No public comment. Public hearing closed. Chris Jung would like a reason behind the decision for the applicant to build an 8 foot fence. The applicant explained they originally wanted to build a 6 foot fence. It was to shield the view of a neighbor's pool built close to the property line. The applicant tried to plant trees twice with the trees dying both times. With the slope of the land the applicant would still see the pool with a 6 foot fence, and so 8 feet is needed. No one told us the good side of the fence had to be facing the neighbor, and it was being built then, stopped and redesigned to be appealing on both sides, we stain both sides and put mulch on both sides, and more on our side. We maintain and try to beautify the fence with stain and plants. Pictures were shown of the property and the topography that necessitated the 8 foot fence. Public Hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing, there was no one wishing to speak, and the hearing was closed. Determination Chris Jung was worried about setting a precedent with the approval of the 8 foot fence. She recalled a denied decision for a property that also wanted an 8 foot fence. That case was running along the entire length of the property and highly visible. This one is between the two houses. Dave Squires said he did a site visited and it didn't look high at all. Matthew stated the fence follows the house and Kim said the slope is needed as even at 6 feet it would not provide a shield. ZBA 2024-12-16 (Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 3 ZBAA-24-30 Area Variance 805 Coddington Rd. LDR, TP 48.-1-14.5 Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of James and Patrica Maybee, owners of 805 Coddington Rd., seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls)to retain an 8' foot fence where 6' feet is the maximum height, with the following Conditions That the fence does not increase in height or length and remain as constructed, and with the following Findings That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood or to nearby properties given the fence is aesthetically pleasing, well maintained, on one side of the property and the grade of the property mitigates the visual impact of the additional height, and 2. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, given the slope of the property requires the additional height to shield the view of the neighboring property and the applicants had tried planting foliage and shrubbery that did not survive, and 3. That the request is substantial in that 2' feet higher is approximately 37% higher than permitted, and 4. That the difficulty is self-created in that wish is to shield the neighbor's property and the fence was installed at the higher height after the Town issued a permit in error and the applicant based the construction of the fence on the issued permit, and 5. That there will not be any environmental impacts as no SEQR is required. Motion: Dave Squires Seconded: Matthew Minning Vote: Ayes - Squires, Ritter, Minnig and Sallinger Nay—Jung ZBAA-24-31 Appeal of Michael Gladis, owner of 213 King Rd. East., Ithaca, NY, 14850; is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60F (Yard regulations). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60F requires all garages, in aggregate, to not exceed a footprint of 780 sq.ft in size and requires a side yard setback of 40', except that a one story garage can be ZBA 2024-12-16(Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 4 located 15' from a side yard property boundary line in one of the side yards, where the applicant is proposing to have all garages, in aggregate, exceed the maximum allowed footprint for the zoning district and proposing to construct one of the garages (in one of the side yards), within the required 40' side yard setback. The property is located in the Low- Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 45.-2-3. Ryan Rutledge, agent spoke for the applicant. The property was shown via google maps. The applicant would like to build two carports, one carport will be built at the top of the hill. There is a significant slope of the driveway and is where wheelchair access is for the applicant's wife. There is an existing garage that was built in 1960 and is too small to fit modern cars. There is also an existing pole barn that was originally on a separate parcel but was combined with this parcel in 1995.This barn is being classified as an accessory building and counted in the aggregate buildings. These two carports are needs for the applicant. The 4 runner and the truck need to be covered for the wheelchair bound applicant's wife. The only way to get to the lower driveway is steep grade or stairs. The carports will match the house in color and materials. These would give them a garage. The top of the property is the only flat area. The existing garage is being used by the tenant as it is very small. The heating unit to the house is also located in the existing garage which makes the parking footprint smaller. The pole barn appears to have been built for larger equipment vehicles like tractors. The lot is twice the size of neighboring lots and the second carport would not be seen from the road. If the pole barn was not considered a garage the applicant is only asking for 228 square foot variance above what is currently allowed. If the pole barn is counted the variance is 728 feet above what is currently allowed. Two carports are desired. The lower carport in the front of the house is for the tenant and the higher carport is for handicap accessible parking for their 4 runner and pickup truck. The lower carport would provide the tenant with a safe place to park their car in the winter. It would be in the front of the house but would be black to blend in with the foundation. The pole barn is 350 feet from the house and not being used as a garage. Public hearing Mr. Squires opened the public hearing, there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. Determination Matthew Minning asked the applicant what the pole barn structure is currently being used for. The applicant answered storage of yard equipment. It was initially built when the two properties were separate parcels. There was no permit initially granted for the pole barn. The pole barn was never built as a garage for this property. Pictures were shown of the property. The applicant stressed the need for the upper carport to make the property accessible for the wheelchair. ZBA 2024-12-16 (Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 5 Chris Jung wanted a visual with the carport locations. It was explained that the upper carport would be on the driveway at the base of the handicap ramp. It will be a drive through carport. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the current garage and parking in the lower proposed carport. Further discussion regarding the deficiencies of the carport with regard to placement and lot setbacks. ZBAA-24-31 Area Variance 213 King Rd. East TP 45.-2-3., LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Michael Gladis, owner of 213 King Rd. East., seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60F (Yard regulations)to be permitted to install two carports that exceed the maximum allowed zoning limit for garages of 780 square feet by 704 square feet by building 2 carports totaling 756 square feet. One of the carports would be within the 40 foot setback from the side lot line, with the following Conditions 1. That the carports be constructed substantially as shown in the building permits and described at the meeting tonight and located substantially as shown and described, and with the following Findings That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically 1. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood or to nearby properties in that the front carport is compatible with the existing house and color,no excavation needed, and the car port in the rear will be substantially screened by vegetation and the topography of the rear of the property, and 2. That the benefit sought is a garage located in the front that will fit modern cars and cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the slope and the configuration of the current garage and the requested placement with the elevation changes having a carport will allow for grip in winter conditions. The second carport at the back is the logical location for a garage for the upper unit and it is the only flat location. It is in proximity of the entrance to the unit and will be handicap accessible, and 3. That the request is substantial as the garages are limited to 756 square feet and the total is 704 square feet over what is permitted and will encroach in the 40' foot side yard setback, and ZBA 2024-12-16 (Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 6 4. That there will not be any environmental impacts as this is Type 2 under SEQR, and 5. That the hardship is not self-created in that the existing detached garage was not built to serve the house and built as a farm building on a separate parcel. This is a unique situation in that the structure was not built to function as a garage on the existing parcel, and the existing attached garage is not functioning as a garage. Moved: David Squires Second: Kim Ritter Vote: Ayes —Squires, Ritter, Jung and Sallinger Nay —Minnig Recommendation of ZBA Chairperson 2025 to the Town Board David Squires will not be renewing his board membership. Although not present, Connor Terry, Vice Chair was willing to step into the chair position. Motion to recommend Connor Terry to the Town Board to be the Chair of the ZBA in 2025. Moved: Kim Ritter Second: David Squires Vote: Ayes - Squires, Ritter, Jung, Minning and Sallinger Other Business Letter from a Town Resident regarding the Town expert Bill Johnson. The letter indicated Mr. Johnson was biased in favor of Verizon and may have a conflict of interest. This was based on Mr. Johnson's LinkedIn page where a comment from a Verizon attorney Jard Lusk gave him a good review. The resident stated that this shows a previous relationship between Mr. Johnson and Verizon. Mr. Johnson wrote a response to the letter. He has advised the Town on the 5 Mile Drive cell tower and also the Town of Ontario where a tower was denied. Susan Brock sees no conflict of interest with Mr. Johnson and Verizon. Larry Sallinger says he can evaluate the comments and formulate an opinion of the voracity of what he saying within the situation. Matthew Minning feels comfortable with the expert. He uses the expert's opinion to provide understanding not to formulate his decision. He does not see a bias. David Squires stated that he enjoyed serving on the board. It has been interesting and educational. A resolution of appreciation was read by Marry Moseley. Meeting adjourned at 8:09pm Submitted by r Monica Moll, Deputy Town Clerk ZBA 2024-12-16(Filed 2/14/2025) Pg. 7