Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2025-04-22 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Tuesday April 22, 2025, at 6:OOpm 215 N. Tioga St. AGENDA • Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-8 Appeal of Donald Moore, owner of 213 King Rd W, Ithaca NY 14850, is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-60C. and 270-60B (Yard regulations)Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60 C. requires a side yard setback of not less than 40 feet and Town of Ithaca Code section 270-60B. requires a rear yard setback of 50 feet, where the applicant is proposing to construct single family dwelling that will not comply with the side yard or rear yard setbacks as identified. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential Zone, Tax Parcel No. 37.-1-6. • Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAA-25-11 Appeal of Cornell University, owners of 126 Game Farm Rd. Ithaca NY; Kimberly Van Leeuwen, Agent: is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-254 (Residential and Conservation Zones), 270-59 (Height limitations), 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls). Town of Ithaca Code section 270-254 and limits signs to 32 square feet of aggregate area, limits one sign to 24 square feet, and limits the maximum freestanding sign height to 6 feet and not allow for an internally illuminated sign , where the applicant is proposing to exceed the aggregate sign area, exceed the maximum size allowed for a single sign, exceed the aggregate for all sign area, exceed the maximum height for free standing signs and is proposing to have a sign that is internally illuminated. Town of Ithaca Code 270-59 requires structures, other than a building, to not exceed 30 feet in height, where the applicant is proposing to install light poles, flag poles, and similar structures that would exceed the height limits of the Town of Ithaca Code. Town of Ithaca Code section 270-223 limits a fence height to 6 feet, where fencing is proposed to exceed the maximum height allowed per Town of Ithaca Code. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel Numbers: 62.-2-6 • Public Hearing and Consider: ZBAS-25-3 Appeal of Cornell University, owners of 126 Game Farm Rd. Ithaca NY; Kimberly Van Leeuwen Agent: is seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems)for a proposal to construct a press box building (professional building)without a sprinkler system. The property is located in the Low-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel No. 62.-2-5 • Public Hearing and Consider: ZBEN-25-1 Appeal of 201 Snyder Hill Rd., Owner; Brian Buttner and Justin Kimball,Agents: are seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 144-5 (Residential Building Provisions). Town of Ithaca Code section 144-R501.2 requires a building to comply with the Ithaca Energy Code in a prescriptive/performance manner, where the applicant is proposing to acquire three prescriptive points, where twelve prescriptive points are required per section 144-R502, of Town of Ithaca Code, for a major renovation. The property is located in the Medium-Density Residential District Zone, Tax Parcel Number: 57.-1-8.63 MEETING OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes Meeting available on YouTube gTownoflthacaVideo Present: Board Members, Connor Terry Chair; Chris Jung, Kim Ritter, Matthew Minnig, and Larry Sallinger Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; CJ Randall, Director of Planning, Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; and Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town Mr. Terry opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. ZBAA-23-17 Appeal of 213 King Rd W, Donald Moore, owner, LDR, TP 37.-1-6, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-60C & B (Yard regulations)to build a single- family home with less than the required side and front yard setbacks. Mr. Moore gave a summary of his previous appeal and variance granted and the situation that delayed him being able to start construction and a request for an additional variance for the rear yard. Discussion The Board felt the change was minimal and basically an extension of the existing variance due to delays in building. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. DETERMINATION ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-8 Area Variance—Yard Setbacks 213 King Rd W TP 37.4-6, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Donald Moore, 213 King Rd W, to be permitted to build a single-family home which does not meet the minimum yard setbacks, with the following Conditions 1. That the home be built substantially as shown in the revised building permit application materials submitted on March 5, 2025, and ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg. 1 2. That the side yard setback be no less 18' feet and the rear yard setback be no less than 38' feet, and with the following, 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 lot was created in 1956 with legally conforming100' foot width. Side yard conforming setbacks have substantially changed from 10' feet in 1956 to 40' feet today, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that several houses in the area have similarly small setbacks and the proposed home has been designed and placed to minimize any impact on the neighbors, and 3. That the encroachments into the setbacks are substantial; side yard setback at 18' feet where 40' feet is required and rear yard setback at 38' feet where 50' feet is required, and 4. The request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by SEQR not being required, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is self-created in that applicant was aware of the restrictions prior to purchasing the property, but this is mitigated by the dimensions of the property created a legal building lot at time of its subdivision in 1956. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes — Terry, Jung, Ritter, Mining and Sallinger ZBEN-25-1 Appeal of 201 Snyder Hill Rd., Justin Kimball, Owner; TP 57.-1-8.63, MDR, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 144-5 (Residential Building Provisions) Section 144-R501.2 which requires a building to comply with the Ithaca Energy Code in a prescriptive/ performance manner; twelve prescriptive points are required for a major renovation and the applicant is proposing three prescriptive points. Brian Buttner, agent/contractor, gave an overview of the project. The footprint of the property would remain the same. There will be improvements to drainage, insulation, lighting, egress windows and fire protection. The home is a 2-unit with the upper apartment larger than the lower. The work is all in the lower apartment due to a drainage issue from recent changes to the roadway. There is no feasible way to meet the Energy Code points. ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg.2 The heating system is throughout both units and in working order; changing it to heat pumps would be major structural work throughout and cost more than the house is probably worth and necessitate both tenants moving out for an extended period. Mr. Buttner stated that this was deemed a"major renovation"by considering the unit instead of the house in the calculation, otherwise it would not have met the threshold to have to meet these points. He went into detail on the various issues involved in trying to meet these prescriptive points with this house and other older homes, especially those built in the 60's and 70's. Discussion The Board had questions on the status of the home because Assessment lists it as a single family, calculations to determine the threshold and ways the applicants considered to get to the prescriptive points and what they did meet. Mr. Moseley explained that the Town lists this house as a 2-unit and Assessment is quite often incorrect. Each unit is a separate dwelling and under the Town Code and the Energy Code, the calculations are based on each unit. A heat pump clothes dryer would get a few points, but the applicant responded that there is a newer dryer there and the cost of the heat pump dryer is about$2k, and that would not include the infrastructure to convert to that energy source. Mr. Conner asked if the list of improvements suggested in the points table was exhaustive or if there were other opportunities for the applicant to gain more energy points. Mr. Moseley responded that the architect made an exhaustive list of everything possible that could be done within the scope of the project towards energy efficiency. The applicant stated that the increased insulation will help with both units' energy savings, but will still not meet the level needed to get more points, and the project could never reach the necessary 12 points. Ms. Brock asked if they had considered purchasing solar from offsite solar farms to accumulate points and the owner responded that they had briefly looked at that, but it would mean a 15 year commitment or contract and his mother and aunt who live there are elderly and not interested in that type of contract. PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Terry opened the public hearing; there was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed. DETERMINATION The Board went through the criteria in the Town Code for this variance and discussed each. The majority of the available points are through significant changes to HVAC systems which are not associated with some types of renovation/repair projects, especially when done in an ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg. 3 older home built in ways that make some of those options a complete gut of the structure to effectuate. ZBA Resolution 2025 -ZBEN-25-1 Ithaca Energy Code Supplement 201 Snyder Hill Rd TP 57.-1-8.63 MDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Carol Battisti, owner, 201 Snyder Hill Rd., seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 144-5 to be permitted to acquire three prescriptive points, where twelve prescriptive points are required for a major renovation, with the following Conditions That the additional insulation and windows be installed as submitted in the application and as described at the meeting, and with the following Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and strict compliance with the requirements would entail practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, specifically A. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. To avoid a variance, the applicant would need 12 points for the energy code. There is no feasible way for the applicant to get the total amount of required points given the existing conditions and scope of the project. B. Whether the applicant has proposed to implement other energy or construction options, in place of the standard or requirement that is the subject of the variance request, that will result in the least amount practicable of additional greenhouse gas emissions. Additional insulation to both the interior and exterior of the building as well as new windows will result in lowering the use of energy in the apartment. This will lower greenhouse gas emissions. C. Whether the variance request will result in a substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions if the request is granted. The request is substantial, because only 3 out of the required 12 points can be met, but there is no change to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions due to this variance. D. Whether the variance request is unique to the building, project, or site and does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood or community. This variance is unique to this property in that a large portion of the opportunity to gain energy points is through upgrading heating or renewal energy systems that do not ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg.4 currently exist in the building, which would be difficult and expensive to implement, and are not part of the scope of this project. E. Whether the requested variance is the minimum necessary. It is not feasible to get points in other areas, therefore this variance is the minimum necessary. F. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the variance. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because of the age of the house. There was no energy code at the time. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes — Terry, Jung, Ritter, Mining and Sallinger ZBAA-25-11 Cornell University, 126 Game Farm Rd., LDR, TP 62.-2-6, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code sections 270-254 (Residential and Conservation Zones), 270-59 (Height limitations), and 270-223 (Fences and walls; retaining walls) to be permitted to erect a free- standing sign that exceeds the maximum aggregate area and height, and with illumination; and to install light poles and flag poles that exceed the maximum height allowed; and to install a fence that exceeds the maximum height permitted. Overview The applicant's agent Alicia Fahrner gave an overview and presentation of the project. The Board asked questions about the netting which is considered a"fence" and needed for safety and containment of the balls used in the sport, and the height of the flag pole which is necessary for viewing and not obstructing the scoreboard and are standard for this type of use. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. Yayoi Koizumi spoke, asking the Board to not grant the height variance because of the use of artificial turf to construct the new field. Caroline Ashurst spoke, thanking the Board for their decision on the Verizon cell tower project and said it is a life safety risk to not having sprinklers in the press box, and hoped they would deny the variance and spoke out against the use of synthetic turf to construct the field. Mr. Terry closed the public hearing. ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg. 5 Determination Ms. Brock explained that SEQR on this project was done by the Planning Board as Lead Agency, and a negative declaration was made by them, and this Board does not do anything further under SEQR. The Board asked about the sprinkler system and press box, and it was noted that that is the next appeal, but the press box itself is sprinklered, but the roof top is not and it will be used occasionally as a media deck. ZBA Resolution ZBAA-25-11 Height Variance—Fence, Pole and Signs 126 Game Farm Rd. TP 62.-2-6, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, 126 Game Farm Rd., to be permitted to erect a fence, install light poles and flag poles, and a freestanding sign that exceeds the maximum heights and total aggregate area permitted, with the following Conditions 1. That the light poles, flag poles and signs be installed substantially as submitted to this Board, and with the following 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 this is a sports field, and the sizes, heights and illumination of each of the proposed sign are appropriate and necessary to allow spectators to be able to see the information from across the field; the illumination will be safer than manually changing information via a manual sign, and avoid any uplighting; the other signs proposed are necessary to identify the various structures and locations on the field; and the fencing is needed for safety to contain the items/balls used in the sport, The flag pole and lighting poles are shorter than the ones existing on the property, the scoreboard height is necessary for visibility, and the flag pole height is needed to clear the scoreboard, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the signs, flagpole, lighting and fencing is standard for a sports field and will be similar to other structures on the parcel. It is surrounded on three sides by other campus lands, and 3. That the request is substantial, but nevertheless, the size and heights proposed are necessary for the function of the sports field. The lights and fence netting will increase safety for attendees and participants, and ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg. 6 4. That the request will not have any significant adverse physical or environmental effects as evidenced by the Lead Agency's negative declaration of environmental significance. The signs are Type 2 and do not require SEQR, and 5. That the alleged difficulty is not self-created in that the sizes and heights are necessary, and in some cases required, by the NCAA and necessary for safety It is self-created in that the desire is to construct a competitive sports field. The sports facility is also located in a low density residential zone. The requirements for this zone do not fit well with the needs of a university athletic facility. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Kim Ritter Vote: ayes — Terry, Jung, Ritter, Mining and Sallinger ZBAS-25-3 Cornell University, 126 Game Farm Rd., LDR, TP 62.-2-5, seeking relief from Town of Ithaca Code section 225-3 (New buildings required to have sprinkler systems)to be permitted to construct a press box building (professional building)without a sprinkler system. Overview Mike Nicodovich presented the project to the Board. Public Hearing Mr. Terry opened the public hearing. Yayoi Koizumi spoke against the number of synthetic turf fields that are being proposed for the site and the number of variances that are being asked for by the applicant. She would like the Planning Board to rescind the negative declaration of environmental impact issued on March 18, 2025. She believes new information shows the information provided by the applicant to the Planning Board was misleading. Mr. Terry Closed the public hearing. Determination ZBA Resolution ZBAS-25-3 Sprinkler Variance 126 Game Farm Rd. TP 62.-2-6, LDR Resolved that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, 126 Game Farm Rd., to be permitted to construct a press box building without the required sprinkler extended to the occupied roof, with the following Conditions 1. That the press box be built substantially as shown in the materials submitted to this Board, and with the following Findings ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg. 7 1. That the strict application of the Town Code Chapter 225 would create practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship for the applicant in that it is not feasible to add a sprinkler head to an open-air roof as there are none manufactured, and 2. That the omission of a sprinkler system from the open air roof will not significantly jeopardize human life given that the first and second floors of the press box will be sprinklered and 2-3 camera people will be on the roof at any given time. In addition, there is a ladder for quick egress. Two additional fire extinguishers will be placed on the roof. The building itself will be constructed as non-combustible. Moved: Connor Terry Seconded: Larry Sallinger Vote: ayes — Terry, Jung, Ritter, Mining and Sallinger The meeting was adjourned upon a motion and a second at 8:12pm.; unanimous. JSubinibyJFt09- a Town Clerk ZBA 2025-04-22 (Filed 4/23) Pg. 8