HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1978-11-10 <t TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ADJOURNED MEETING
FRIDAY , NOVEMBER 10 , 1978
Ari adjourned meeting ( from October 19 , 1978 ) of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Friday , November 10 , 1978 , at 12 : 00
Noon ,
PRESENT : Chairman Peter Francese , Edward W . King , Edward Austen .
ABSENT and EXCUSED : Jack D . Hewett , Joan Reuning ,
Chairman Francese declared the adjourned meeting duly opened at
12 : 00 noon .
PUBLIC HEARING : APPEAL OF LAWRENCE AND TRINNA IACOVELLI , APPELLANTS ,
FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMIT APPLICATION
CHANGE TO ALLOW 4 ( FOUR ) DWELLING UNITS RATHER THAN 2 ( TWO ) DWELLING UNITS
AT 167 KENDALL AVENUE , PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 4 - 25 ( FORMERLY PARCEL NO . 6 - 54 - 4 - 23 ) ,
ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese reminded the Board that the above - stated matter had
been adjourned from October 19 , 1978 , to November 9 , 1978 , and that because
of conflict with the annual budget hearing meeting of the Town Board , had
been further adjourned to this date , and further , that the Secretary had
notified the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals , the parties to the
_ action , through their attorney , Edward A . Mazza , and Mr . Lyman Baker , Mrs .
June Belous and Mr . George Kugler , as spokespersons for the neighborhood ,
of such adjournments . Chairman Francese also reminded the Board that it
had been agreed at said October 19 , 1978 , meeting that the more appropriate
parcel number designation in this matter is Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 54 - 4 - 23 , being lots #206 , #207 , and #208 , of the old Ithaca Land Company
Lands Map dated July of 1895 , Town of Ithaca Map #485 .
The Board received in evidence , marked by the Secretary as " Exhibit
Affidavit of Ralph Iacovelli , duly notarized , dated October 27 , 19782
as to the composition of the Kendall Avenue residences , i . e . , single
family homes vs . two , or more , family homes . The Board received in evi -
dence , marked by the Secretary as " Exhibit 211 , Sketch drawn by Edward A .
Mazza , Esq . , dated October 27 , 1978 , indicating the subject building and
its separation from adjacent buildings on the north side of Kendall
Avenue , The Board received in evidence , marked by the Secretary as
" Exhibit 3 " , color - coded reduction of Town of Ithaca Tax Map # 54 , pre -
pared by Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , dated October 30 , 1978 , depicting • . the
subject premises , unimproved lots , lots believed to be used for single
family purposes , and lots believed to be used for other than single family
purposes , together with detailed property listing of such parcels attached .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
finds the following facts in the matter of the Appeal of Lawrence and
Trinna Iacovelli in re property known as 167 Kendall Avenue , Parcel No .
6 - 54 - 4 - 23 :
FINDINGS OF FACT :
t Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - November 10 , 1978 .
• .
61 01 . The Appeal of Lawrence and Trinna Iacovelli was presented to and
denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 10 , 1978 , with the
indication that said matter more properly belonged before the Town
' Board as a zoning amendment . The matter was referred to and heard
by the Planning Board on September 19 , 1978 , and thereupon referred
to the Town Board by said Planning Board , and heard by said Town
Board on October 10 , 1978 , each such Board indicating the said
matter should be referred back to the Zoning Board of Appeals as a
matter .. .. for decision by said Zoning Board of Appeals .
2 . The matter of the re - hearing of the Appeal of Lawrence and Trinna
Iacovelli is properly before the Zoning Board of Appeals , it having
been unanimously resolved by said Board on October 19 , 1978 ) to
re - hear said matter .
3 . The Appellants reside next door to the subject property at 165
Kendall Avenue . It is , therefore , the judgment of this Board that
they are more likely to maintain the subject property in good order
than if they were to reside some distance away .
4 . The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have visited the premises ,
toured the interior and exterior of the building , and find the
premises to be neat and orderly .
5 . The Appellants have constructed the building upon the property so
that there is extra land available to the north by northwest of said
building which may be used for open space in connection with the
dwellings contained therein .
6 . The existing neighborhood is comprised of unimproved lots , single
family homes , and two , or more , family homes , as follows :
In doing a statistical analysis of the type of present uses of lots
in the area based not only on the Map , Exhibit 3 , and Exhibit 1 , but
also on the testimony of Mr . Robert Bonnell , Assistant to the Town
Engineer , that Tax Parcels 6 - 54 - 5 - 3 and 4 are devoted to single family
uses , and information from the Town of Ithaca Tax Roll as verified by
Mr . Bonnell that Tax Parcel 54 - 5 - 5 contains a four - dwelling unit
structure as a non - conforming use , and , assuming all those facts , the
Board finds that prior to the development of the subject property it
appears that there were about 41 lots ( 50 ' ± ) undeveloped on Kendall
Avenue , incorporating information from the Tax Roll indicating that
Tax Parcels 54 - 4 - 15 through 19 are undeveloped ; that there were about
18 parcels ( 50 ' ± . wide ) with single family dwellings ; and 25 parcels
( 50 ' ± wide ) apparently used by two or more families ; for a total of
84 parcels . The percentages are approximately as follows : 48 . 8 %
unimproved ( vacant ) ; 21 . 4 % single family ; 29 . 7% two ? ". or mor. e , . . families .
If this Board should allow the three subject lots to be used as a
single lot for a multi - family dwelling as applied for , the result
would be : 43 lots , unimproved ; 18 lots improved with single family
dwellings ; and 26 lots improved with two , l. or . more , family dwellings ;
for a total of 87 parcels . The percentages would be as follows :
49 . 4 % unimproved ; 20 . 6% single family ; 29 . 8 % two , or more , families .
Accordingly , the Board would judge that the allowance of a variance
would not substantially alter the character of the uses . on _: Kendall
Avenue from what already exists .
a-
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - November 10 , 1978 .
7 . The Zoning Board of Appeals considered Section 281 of , Town Law
( Cluster ), in its deliberations , and , although obviously not appli -
cable , did consider the principles behind said law .
8 . The construction of more than two dwelling units in the Appellants '
building will not , in the opinion of this Board , materially affect
traffic on Kendall Avenue , since the Appellants couldlbuild separate
dwelling units in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance on each of
the three subject lots comprising the subject parcel , iresulting in
more dwelling units than the Appellants are requesting .
I
9 . However , the Appellants , in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and
with full knowledge of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance ,
designed and built the structure at 167 Kendall Avenue to accommodate
up to four dwelling units .
10 . But , the Appellants are willing to , and have themselves offered to ,
devote and dedicate the entire 150 ' x 120 ' plot to this existing
building .
11 . The Town Engineer has verified that all yard requirements have been
met . for a two - family house on a 75 ' lot in an R- 9 zone . ( See also
Exhibit 2 . )
12 . A considerable number of the neighboring property owners attended
two public hearings of this Board and objected to the Appellants
being granted a variance for four dwelling units in the subject
structure . They indicated that they feared overcrowding in the
neighborhood and a devaluation of their property .
13 . The Board finds that the granting of a variance to allow for more
than two dwelling units , but . less : than . four , on a 150 ' parcel ,
would not result in overcrowding of the neighborhood nor in any
significant devaluation of property .
14 . The Board feels that the granting of a variance to allow for four
dwelling units in the subject structure would set a precedent whereby
those under similar circumstances would then petition for an equal
number of units in each structure resulting in a general overcrowding
and danger to the health and welfare of the community .
15 . Based on information and belief that Kendall Avenue , the street upon
which the subject premises is located , is slated for further develop -
ment by the Town of Ithaca through a proposed completion of said
street to meet with Pennsylvania Avenue , the Board feels that the
construction of additional homes can be expected .
16 . The Appellants have provided gravelled parking spaces , off - street ,
to the southwest of the building , much in the character of other
such lots on this street . The Board finds the parking facilities
sufficient and compatible .
17 . The Appellants have not demonstrated that they suffer any peculiar
economic injury that is not general to property owners in the Town
by reason of general inflation , rising taxes , and other rising costs .
The Board finds no unique circumstances with which to justify a
finding of specific or peculiar economic injury in this case .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - November 10 , 1978 .
18 . However , the Board does find that strict observance of the Zoning
Ordinance would impose unnecessary hardship upon the Appellants ,
since in this case they have offered to tie in with this structure
extra land ( another one and one - half old lots ) upon which they could
have lawfully erected another two - family dwelling without special
approval . If that is done , the area will be even less intensively
developed than it could have been under the Ordinance , and the
amenities of the area will have been preserved . The Board can find
no overall detriment to the Town plan in permitting a concentration
of dwelling units within this single building as long as the three
old subdivision lots are effectively made part of this particular
parcel and so preserved . .
19 . The Board finds that such unified parcel will have ample access and
egress over the existing street and that it is likely to improve in
the near future when Kendall Avenue is extended easterly to meet
with Pennsylvania Avenue ,
20 . The Board finds that the subject parcel already has public water and
sewer available .
21 . The Board can see no way in which permitting the existing structure
to be used as a multi - family dwelling will adversely affect the
health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community , so long
as it complies with multiple residence codes and certain reasonable
conditions are observed .
® 22 . The Board believes that substantial justice will be done by permit -
ting the Appellants to utilize the present structure as a multi -
family dwelling so long as the properties are tied together and
reasonable safeguards are imposed and observed .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Peter Francese :
WHEREAS , upon the appeal of Lawrence and Trinna Iacovelli regarding
a multi - apartment building at 167 Kendall Avenue ( Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 -
23 ) as re - heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 19 , 1978 , the
Appellants specifically requested a determination that the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance permits the occupancy of each apartment in a building by
two unrelated people ;
AND WHEREAS , the May 11 , 1970 Amendments continue the definition of
a " Family " as " one or more persons related ( Ordinance Sec . 1 ( 5 ) ; and
they also amended Sec . 4 of the ordinance regarding occupancy of dwelling
units to provide that one or two " boarders , roomers , lodgers , or other
occupants " could occupy dwelling units in a building where the same were
also occupied by a " family " - thus making it possible for a single per -
son in each apartment to be considered the basic " family " therein so that
at least one additional occupant would be permitted therein ( even though
another subdivision of said Amendments provided that no more than three
persons could occupy a two - family dwelling " if neither of such units is
occupied by a family " ) ;
Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - November 10 , 1978
AND WHEREAS , said 1970 Amendments further amended Sec . 4 by adding
thereto a new .Subdivision ( 2c ) providing that dwellings in an R- 9 Zone
may be occupied by more than the otherwise specified number of occupants
if a Special Permit therefor was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals ;
AND WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has found
that the Appellants would likely suffer greater financial hardship if
they were not permitted to have two unrelated persons occupy any apart =
ment in the building at any time ;
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals determines that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance permits
the occupancy of each apartment in a building by two unrelated persons ,
and ,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals grant and hereby does grant to Lawrence and Trinna Iacovelli a
Special Permit to allow the occupancy of any one or more of the permitted
apartments at 167 Kendall Avenue by no more than two unrelated persons .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
® MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
WHEREAS , Findings of Fact , heretofore set forth , have been duly and
properly adopted , and
WHEREAS , resolution granting Special Permit in re permitted apartment
occupancy has been duly and properly adopted ,
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance to the premises
known as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 23 , and also known as 167
Kendall Avenue , Ithaca , New York , to allow for the use of the newly
constructed building thereon for no more than three dwelling units , each
of which may be occupied by no more than two unrelated persons , and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board grant and hereby does grant
a side yard variance to said premises to allow for a side yard less than
that required for a multiple residence , and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the granting of said variances is
contingent upon the Appellants executing the restrictive covenants for
the use of the land in the form hereinafter set forth and made a part of
this resolution granting variances , and upon their adhering to the
following additional terms and conditions of this granting .
1 . That the building complies with all aspects of the New York State
Multiple Residence Code .
2 . That all exterior storage of trash be screened from view .
3 . That the premises be maintained in the neat and orderly condition
that exists at this time .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - November 10 , 1978
4 . That the Appellants pay the County Clerk ' s fee for recording the
covenants ; it being reported on good authority to be $ 7 . 25 .
5 . GRANT OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
MADE this day of 1978 by LAWRENCE IACOVELLI
and TRINNA IACOVELLI , husband and wife , jointly and severally , both of
165 Kendall Avenue , Ithaca , New York , hereinafter called " GRANTORS " ;
TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA , a Municipality within the County of Tompkins
and State of New York .
WHEREAS the Grantors are the owners of the real property on the
northerly side of Kendall Avenue in said Town of Ithaca designated as
Ithaca Land Company Lots 206 , 207 and 208 , each such lot being 50 feet
wide and 120 feet deep and having a consolidated frontage of 150 feet
on the north side of Kendall Avenue and a depth of 120 feet northerly
therefrom , for a total area of about 18 , 000 square feet , and which pro -
perties were previously designated Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 54 - 4 - 23 and
are the premises conveyed to Grantors by the June 29 , 1976 deed from
Hilker Construction Company , Inc . recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s
Office in Liber 552 of Deeds at page 87 ;
AND WHEREAS the Grantors have constructed a dwelling on the easterly
portion of such land under Town of Ithaca Building Permit # 1964 issued in
1977 for the construction of one 2 - apartment building on these lots ;
AND WHEREAS said property is situated in an R- 9 Zone under the
current Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as re - adopted , amended and revised
as of February 12 , 1968 , dwellings of no more than two - family size on
lots no smaller than 9 , 000 square feet being permitted in this Zone
( although it is recognized that dwellings could be legally erected on
each 50 - foot wide lot here by virtue of the existence of this Subdivision
prior to the Zoning enactment ) ;
AND WHEREAS the Grantors have constructed their said dwelling in
such manner as to permit it to be further compartmentalized into 4 separate
apartments , and they desire to obtain authority for such conversion of
the new building into such four units , and they are willing to and have
themselves offered to devote and dedicate the entire 150 ' x 120 ' plot to
this existing building ;
® NOW THEREFORE , in consideration of the premises and of the grant by
the Town of Ithaca Zoning - Board of Appeals of a Variance to authorize the
use of the building thereon ( 167 Kendall Avenue ) as a 3 - apartment dwelling ,
( and whether or not such a Variance contains restrictions and / or condi -
,' ' Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - November 10 , 1978 *
tions ) , no other consideration herefor being given or intended , the
Grantors do hereby impose upon said real property in said premises
described , viz . the Ithaca Land Company Lots 206 , 207 and 208 RESTRICTIVE
COVENANTS to run with the land until such time , if ever , that the Town
of Ithaca or one of its duly authorized Boards or Agencies shall by
written instrument or Order release the same , as follows :
( 1 ) Said land shall not be subdivided , but shall remain intact as
part and parcel with the said dwelling now constructed thereon .
( 2 ) No building or improvement other than an accessory building or
improvement permitted under the then - applicable Zoning Ordinance shall
be constructed upon any other part of said premises .
( 3 ) The existing dwelling shall not be enlarged nor made into more
apartments or dwelling units than the three permitted by the variance ,
nor shall any such dwelling unit be occupied by more than the number of
people permitted in such Variance , except upon proper authorization under
the then - applicable Zoning Ordinance .
( 4 ) In any event , this entire parcel shall henceforth be deemed
fully subject to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance rather than any part
thereof retaining any status as a pre - existing subdivision lot .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Grantors have hereunto set their hands and
seals as of the day and year first above written .
Lawrence Iacovelli
Trinna Iacovelli
All of Town of Ithaca
Old Tax Parcel 54 - 4 - 23
( Lots "206 , 207 , 208 )
STATE OF NEW YORK
: SS .
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
On this day of 1978 , before me , the
subscriber , personally appeared LAWRENCE IACOVELLI and TRINNA IACOVELLI
to me known and known to me to be the same persons described in and
who executed the within instrument and they duly severally acknowledged
to me that they executed the same .
Notary Public
,.Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - November 10 , 1978 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Appeal of Lawrence and
Trinna Iacovelli duly closed at 1 : 15 p . m .
RESOLUTION OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES :
ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE TRANSMITTED TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA .
MOTION by Mr . Edward W . King , seconded by Mr . Peter Francese :
WHEREAS , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals ( ZBA ) is confron -
ted with many appeals wherein a previous violation of the zoning ordinance
is involved - - the discovery of the violation by the Town Building Inspec -
tor often prompting the appeal ;
AND WHEREAS , the ZBA , in considering such appeals , is often inclined
to deny the requested Variance or Special Permit in cases where the viola -
tion is flagrant or appears to have been knowingly and intentionally
committed or suffered by the appellant ;
AND WHEREAS , the ZBA is cognizant of the fact that prosecutions for
violations of the Zoning Ordinance for the imposition of the fines and
penalties sanctioned under Town Law Section 268 ( per Ordinance Section
79 ( qv . ) ) are rare , and this fact impels the ZBA to consider denial of
the variance of permit as the only available and effective punishment for
the transgression ; and this fact of life often gets in the way of the
Board ' s focusing upon the cases without passion and upon their merits ,
keeping the best interests of the Town and of the community in mind , and
utilizing the ZBA powers to make the statute reasonably flexible and
effective in ameliorating harsh and unreasonable effects while promoting
the general welfare ;
AND WHEREAS , the ZBA is of the opinion that this tacit and implicit
onus for effecting sanctions and punishment should be removed from the
ZBA ;
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals hereby requests that the Town Board take action to effect more
prosecutions for violations of the Zoning Ordinance in the Courts , it
being recommended that they consider the following specific actions :
1 . That Special Counsel be retained either on a continuing basis or
from time to time for specific cases , for such prosecutions .
2 . That the Town Board regularly consider and determine which cases
will be prosecuted , upon recommendations from the Building Inspector , ZBA ,
Planning Board , etc .
3 .
That Section 79 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide _.
that upon conviction , a violator of the Ordinance be subject not only
to the fine or imprisonment provided in Town Law Section 268 , but also
- Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - November 10 , 19789
for the reasonable costs and expenses of the Town ( including attorney ' s
fees ) in the preparation and prosecution of the case .
4 . That in any event , prosecutors be instructed to present proof
to the Court of the reasonable costs and expenses of the prosecution ,
requesting that it be considered or specifically recompensed as part of
the fine ,
5 . That the Town Board formally adopt and promulgate policy and
procedures in this area , advising the ZBA and other Boards and Officers
concerned , and inviting their specific recommendations for prosecution
in particular cases .
6 . In the alternative , have the Town Attorney advise the . ZBA whether
it is . authorized . . to . . require payment of an unadjudicated fine , ( or a
" levy " , " fee " or " charge " ) for or on account of past violations and / or
investigations as a condition of the grant of the requested Variance or
Permit .
7 . Consider enabling legislation at the local and / or State level
to permit or accomplish any of these purposes ; and attempt to obtain
State legislation where that is deemed appropriate .
AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that this Resolution be transmitted to the
Town Board with a request for its consideration and response .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
The Board wished that the following statements be noted :
NOTE :
Town Law Section 268 provides that a violation is an " offense "
punishable by a fine not exceeding $ 250 or imprisonment not
exceeding six months , or both ; and that each week ' s continued
violation constitutes a separate additional violation . Ordinance
Section 79 comports with that .
UJCA Section 2021 provides that fines become the property of the
Town where the offense was committed . Thus , any fine would
in part compensate for the cost of prosecution : however , it is
felt that the psychological effect of specifying that the viola-
tor be charged with the cost of prosecution may have a greater
deterrent effect and might tend to induce admissions ( as a way
of mitigating the total penalties ) , thereby making the prosecu -
tions easier .
The 1976 Proposed Draft Ordinance by Section 48 would change the
AR ordinance to provide for a minimum fine of $ 25 . 00 for each viola-
tion and would provide that each day of continuation constitutes
a separate and distinct violation . ( .It would set the maximum
fine per violation at $ 100 . 00 ) It would seem that the provision
of a minimum penalty and multiplying it by seven days in a week
Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - November 10 , 19780
would further reduce the inclination to prosecute . It would
certainly stiffen the resistance to and defense of such
cases , what with $ 175 per week being the minimum fine , and
$ 700 per week the maximum .
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The Board wished to submit the following further observations re
the 1976 Draft Ordinance :
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS RE 1976 DRAFT ORDINANCE :
The Powers of the ZBA would be severely curtailed under Section
47 : variances could be granted only for exceptional physical
conditions of the land , and they could not be granted where
the conditions were " created by the owner or by a predecessor
in title " .
Thus the ZBA would apparently not be permitted to vary the
strict application of the ordinance in all other cases and
in all other respects .
* * * * * * * * * * * *
RESOLUTION IN RE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMISSION BY
APPELLANTS OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS .
WHEREAS , all applications to the Zoning Board of Appeals require it
to consider the effect and possible impact of the proposed Variance or
Permit upon the properties of others in the area , as well as to clearly
understand the relevant facts regarding the Appellant ' s own property and
buildings ;
AND WHEREAS , it is incumbent upon the Appellants to present these
facts and evidence to us ;
NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that all Appeals involving property
and building location , use , etc . , MUST be accompanied by a site plan ,
sketch , diagram , survey or other plan . Arepresentation drawn to scale as
nearly as may be , and containing and showing the following :
( 1 ) North orientation .
( 2 ) The location of all relevant buildings with reference
to lot lines , and their distances from each other - -
including the location of all the nearest buildings
on adjoining lands in the area of concern .
( 3 ) Identification of buildings as to use ( e . g . , " H " _
-149 house ; " G " = garage ; etc . ) .
( 4 ) Location of all relevant streets .
( 5 ) The scale used ( e . g . , 1 inch = ? feet ) .
" • Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - November 10 , 1978 .
( 6 ) The printed name of the person who made such site
plan , : sketch , . . diagram , survey or other plan represen -
tation .
epresen -tation .
( 7 ) A certification legend thereon , signed by the maker ,
in substance as follows :
" I certify that this sketch accurately
represents the existing situation at
( stating address
or tax parcel number ) on
19 ( date ) .
„
( signed )
AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that this requirement shall henceforth be
noted upon Appeal forms or in an attachment thereto ;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that such sketches or representations shall
be filed with and become a part of the Record on Appeal .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , the adjourned meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals
of November 10 , 1978 , was duly adjourned at 2 : 15 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .
r \
Peter K . Francese , C airman
Zoning Board of Appeals
-rte •�, .��.
AFFIDAVIT
Ica?
STATE OF NEW YORK )
SS
COUNTY - OF TOMPKINS )
RALPH IACOVELLI , being duly sworn , deposes . and says :
1 : That the - following information is true to the best
of his knowledge .
2 . Upon . information and belief " the following residences
on Kendall Avenue have apartments in the house . 137 , 141 , • 148 ,
159 , 165 , 174 , 178 and 180 .
3 . Also , the addresses of 126 . and 128 Kendall Avenue -
are listed in the 1978 City of Ithaca Directory as being " Students ' . .
The affiant has ' no personal knowledge or any information upon
which to form a belief - as to the correctness of that - information.
4 . The following addresses are believed by ' the affiant
to be used for single family residences without apartments: 103 ,
1099 1179 1361 1529 153 , 1669 168 and 177 .
5 . In summary , this information indicates that it is
reasonable to believe that eight ( 8 ) out of nineteen ( 19 ) of the
residences on Kendall Avenue have apartments in them as well as
being in use for the family that owns the property . Also , two (2 )
more of the nineteen ( 19 ) residences on Kendall Avenue may very
well be rented to students. This leaves nine ( 9 ) out of nineteen
( 19 ) residences on Kendall Avenue be used for single family
N ° o purposes only`.
CL
v ? RALPH IICOVELLI
m _a
E Sworn to before ' me _
Z this a2ri* day of ociAerZ 1978
nT RV PTTRT .T (
J
7
a LP N • ��� �/'�
D ti C
JCL
TL n
o r. r(3 •-
{� o0
s T �
I
f,,
� F 4
M1 h
r
fb
op
J
U f t+
fb ,
r
S Z+ �:6
m
w Ax.%.
co
VI
Za ^ + J ,
N ib
P �y
O Q C
ts
O -a-
z
\ i N
* e ^' of a Nib°
+ NO
\
n / / / \\
• t to /�/ I d \ \ \ \ �// ,r /� - .. . jo` .• _
I - - - Alp, ; - - - - - -
I I fa PIP
fw 1 I a • ♦ to
44 // • , a s' �'�s. . • ! \
464
Ipp
SP
s /i ♦ c • / � / t d40 •
. s ftwIIIo
,
e : r •
\ .r'hy 1'• r r �ofe
MOOa
two ^" " `
■ 4 8 I -- - / - k — e Qyi.1� y.�y: .• , I .f"rl. r` cA � . a d M ` Ilk" ` p .
IUi4.'y!'hK. P � . I ,I •_^_:: . ^'tW LJ.) f •.
»
NIP, 4A
Ab Tj
I I 60
a I J /
111111111110 411011111low
r -
Ios
IN ro
r1D \ \
I ? fit ai t I a sOl , a � � ' ' / f1
It
It
— ' _. _ —� e.�wi� / �. .+�•j / \ ,
pp /
1 41
A ( = N • a / /
VIRI
• � I � I t N; i , � ��N
• M a ^ a a . � ��77 N
q ` M •. l
fad
N .
1104
AN
ode
iiL
74
OU
It
+ + Ria- --- — ' � _ \ • .
� N I W \ ♦ M • p-
\ c
tISO
. ' +� s s A lb
. � .
-s
1 ' • ^t\ .�
t
t
i
I '
I1
_ y--� joe — Alo .YJ�C-fk�
CZ16
Mica otile 44o
/69
( 10I
1
- 27 1K e^20 16 l�af� .rac ' ' tib
� �S7
A40A,4
Ne
OT3 �
. I
I
b-y- - 3 ) J ,neo �a � l9• �r� /✓o .".ya�,wu,.r,� 26
-
41-33 *t4uwti �' .,.e�•." /OD X (?.o,
1 14
Y I �
160 W20)
II
C ( 37
4%*Y
• ARP
i ;
qyy
40o Z4 ,OOC4 jo"
x/z4>)
sy V3 o 4r /20
- - ' SY . 4� .. 38 _ � �- r�9w� d �c�►,�f,� - �, Asa x �°� _
(!t7
r -
D .�
V-44 3
C
is
4t(? 0
74
Aqp% dA"j
* Sy57:'(0 + i. - ta,7,�.� /sem X //7 J
RL(Iyrx§L
i
1.
Csa
� ' S - =/6 lam• ,���% t -115Y � AP
/1/o
5`17 . f�� �Ges �y`n x 12
/Los dACV
y
C IjI
/ 7a)
I