Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1984-10-25 '• TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 25 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Thursday , October 25 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 00 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan G . Reuning , Edward N . Austen , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Peter Krusius , Hoyt D . Benjamin , Rebecca Smith , James R . Stouffer , James M . McCune , Attorney Connie Fern Miller , Heidi Glen Miller , Attorney William Friedlander , Mark Metzger , Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 17 , 1984 and October 20 , 1984 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question , as appropriate , upon the Resident • Engineer of the New York State Department of Transportation , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon each of the appellants and / or agent , if any , on October 18 , 1984 . APPEAL OF JAMES R . STOUFFER , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING WITH A SIDE YARD OF LESS THAN 15 FEET AT 116 WINSTON DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 70 - 11 - 26 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 02 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Stouffer was present . Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by James R . Stouffer under date of October 8 , 1984 , as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission to extend a structure at 116 Winston Drive . . . The southeast bedroom is too small to accommodate members of the family . Additional closet space is also desperately needed for accommodating the growing family and visiting friends . It is necessary to provide accommodations in the near future for elderly parents . Extending the bedroom and adding more closet space as requested in the application for • building permit for a 6 foot by 16 foot area would fulfill these needs . QThe design and layout of this extended structure has been discussed with the following adjoining neighbors on Winston Zoning Board of Appeals 2 October 25 , 1984 • Drive . They have all given their approval and support for this project . TPeter and Eva Krusius , 114 Winston ; Richard and Pat Austic , 118 Winston ; Al and Betsie Sievers , 115 Winston ; Bruce and Pauline Halpern , 113 Winston . " It was noted that attached to the Appeal Form were two drawings , one being a plot plan of the Stouffer property including the proposed addition , and the other showing both the exact location of the addition in relation to the bedroom being extended and a side elevation view showing proposed roof line . Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter before the Board . Mr . Peter Krusius , 114 Winston Drive , spoke from the floor and stated that he basically supported the Appeal on one condition . Mr . Krusius stated that he had talked with Mr . Cartee and with a real estate agent and the condition is a guarantee that his property value will not decrease and that the addition be done in good taste . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Krusius ' condition was a matter for the County Assessment Department , adding that the Board of Appeals has no control over property values increasing or decreasing . Chairman Aron explained the proposal for the 6 ' x 16 ' extension to Mr . Krusius , pointing out that the problem is a side yard deficiency of 4 feet 10 inches because the proposed extension would result in a southerly side yard of 10 feet 2 inches rather • than the required 15 feet . Mr . Krusius expressed his concern that the extension be done in good taste . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Stouffer if he had anything more to add to his Appeal as read . Mr . Stouffer explained that his wife ' s parents are quite elderly and he anticipated that they will be coming to live with them very shortly . Mr . Stouffer stated that in looking at the size of the bedroom and its layout and in order to have a functional room , commenting that they investigated going out the back , it was clear that this proposal was the only possible way because they need to enter at this point . Mr . Stouffer stated that they will match the existing paint and roof line and landscaping so it will all tie right in . Mr . Stouffer stated that it was his belief that what he plans to do will increase the value of the property . Indicating on the plot plan before him , Mr . Austen asked if " this " room were accessible from the bedroom , to which Mr . Stouffer replied that it was not , adding that " it " was accessible only through the living room . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Stouffer why he did not expand to the rear of the house . Mr . Stouffer stated that in that case they would have to access through a small bedroom which is only a ten - foot wide room and they would not have a room of sufficient size as going the way they proposed so it would be a square . Mr . Austen asked if the wall was going to be removed , to which Mr . Stouffer replied , yes . Mr . Austen • commented that that would make the bedroom one larger room . Mr . Austen asked how near the house to the south is . Mr . Stouffer stated that it is presently 161211 , without the addition , from his Zoning Board of Appeals 3 October 25 , 1984 • house to the southerly lot line and then approximately 2014 " to the Krusius house on the south . Chairman Aron noted that the bedroom , with the extension , is going to be one single room and will be for the Stouffers ' parents . Mr . Stouffer stated that that was correct except they are his wife ' s parents . Chairman Aron asked how soon his wife ' s parents would be arriving . Mr . Stouffer stated that they would be coming in about ten days , commenting that temporarily they will be crowded . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Stouffer ' s wife ' s parents would be living with them permanently . Mr . Stouffer replied that they anticipated that they would be living with them permanently , adding that they are quite elderly . Chairman Aron noted that the variance requested is 4110 " . Chairman Aron stated , with respect to environmental review , that the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , had reported to the Board by letter dated October 25th , that matters such as the Stouffer Appeal are defined by Section 5 , # 1 , of Town of Ithaca Local Law No . 3 - 1980 , Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca , as Type II Actions , viz . , the construction or alteration of single or two family residences and accessory structures , etc . , being actions which have been statutorily determined as not to have a significant effect on the environment . Chairman Aron asked if there were any further questions from • the public . There were none . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing closed at 7 : 16 p . m . Mr . Austen commented that he thought he would like to see architectural drawings . Mr . Cartee asked if Mr . Austen were concerned about the side yard deficiency or the appearance of the 6 - foot addition . Mr . Cartee described the requirements of making application for building permit and noted that this is a single story extension . Mr . Cartee suggested that the Board might consider adjourning the Public Hearing until the November 14th meeting . Mr . Austen stated that he was satisfied . MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen : WHEREAS , appropriate notification of neighbors occurred and no one appeared in opposition with the exception of the next door neighbor who did not object to the requested variance as such , speaking to tasteful construction in such a manner that property values would not be decreased , it is RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance from the fifteen - foot side yard requirement of Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction of a six feet by 16 feet extension , southerly , to an existing single . family residence , creating a southerly side yard of ten • feet two inches , a variance , therefore , of four feet ten inches , at 116 Winston Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 70 - 11 - 26 . Zoning Board of Appeals 4 October 25 , 1984 • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Stouffer Appeal duly closed at 7 : 21 p . m . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM APRIL 18 , 1984 ) OF JAMES M „ McCUNE , APPELLANT , IN RE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE BY FOUR ( 4 ) UNRELATED PERSONS AT 326 STONE QUARRY ROAD . Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 22 p . m . and asked Mr . Cartee to speak to the status of the Appeal . Mr . McCune was present . Mr . Cartee reported that the residence is in compliance with the occupancy requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : • RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , that the matter of the Appeal of James M . McCune in re the occupancy of a single - family residence by four unrelated persons at 326 Stone Quarry Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 3 - 5 , be and hereby is dismissed , the matter being moot . There being no further discussi vote . on ,, the Chair called for a Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Aron thanked Mr . McCune for appearing and declared the matter of the McCune Appeal moot . APPEAL OF IVAN AND FLORENCE BURRIS , APPELLANTS , HOYT BENJAMIN , AGENT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING LEGAL NON- CONFORMING SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING WITH SIDE YARDS OF LESS THAN 15 FEET AT.. 1013 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 21 - 2 - 22 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . • Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7 : 28 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Zoning Board of Appeals 5 October 25 , 1984 • Benjamin was present as well as his attorney , William Friedlander . Each of the Board members had before him / her the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Hoyt D . Benjamin under date of October 18 , 1984 , and a copy of a Survey of the property of William S . & Grace B . Milks [ now two parcels , 6 - 21 - 2 - 22 and 6 - 21 - 2 - 20 , owned by Burris , and under Land Contract to Benjamin ] , as prepared by Carl Crandall , C . E . , dated June 30 , 1945 , filed August 17 , 1945 , together with a plot plan depicting the present buildings on both properties shown as one area and the proposed additions , and , a floor plan showing the existing house at 1013 Taughannock Blvd . [ 6 - 21 - 2 - 22 ] and proposed additions thereto . The Appeal reads as follows : " Having been denied a building permit to construct an addition to a legal non - conforming dwelling at 1013 Taughannock Blvd . . . . Existing dwelling was constructed 30 - 40 yrs . ago as a summer home & I have resided at this property for about six years . There is not adequate , comfortable living area . Main entrance to house is through my kitchen . Present living area is very small . With an addition I can make the existing living room into a bedroom . Two small bedrooms are presently located upstairs with a small bathroom located on the first floor . " Chairman Aron asked Mr . Benjamin if he had anything to add to what he submitted with his Appeal Form . Attorney William • Friedlander addressed the Board and stated that he was representing Mr . Benjamin in this matter . Mr . Friedlander stated that there were a number of things not stated on the Appeal Form which he felt the Board should consider in the process of making its . determination . Mr . Friedlander stated that the Board should consider favorably the Appeal because , among other things , the only bedrooms in the dwelling are upstairs , arevery small , and have very low ceilings - - too low for Mr . Benjamin to even walk around . Mr . Friedlander noted that Mr . Benjamin is a very big person . Mr . Friedlander stated that there is no " main " entrance to the residence ; the only way to enter is through the kitchen . Mr . Friedlander stated that there is only one bathroom which is very small and downstairs , whereas the bedrooms are upstairs , therefore , the dwelling is not really suitable for Mr . Benjamin and his fiancee , Ms . Rebecca Smith , who is now living in the house . Mr . Friedlander stated that the house is very old and Mr . Benjamin is seeking to improve it , to make it nicer , and described the entryway and the plans to redo the stairs , etc . , where the wood is rotten . Mr . Friedlander pointed out that the house has been there for many years and is a legal non - conforming use not meeting the 15 - foot side lot line requirements and the parcel is 50 ' x 1501 . Mr . Friedlander stated that he would point out that there is some animosity between Mr . Benjamin and his neighbor , the Millers , and noted that Ms . Miller was present . Mr . Friedlander suggested that this should not enter into the considerations of the Board , adding that the matter should be • judged on its merits . Chairman Aron stated that the Board was not interested in hearing about animosities . Continuing , Mr . • Zoning Board of Appeals 6 October 25 , 1984 • Friedlander stated that the existing living room is only 13 ' x 14 ' , commenting that that is not a lot of room for these two people to move around in , and adding that Ms . Smith is quite tall also . Mr . Friedlander stated that since the house is non- conforming , existing prior to Town zoning , it would be virtually impossible to move the house around on the lot to make it fit the present side yard requirements , so the owner is basically stuck . Mr . Friedlander stated that Mr . Benjamin ' s only other resource is to turn the house into rental property , adding that his hardship is that he cannot move the house . Mr . Friedlander pointed out that Mr . Benjamin also owns the property next door to the north , 1015 Taughannock Blvd . , also on land contract , commenting that there are two separate parcels involved in his purchase . Mr . Friedlander having concluded his presentation , Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter before the Board . Ms . Connie Fern Miller , 113 East 6th Street , Watkins Glen , attorney for Carl W . and Mildred C . Miller , 1031 Taughannock Blvd . , spoke from the floor , and stated that she was attorney for Mr , and Mrs . Miller and also their daughter . Ms . Miller stated that the Appeal Form submitted by Mr . Benjamin , a copy of which she had been given , says that the existing dwelling was • constructed about 30 - 40 years ago , however , she has lived there all her life and knew the Milks very well . Ms . Miller stated that that dwelling was not a summer residence ; the Milks lived there and raised two children there . Ms . Miller stated that she did not know about the Town tax map as to two parcels , but she did know that there is one driveway , one access , to 1013 and 1015 . Ms . Miller stated that the barn on the property [ 1013 ] was illegally converted to residences by the previous owner , Burris . Ms . Miller stated that she assumed Burris has some interest in the properties , adding that , perhaps , a land contract is involved . Ms . Miller stated that the barn was occupied until 1978 . Ms . Miller stated that 1015 Taughannock Blvd , has had some changes made in it such as an exterior porch being enclosed and , she believed , that was done without a building permit . With respect to the house itself , Ms . Miller stated that she has been in it , not recently , but she did know Sandy and Judy Milks very well , the Milks ' children . Ms . Miller described the laving room and another part to the living room . Ms . Miller described a heated porch . Ms . Miller stated that it is crowded enough there now . Ms . Miller stated that there has been an occupancy problem and described problems with a shop in the barn . Ms . Miller stated that she was concerned with increased occupancy with the additional bedrooms . Ms . Miller spoke of a cliff near the house also . With respect to animosity , Ms . Miller stated that she did not think the animosity would have been generated if Mr . Burris had not changed the shop building into a residence illegally and • then Mr . Benjamin with too many occupants . Ms . Miller stated that she thought there were too many problems to increase the size of this house , adding that if it is too small for him he Zoning Board of Appeals 7 October 25 , 1984 • could live in the house next door . Ms . Miller expressed her concern that the Lake Shore properties were becoming more and more of a " College Town " . Mr . Cartee stated that he would like to speak to the matter of the garage , or barn , or shop , whichever you want to call it . Mr . Cartee stated that that structure is not occupied nor has it been occupied as a living area since his coming to the Town as Building Inspector five years ago . Mr . Cartee stated that he did not know what happened when Mr . Burris lived in the property , however , he did know that during the past five years is has not been occupied as a residence . Continuing , Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Burris is not here tonight because there is a transaction going on between Mr . Burris and Mr . Benjamin , however , he is well aware of the meeting and has nothing to add to the situation . Mr . Friedlander stated that he has asked Mr . Benjamin about the so - called illegal building and its occupancy and he [ Benjamin ) said that it is empty . Chairman Aron asked if there were any bedrooms downstairs . Mr . Friedlander stated that the heated porch is not a bedroom and is not used as a bedroom now . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Benjamin has lived in this house for six years . Mr . Benjamin stated that that was correct , adding that that is how long he has • had the property under a land contract . Chairman Aron noted that the present house is 878 square feet and the addition , including the deck area , is 832 square feet , and stated that if his calculations were correct the request is to almost double the present square footage . Mr . Benjamin replied that he thought the calculations missed that the only addition to the house is an area off the unheated porch . Mr . Benjamin stated that that existing unheated porch is 9 ' x 17 ' and will become 18 ' x 2510, adding that the other changes are decks only . Mr . Benjamin stated that he is asking for the deck because he is right near the cliff , commenting that if he put in a pad he would not need a variance . Mr . Cartee cia. rifed the " additons " , stating that the living addition is 297 sq , ft . and the total deck area to be added including the entrance deck is 382 sq . ft . Mr . Benjamin stated that with this addition he is trying to keep the natural roof line of the house , adding that the proposed deck is to be on the same level , and commenting that the yard at that particular point is about 4 ' lower than that . Mr . Benjamin commented that if the amount of area bothers the Board , he would point out that the deck is just simply a pad to go along with this improvement because of the terrain where he lives . Mr . Benjamin stated that the Board could see from a map which he had with him and which he displayed for the Board , how there is no level property because of the terrain a long way down , adding that he has a lot of area but on a level he only has is a small area right around this house and , therefore , he has to crowd in any addition . to his place where they can be done on this level . Mr . Benjamin stated that it is a very small place to come Zoning Board of Appeals 8 October 25 , 1984 • home to , adding that he cannot rent it . Mr . Benjamin stated that he is asking the Board to approve this , commenting that it will cost him a lot of money . Mr . Benjamin stated that he wants to live there with his fiancee and have a nice home , adding that the property to the north has been unkempt for five years . Chairman Aron stated that he hoped Mr . Benjamin understood that his questions were exploratory , and added that Mr . Benjamin had said that he had lived in this house for six years and that he is tall and the ceilings are low . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Benjamin had put up with this for six years . Mr . Benjamin stated that , yes , he had , and added that Mr . Cartee has been in the house and he could tell the Board that what he has told the Board is true . Mr . Benjamin commented that the house was really not designed very well . Chairman Aron noted again that Mr . Benjamin had bought the house that way . Mr . Benjamin stated that he did , adding that he did not really think about what he would be thinking about in six years . Mrs . Reuning stated that she would feel more comfortable if she could go out and visit the site . Mr . Austen stated that he would like to look at it too . Chairman Aron stated that he thought it only fair to come and look at it at at Mr . Benjamin ' s convenience . Mr . Benjamin stated that that would be wonderful . Mr . Friedlander expressed his concern about the advancing time • into November when construction could be very difficult and asked if the Board could reserve its decision pending the tour of the property . Mr . Cartee commented that he thought what the appellant was asking was if the Board could make an inspection and decision prior to the November 14th meeting inasmuch as well into November is a difficult time for construction to commence . Chairman Aron stated that he agreed with Mr . Cartee about the problem of construction , however , the Board is trying to make a proper decision . Mr . Cartee stated that he was speaking of an adjourned meeting time and was not implying anything other than a proper decision . MOTION by Mr . Edward Austen , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the matter of the Appeal of Ivan and Florence Burris , Appellant , Hoyt Benjamin , Agent , be and hereby is adjourned until November 14 , 1984 , at 7 : 00 p . m . in order that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals members may visit the site with Mr . Benjamin . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen . Nay - None . • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Zoning Board of Appeals 9 October 25 , 1984 • After discussion with Mr . Benjamin , it was agreed that the Board members and the Secretary would visit Mr . Benjamin ' s property on Thursday , November 1 , at 11 : 00 a . m . ; the Secretary was directed to notify Messrs . King and Hewett of this site visit also . Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Burris / Benjamin Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 15 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Aron declared the October 25 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8 : 17 p . m . Respectfully submitted ; Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Henry Aron , Chairman . •