Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-06-29 I \ / 4 FILED V TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 29 ; 1988 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on June 29 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT . Vice - Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Eva Hoffmann , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO PRESENT : Roger Sayre , Carolyn Richter , Katherine Gray , Duane Gray , Sybil Phillips , John Izzo , Kathy Izzo , Judy Scherer , Shirley Valenza , Betsy Darlington , Janet Jonson , Ken Horowitz , Barbara Simmons Horowitz , A . Jillian Gallagher , Daniel Schaaf , John G . Whitcomb , Debbie Munch , Om Gupta , Frank A . Bettucci . The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m . Vice - Chairman Austen stated that all posting and publication of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . Photographs of the subject properties were passed around for the Board to review . i The first item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from May 11 , 1988 ) of Ivar and Janet Jonson , Appellants , requesting the authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of a second dwelling unit to be attached to an existing legal non - conforming single- family dwelling at 934 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 18 - 5 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposed addition is to be located on an abutting legal non - conforming vacant lot , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 18 - 5 - 9 , which is to be consolidated with said Parcel No . 6 - 18 - 5 - 10 . The request is made under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance whereby no non- conforming building may be extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals . Janet Jonson addressed the Board stating that shehad brought the material that . Chairman Aron had requested . She spread it out for the Board to review . Mrs . Jonson said that she also had the demolition permit from the City of Ithaca . Vice - Chairman Austen asked if this had been prior to when the Town of Ithaca took over that property--. and Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct . Mr . King inquired when this permit was issued and Mrs . I \ I. 2 Jonson responded it was March 24 , 1987 . Mr . King noted it expired April 24 . Mr . King inquired if Mrs . Jonson had demolished and removed the building within that period and Mrs . Jonson responded she had . Mr . King inquired what the reason for the demolition was and Mrs . Jonson responded they had a fire there earlier and when the City fire chief came down and inspected it he sent the building inspector down who reported that they had to do a lot of .work . However , she said , once they got involved in this work they saw that it was not feasible to renovate the property as there was no foundation left at all , the rafters were gone , and the roof was caving in , so they then went for the demolition permit . Mr . King inquired if they had started to renovate and Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct . Mr . King inquired if they had a building permit from the City for that and Mrs . Jonson responded that they did . Mr . King inquired . when that permit was issued and Mrs . Jonson responded it was probably in the Fall of 1986 . Mr . King inquired if the proposed addition was shown on the survey submitted and Mrs . Jonson responded that it was and indicated where it was . The survey was studied to determine what the dimensions were . Vice- Chairman Austen inquired if the addition was to be • attached to the existing residence and Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct . He asked if there would be a fire wall and Mrs . Jonson replied there would be . Mr . King asked if some of the addition would be on the existing lot and Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct . He asked if her proposal was to extend from the existing house northerly with an extension of 18 - 1/ 2 feet to the north and about 30 feet in width with a 6 foot deck in front and Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct . Mr . King inquired if this was a one or two story addition and Mrs . Jonson responded it would be two stories , with the bedrooms upstairs . Mr . King asked if this was to replace what was a one - story structure previously and Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct . Mr . King inquired how close to the north line she would come and Mr . Austen stated it would be 2 . 3 feet of the lot line and Mrs . Jonson concurred . Mr . King said then that she would have a side yard of 2 . 3 feet at the northwesterly corner of the building and at the northeast corner it looked as though it would be about 4 feet . Mr . King asked what the original footprint of the destroyed building was and Mrs . Jonson indicated on the documents how it had been set up prior to the demolition . Mr . King said this indicated that previously she had an 11 inch clearance between that original building and the north property line . Mrs . Jonson said this was . correct because there was never that much space there . Mr . King said that now there would be about 2 feet 3 inch clearance to the • closest part . He continued that the northwesterly part of the original building appeared to have been about 6 feet south of the • 3 . north property line where now Mrs . Jonson was proposing to put a building that was 2 . 3 feet at that point so she would be further . south from the north property line at the east end of the proposed building but she was closer by 4 feet at the west end . Mrs . Jonson stated it was not meant to be that way as the surveyor rushed it through the day before . Mr . King inquired if Mrs . Jonson was saying she would not build it that close and Mrs . Jonson responded that they would not build it any closer than what they had there . Mr . King said that that was the old building and Mrs . Jonson said it did not seem like they would have to build any closer because they were getting two more feet from their other property . The public hearing was opened . Shirley Valenza of 938 East Shore Drive stated she also owned 936 A East Shore Drive which was directly to the north of the Jonsons . Mrs . Valenza thought the tranquil beauty of the lakeshore was a blessing not to be taken lightly and in this modern day one knows the congestion of human life along the lake , the pollution of the lake , and the fragility of animal and bird life in and about the lake . Mrs . Valenza felt that no building at all should be allowed to fill the _tiny space especially when the building to which it might be attached intrudes on its south • on a right of way owned by many neighbors , on its east on railroad property , has only one foot of land to the north ( combined with the 20 . 3 that it now has - 21 . 3 feet ) , and on the west on ground filled in by the lake . She continued that if it were possible at all to allow any filling of the shore with construction the structure would have to be what it was before , an 11 foot wide single story building . Mrs . Valenza stated that too much was known today about the environment and fire safety to want to replace that today and of course that was impossible since it was no longer grandfathered . She continued that that was not all that Janet and Ivar Jonson had asked - they had asked to replace an 11 foot wide single story structure with one 18 foot wide plus double the square footage with a second story , plus if they followed the format for their own building , a third story , or estimated , another half story . In other words , she stated , they wanted to triple the square footage . She said that at present the Jonsons appeared to be filling on the west towards the lake by enlarging a tiny balcony , roofing it over , and , it appeared , getting ready to stud it up into a room . She felt that perhaps that was another problem but she thought that the intent was very clear . Mrs . Valenza stated that if the variance were approved there would be damage to the lakefront view , less open space , more crowding , more pollution , more traffic , and worst of all , a fire hazard , which she very much feared since the Jonsons have had two fire collapse claims in the relatively short time they had lived there . She continued that the neighbors had been • proud of no fire claims at all in the last fifteen years excluding her own loss of some ceiling tiles Christmas Eve when 4 • she had the house full of candles but there was no claim and no great damage . Mrs . Valenza said that in this vulnerable neighborhood any legal 15 foot side yard spaces should in no way allowed to be lessened . Moreover , she said , it would establish a precedent by which others might want to fill their spaces too . Mrs . Valenza said that the Jonsons " own building may not be properly zoned itself and she noticed from Ivar ' s original petition for zoning when he made the tiny cottage into the gigantic structure it was today his words were : " The lot size is too small for the building that is on now . " Mrs . Valenza also stated that the Board of Health had reported no work on the septic system as far back as their records go , yet Mr . Jonson had added much extra living space and plumbing . Each year , she said , she saw a hole melted in the ice which was suspect of warm effluvia being . deposited in the lake . Mrs . Valenza said that aside from all of the above mentioned considerations there was no case for hardship . She felt if anyone had a hardship it would be her for it would be difficult to rent to tenants seeing a building so close with such a danger of fire and with a view so curtailed . She found that there was nothing to commend adding a rental unit to a place where everything in the environment spoke against it . • In the last meeting , Mrs . Valenza said , a few remarks were made that she wanted to set straight . Janet Jonson said there was no trouble with the parking situation . Mrs . Valenza had taken a picture of the parking on a recent weekend . She said the space near her was completely filled and the far north where there was a bit more parking , shared by other neighbors , was also pretty well filled . Mrs . Valenza said she had a letter from her mother which she would present to the Board later about how much noise her mother found on the lake , the sounds of parties , and radios intensified seemingly over the water . Her mother was against the firecrackers which came much too close to their houses and which made a great deal of stress for people with heart impairments . Mrs . Valenza said that her mother also felt that they never knew when they went out whether they would be able to find a parking place when they returned . This indeed she felt was a problem for everyone and did not see how they could handle it if more cars had to be parked there . Mrs . Valenza also had pictures of the Jonsons ' waste materials , some of which had been there since Memorial Day weekend , such as boards with nails on them that ducks came up on the shore and walked on and asphalt tiles from their roofing project . She said this was not a pretty sight and not one that considered the environment . • Mrs . Valenza pointed out her willingness to get along with the Jonsons by citing an incident when she had been collecting 5 materials to take care of water when it splashed under the cottage that she rented since she had no seawall . The materials included some railroad ties which Mr . Jonson had made into very lovely steps for himself and she had some telephone poles which he cut up and painted and used for his fence , which fence also cut her off from the right of way in which she shared ownership . Mrs . Valenza said also that Mr . Jonson used some flagstones that belonged to her to make his walk with . Mrs . Valenza stated that she had never complained about these things but accepted them as a neighborly gesture in trying to get along . Mrs . Valenza stated that she had a different impression of the cottage the Jonsons had bought and also had a State Police Fire Department investigation which showed that the fire that was in their cottage was of suspicious origin . Questionable in her mind , she said , was the cottage falling down in the middle of a bad rainstorm . In fact , she said , many things in Mr . Jonson ' s record with the City make very interesting and skeptical reading . Mr . King felt Mrs . Valenza might be getting far afield since the Board was considering only one particular proposal on a zoning basis . Mrs . Valenza said she would like to tie in what she was saying with the fact that Mr . Jonson ' s own house might be in violation . She said the last thing the City said was that the Town would have this and the next thing to that was to refer these problems to the City Attorney , Mr . King asked how long Mrs . Valenza had lived in this neighborhood and she responded she had lived there 20 years . Mr . King asked if she owned the property immediately adjacent north of the vacant lot and Mrs . Valenza responded she did . Mr . King inquired if she owned property to the east and Mrs . Valenza responded she did not , that more north of that was her own home . Mr . King referred to what Mrs . Valenza had said about the Jonsons ' present home at 934 East Shore Drive being larger than the original building which was on that lot and asked if that was correct . Mrs . Valenza said that the neighbors referred to it as a three - story building and it looked it and in fact from the park it looked like a hotel . Mr . King asked if she remembered the original building on that lot and Mrs . Valenza responded she did . Mr . King asked her to describe it . Mrs . Valenza said it was a one - story building which had been illegally made into four bedrooms , the size of which were large enough to accommodate a mattress and that was all . Part of that building , she said , was also a porch . Mr . Frost asked if perhaps the building she was describing was similar to the one in one of the photographs ( house adjacent • to the vacant lot now ) . Mrs . Valenza said it did not look like 6 ® that . Mr . King asked if the original building was a one - story boathouse and Mrs . Valenza said she believed that all five of the structures in that area were once boathouses . Mr . King said that was the indication they had on the map . Mrs . Hoffmann inquired if they were all one - story and Mrs . Valenza said that was correct . Vice - Chairman Austen inquired when they were made into residences and Mrs . Valenza responded it was many years ago , that a Don Weir , who owned the house formerly owned by Edith Beasley , could give more information in this regard . Vice - Chairman Austen asked Mrs . Valenza about the letter from her mother . Mrs . Valenza said she had several letters she would get to the Board for the record . Mr . King inquired about what Mrs . Valenza had said about the Jonsons enclosing a porch on their existing building and asked if that was what she was depicting in her one photograph . Mrs . Valenza said that was correct and said she thought you could see the other balcony far back but if not she had other pictures which showed two tiny balconies . Mrs . Valenza asked for time to go through her notes and see what other points she wished to make and also wanted to make sure ® she had rebuttal time since the last time Mrs . Jonson had stated there were no old ladies living in the area and also that she did not have a survey while Mrs . Valenza had in fact a copy of Mrs . Jonson ' s survey done in 1985 . Mr . King said that that survey was submitted by the Jonsons and Mrs . Valenza said that was not so at the last meeting , that Mrs . Jonson had said there was no survey . Vice - Chairman Austen asked where Mrs . Valenza parked and she responded that they owned a mutual right of way with stairs going up to the street and they all parked on the shoulder of Route 34 . Vice - Chairman Austen inquired if there was parking down by the railroad tracks and Mrs . Valenza responded that there was no access down there , that Mr . Jonson had used the railroad as an access , had torn up a neighbor ' s asphalt and never came back to repair the damage . Om Gupta of 112 Grandview Courts , stated he was not a neighbor yet but was planning on buying property in the area at 940 East Shore Drive directly next door to the Valenza property . Mr . Gupta said he was not familiar with all the issues involved in this matter but had one concern and that was the parking in that area . He said that people park on the shoulders of the highway in a 40 mile speed zone where trucks and other cars come by at high speeds . He continued that to get in and out of the area there was very little room and with more cars parked there ® it would create an even more dangerous situation . Another concern Mr . Gupta had , although he did not know if this was the , ,..,,. , 7 proper time for it , was to urge the Board to consider changing that speed zone from 40 to 30 miles an hour up to the sailboat rental place . Vice -Chairman Austen said the Board did not have the authority to change the speed zone although they had recommended in past times to reduce the speed zone and it had been considered by the State . John Izzo of 936 East Shore Drive stated he was a relative of one of the owners of property in the area in question . Mr . Izzo stated he represented his aunt , Esther O ' Neil , who owned 932 , 936 , and 938 East Shore Drive . Mr . Izzo had the following concerns . ( a ) As to construction , he was not well versed in the zoning laws for this area and wondered if it was legal , without a variance , for the Jonsons to build a house on the property in question . In response to this , Attorney Barney said that that was why the Jonsons were there , to enlarge a non- conforming use . ( b ) The zoning laws required that building progress within one year of demolition and he did not believe that item was satisfied . ( c ) He was concerned that the original building was a boathouse that was converted to a cottage that may explain some of the congestion for the area--- in that when these buildings were built they were not considered to be dwellings but were converted to dwellings and that has contributed to the congestion in this area . ( d ) From a tax map that he had obtained , the lot size on this tax map for the lot the Jonsons desired to build on , indicated that it was 21 foot wide - and 31 foot long . One way he viewed this was that it was 2 - 1/ 3 parking spaces wide . He personally did not believe that that was suitable space to build a dwelling in an already congested area . ( e ) Mr . Izzo wondered how the Jonsons would gain access for equipment for the actual construction , such as backhoes , bulldozers and cement mixers . At this time the only access he was aware of was a right of way that consisted of a set of wooden steps leading to the property . Mr . Izzo was concerned about getting this equipment to the property and the removal of debris during the construction process . ( f ) If any property damage occurred due to the Jonson construction Mr . Izzo wondered if the neighbors would be properly reimbursed or their property brought back to its original state . • ( g ) In an newspaper article dated January 26 , 1971 8 • concerning a fire in the area , it specifically stated that the reason why there were two houses on fire was because one of them caught on fire and spread to the second house due to being so close . Mr . Izzo felt this was significant in that there were a series of houses in this area and there was a potential if there was a fire to have more than one house involved . In his estimation , most of the houses in the area seem to be 5 to 10 feet apart at this time . The article stated that the two houses in question were actually 4 feet apart . ( h ) As to the parking situation by his estimation there were nine public parking spots adjacent to the road where people park on the shoulder . There were also three private spots belonging to Esther O ' Neil who had material backfilled into this area and received permission from the State to do this and presently paid taxes on these areas . Even though he referred to these spots as private they were used by the neighbors in the area and as of right now they had no objection to the neighbors% using them . Vice - Chairman Austen asked how many residents used this parking area and Mr . Izzo responded on the east side of the road , not including the one house on the west side of the road , there were nine livable houses in this area on the west side of the road , although they are not being used right now . ( i ) Mr . Izzo was concerned about the traffic accidents in this area and considered this a relatively dangerous area for people pulling in and out . Mr . Izzo went to the Tompkins County Sheriff ' s Department and also contacted the State Police . He learned that in a three -tenths of a mile area , from Route 13 to the sewage treatment plant which encompassed a portion of the area that was being dealt with now , since 1984 to 1987 there had been nine accidents , in two of which people have gone over embankments , in one of them , one person' had run into a car , and that car in turn hit another one and the third car ran into one of his aunt ' s places and knocked it off its foundation although the building was still livable right now . The State Police reported one accident in 1981 . He felt the Jonsons should consider their neighbors in building this house . ( j ) Mr . Izzo referred to two pictures taken of the area as itoriginally was and and how it was now and wanted to point out the view that was enjoyed at one time from 932 East Shore Drive . He said he presently lived at 936 and felt that if another building was built that was any larger than the original one - story building that was there before that would significantly block the view from another property that his aunt owned . The dimensions and height of the proposed addition were discussed . 9 • ( k ) Mr . Izzo had one more general comment . He was sure the Jonsons were doing what they could to stay within the law but Dust because the law states that something can be done he personally did not believe it should be done . He said that because there once was a cottage there did not mean another building should be built there . He felt that a building being built there would impact the neighborhood adversely . Betsy Darlington of 204 Fairmount Avenue , Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council addressed the Board . She stated she was not representing the Advisory Council but felt she should mention she was the Chair of that organization . Ms . Darlington read from a document entitled " Statement from Betsy Darlington , 204 Fairmount Ave . , Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council , June 28 , 1988 " . Attached hereto_ as Exhibit 1 is a copy of such document . Vice - Chairman Austen asked Mrs . Jonson if she had anything further to add and Mrs . Jonson responded that it might not have anything to do with this matter but the trusses had been there ever since they built the house . Mr . King inquired if she was speaking of the porch addition to her home on the lake side . Mrs . Jonson said that they extended into the house six feet and she wanted to put screens off the bedroom . She went to Mr . Frost • to inquire if she needed a building permit and he told her she did not because all she was doing was screening . in the area . Mrs . Jonson wanted the neighbors to know that . Mr . King inquired if Mrs . Jonson had built an addition on top of the existing structure at 934 East Shore Drive . Mrs . Jonson responded that was correct , that the foundation was the same and there was no change at all . Mr . King inquired if they had extended an additional story high . Mrs . Jonson responded it was not three stories , that there was a TV and loft arrangement in the peak and that was where people got the idea that it was three stories high . She added that their bedrooms were on the second floor . Mr . King wondered if Mrs . Jonson cared to comment on the observation that in the winter there was an existing hole in the ice . Mrs . Jonson said if there was she was not aware of it . Mr . King asked if she had a septic holding tank and Mrs . Jonson responded they had two holding tanks . Mr . King inquired if they had a tile field and Mrs . Jonson responded she was not sure , but she was sure they had two holding tanks and also wondered where Mrs . Valenza got her information as she did not go to the Health Department to have them pumped . Mrs . Hoffmann inquired if Mrs . Jonson had two lots or were they consolidated into one lot and Mrs . Jonson responded they • were going to be consolidated . Mrs . Jonson . said that the home . they were living in was previously a two - apartment dwelling but 10 • they had turned it into a single family home . Joan Reuning wanted to make clear in her mind the matter of rebuilding within one year . - She wondered if that was because of the changeover from the City to the Town . Mr . Frost stated he had checked with County Assessment and ascertained that annexation occurred in March of 1987 so Mrs . Jonson ' s property became Town property on that date . He continued that what Mrs . Reuning was suggesting was that , according to the Zoning Ordinance , if there was an abandonment of a non - conforming use for more than one year , then it was no longer valid . Mr . Frost read from Section 53 of the Zoning Ordinance which stated that when a non- conforming use had been abandoned for a period of at least one year , it shall not thereafter be established and the future use shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Ordinance . Mr . Frost stated there is still a question whether the use was non- conforming or the lot was non- conforming . Attorney Barney called attention to another provision of the Zoning Ordinance , Section 57 , and stated it would appear that you could build on a non -conforming lot as long as you complied with the other requirements . Mrs . Hoffmann said that Section 57 stated that " Other provisions of this ordinance notwithstanding , nothing shall prohibit the use for a single family dwelling . . . " and that was why she was asking if it was going to be one lot because if you build an addition on one lot it will be a two - family dwelling and Section 57 speaks of single family homes . Attorney Barney said the question was whether they build a house on a 20 foot lot that was somehow out of character with the other houses in the neighborhood . Mrs . Hoffmann asked how you could build an addition on to a house and consider it a separate house . Attorney Barney said the survey showed two separate lots at the moment and the vacant 20 foot lot is a non-conforming lot under the ordinance , and assuming a variance was obtained for the side yards , it. would be allowed but the Jonsons would rather put an addition to their home and combine the two lots into one . Mr . King said that maybe the Town Attorney had an opinion as to whether a structure could legally be replaced at this point on this lot under the ordinance without a variance . Attorney Barney responded that the answer was no for two • reasons , first , more than one year has elapsed since there was a fire , and second , it was not the use it was before . He continued __ . . ...r ., rnn.a....:,an rr :�.- .....,w. • ...e, « , ,. . .. .. . . . . : rr.: .. . . + . ., . V It . .. - • 11 that this appeal was viewed as an application for an enlargement of a non- conforming use . Attorney Barney stated there was no right to construct and if they were going to restore the house they would have to get a variance for the setback requirements . Mrs . Hoffmann stated that it was clear that the building could not be put up again because the use as a residential use of the lot disappeared when the building was taken down , so it seemed that one cannot give permission to have the house rebuilt because obviously the intent of Article 12 was to eventually get rid of the non- conforming uses . Mr . Frost asked what the legal use of the land was and Attorney Barney responded it was residential . Mr . Frost stated that if Mrs . Jonson were to build a separate structure on the vacant parcel seeking variances , that would be legal . He further . stated the use seemed legal and was not a question of a non- conforming use . Mr . Frost said that the Zoning Ordinance seeking to get rid of non -conforming uses would seem to want to get rid of for example , a gas station or restaurant that had been fifty years in a residential zone . Mrs . Hoffmann said that when you have a building on a lot • that was too small under the current Zoning Ordinance and then it was not there any more , especially if was not rebuilt in a year , then you are trying to get the houses on legal size lots . Attorney Barney said another problem was the taking and that if a person has a piece of property , could the Town prohibit that person from ever using that property for anything else again ? Mrs . Hoffmann cited Section 55 dealing with changes , and Attorney Barney said that that was why there was a Zoning Board of Appeals - to either allow the use to be enlarged or allow a non- conforming use to be constructed with a variance for the setback requirements . Mrs . Reuning asked what would prohibit Mrs . Jonson from adding on a low , small addition on that lot as long as she kept the height down and kept her distances . Mr . King said the question would be would it be worth it to add six feet of one - story structure and added that if it was the intention not to intensify a non - conforming use , the Board could limit it to a one - story as was there before . Mrs . Valenza presented documents for the record as to the Jonson appeal when they originally built their home . They are as follows : • Appeal to the City of Ithaca attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . 12 • Letter from Edith Beasley to Thomas Hoard dated July 15 , 1980 , attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Letter from Edith Beasley to Thomas Hoard dated June 30 , 1980 , attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Mrs . Valenza stated she did not think the Jonson home was constructed as was asked for in the application . Mrs . Jonson said that they were inspected by the City to make sure it was done as requested and they had obtained all necessary building permits . Mr . King made a motion as follows . WHEREAS , the Board finds as follows : 1 . The proposed development would further intensify the density of an already intensified area . 2 . The property is not readily accessible for fire protection and this proposal would create an even greater fire hazard . • 3 . The proposal was to replace a former one - story building with a two - story addition on the house to the south which would give a foot or two on the north but would be a more intense use , would increase living space and would impact on the parking situation which is already very limited along a state highway . 4 . The proposal would constitute a very negative impact on the environment and on the amenities , the views , the safety and welfare of the people in the neighborhood including even , the Jonsons . 5 . The Board might view more favorably a proposal for a one - story house on this limited lot which would provide more side yard to the north than the proposal now presented , and one that would be similar-- to when the boathouse was on the property , and it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board denies the extension of the existing building into this non- conforming lot as proposed at this time without prejudice ' to the applicant to submit a different proposal at a later time . Eva Hoffmann seconded the motion . • The voting was as follows . _. . _ .. ._. ... ... . . _.. .. _ . .. _ ...: . . ,.,;... . .:.:uerrvi .e•'. w ,. r .yr,r. mama. w . a h.:rarr - ., i . . . .. .rrvnywrrs mV l H T.w..n.e. . _................:.n. .r 1•. q T* r.i . .\ . Il r51 . ..• :. .ri •. .. . . . . • 13 Aye - Reuning , King , Austen , .Hoffmann Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Mrs . Jonson inquired what she would have to do to build a structure similar to what was on the lot before and Mr . King replied she would need to submit an application for a variance with plans for the particular structure she wished to build . Mrs . Hoffmann reminded the Board that the year was up in which Mrs . Jonson could rebuild . Mrs . Jonson said she had been in contact with Mr . Noel Desch while the annexation process was going on and it was not that she had not tried to rebuild before the year was up . She stated further she had gone to see Mr . Frost in April and could not get on the agenda until May . Vice - Chairman Austen advised Mrs . Jonson to get together with Mr . Frost to come up with some other plan for this lot . The second matter on the agenda was as follows : • APPEAL of Opal W . Sprague , Appellant , Sybil S . Phillips , Agent , requesting variance of Article V , Section 23 , Paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280 - a of New York State Town Law , for a 2 ± acre parcel proposed to be subdivided from an 8 . 82± acre parcel located at 817 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 12 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said 2± acre parcel is proposed to have 75 feet of road frontage , 150 feet of road frontage being required . Vice - Chairman Austen read from the Sprague appeal , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . Sybil Phillips , representing Opal Sprague , addressed the Board . She advised that this was the most practical access driveway in that it was flat and that if they went on the opposite side they would get 45 feet of sloping land and although they would have 150 feet of road frontage , only 45 feet would have access to Elmira Road , Route 13 . She said this would put a wedge shaped piece for access to that property and would divide the main piece that would remain in Mrs . Sprague ' s name into two pieces . Ms . Phillips stated that in 1956 when the Spragues bought the property the driveway space was being used as a farm driveway by the owner that lived there . • Mr . King inquired if she was referring to the 75 foot strip on the south and Ms . Phillips responded that was correct . 14 Mr . King inquired if there was any kind of driveway there now and Ms . Phillips responded there was grass but Mrs . Sprague had used it as a driveway to get to a garden they had there for many years but she had no reason to use it now . Mr . Frost asked Ms . Phillips to indicate on the pictures the area in question which she did . Vice - Chairman Austen inquired about the creek and Ms . Phillips responded the only creek on the property was on the other side of the house where there was 45 feet of sloping area , and on the other side there was a culvert onto the highway and a creek that went through the undeveloped property . Mrs . Hoffmann stated that according to the map there seemed to be another road or right of way and Ms . Phillips stated that that was just a 22 foot additional piece tacked on to the property in question , and that the original piece had a common driveway and this was to eliminate the common driveway . Vice - Chairman Austen asked if this land had otherwise no access to it in the back and Ms . Phillips responded that the only other way would be before the culvert where there was a sloping • area about 45 feet wide but the rest is gorge . Mrs . Reuning asked if -he . property next door was on the market for sale and Ms . Phillips responded that she had heard it was sold to realtors . She thought Bob Miller bought part of it but she did not think it extended behind the piece being discussed . Mr . King said that the survey indicated the Brink property was behind the proposed lot . Ms . Phillips said that it was his at the time the original map was done but did not know who owned it now . Vice - Chairman Austen read a resolution from the Town Planning Board entitled "ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR , Opal W . Sprague Two - Lot Subdivision , 817 Elmira Road , Planning Board , May 17 , 1988 . " A copy of said document is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared and the public hearing was closed . Vice - Chairman Austen declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter . • A document entitled " PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Sprague Subdivision " , dated May 12 , 1988 , Reviewer : . . _ . . . .. .. . . .. .... : . n - . ..yip .n.ai.'r 'amYOSS:rynY.v:...::-n9 q:. N'..ra .,:. -.::.nc.c 1".i.., ..;. .. .. ..a•Jn.:::. i r- , . .r - ..•: -.. •... : .. .... .. . : 15 • Susan C . Beeners , was read by Vice - Chairman Austen . A copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 7 . A motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of environmental significance . Edward King seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Aye - Reuning , King , Austen , Hoffmann Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . Edward King made a motion as follows : WHEREAS , the Planning Board has approved the subdivision and the environmental impact determination was negative ; and WHEREAS , the subdivision is proposed to be a strip 75 feet wide which would seem to provide adequate access as the Town • highway is only 66 feet wide , and WHEREAS , the surveyor has shown this parcel to be a total of two . acres inclusive of the 75 foot by 410 foot access strip , and the building lot itself in the back on the east comes out to about 55 , 000 square feet versus only 30 , 000 square feet normally required if the lot were right on the highway , and WHEREAS , no one appeared in opposition to this proposal , it is therefore , RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance to Opal Sprague from the requirements of Section . 23 ( 2 ) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the subdivision of this parcel as it has been approved conditionally by the Planning Board , specifically waiving the requirement that the proposed building lot have a frontage of 150 feet on the highway and accepting , the proposed construction of the lot with a 75 foot by 410 foot , more or less , access corridor from the highway easterly to the lot which appears to be about a 55 , 000 square foot lot ; and it is further RESOLVED , that a special permit be granted to the proposed access strip of 75 feet by 410 feet as sufficient under Section 280--aof the Town Law , and it is further • RESOLVED , that the Zoning Enforcement Officer is authorized . . . . . _. . . _ . . . . ..n..>.... _. . . . y_. i...0. 0 tv:.' : d•YY::fY,t."bh ui. ya 'F�`:r.c • r.. 16 to issue a building permit upon the provision of a final subdivision map prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , to be signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board . The third item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Kenneth A . Horowitz , Appellant , William Gallagher , AGent , requesting authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the extension of an existing legal non - conforming building on a legal non- conforming lot at 1006 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 19 - 2 - 25 , Residence District R- 15 . The proposed extension will not substantially increase the footprint of the existing building , being primarily the addition of living space over a ground floor through the extension of a second floor . The request for authorization is made under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Vice - Chairman Austen read from the appeal of the applicant . A copy of said document is attached hereto as Exhibit 8 . Mr . William Gallagher , agent for Kenneth A . Horowitz , • addressed the Board and clarified that they were not adding additional rooms but were merely enlarging the size of the existing rooms over a one - story shed addition which at one point on the highway side of the building must have been a porch which was enclosed later . He continued that the proposed addition would not greatly increase the size of the building since it was over an existing first floor addition and parts of the structure were already existing . He continued they would just be increasing the size of the actual addition a little larger than that existing on the first floor because of the structural implications of the second floor . Because of this , he said , they could not rely on the foundation of the existing first floor at the railroad side of the house in order to construct the work . He went on to say that the deck at the lake side of the building was not constructed with pressure -treated material and could not withstand the weather and was unsafe and applicant would like to replace that . Mr . Gallagher said there existed now sliding glass doors from the bedroom to what would have been the deck . Mr . King asked if a second story deck on the lake side existed at one time and Mr . Gallagher responded it did . Vice - Chairman Austen asked what the size would be and Mr . Gallagher responded it would be an extension four feet out from the building and approximately 22 feet long . • Mr . King asked what the increase would be in square footage and Mr . Gallagher responded about 100 square feet . Mr . King 17 • asked if that would be by overhangs and not actually extending any of the ground level and Mr . Gallagher responded that was correct , the only extension on the ground level would be the posts to bear the structure above . Sketches of the property were reviewed by the Board . Eva Hoffmann inquired where the posts would be and Mr . Gallagher responded that they would sit on a new foundation wall since the foundation of the existing first floor structure was a footer which sets directly on grade and because of the situation around that foundation the water main was crimped which cut off the flow of water in the house . Mr . Gallagher continued that they would put in a new foundation wall continuously along the face of that building to provide protection for that existing foundation as well as for support for the second floor which would appear below grade . He said they would set their posts to that , run a new water line through that to the house protecting it from further damage and supporting the upper structure . Eva Hoffmann asked if the foundation would go just around the new addition or around the whole house and Mr . Gallagher showed her on the sketches how it would be constructed . Mr . King said that if Mr . Gallagher was proposing to extend • the second floor to the south how far south would the existing wall be and Mr . Gallagher again referred to the sketches to determine this . Mr . King asked if there were any houses directly to the east and Mr . Gallagher responded the closest house to the south was a good quarter of a mile away and- it was not a house , it was Lowery Construction . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared and the public hearing was closed . Vice - Chairman Austen read a letter from Henry and Kathleen Theisen dated May 16 , 1988 , a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit 9 . Attorney Barney informed the Board at this time that his office represented Mr . Horowitz on other matters . Joan Reuning thought the design was tasteful and Vice - Chairman Austen did not think the proposal would hurt the looks of the house any . As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by Edward King as follows : • RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of 18 • environmental significance . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Hoffmann , Reuning , King , Austen Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . As to the extension of a non - conforming structure a motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows : WHEREAS , the proposal appears to have a low impact on the neighborhood and would not be detrimental to the surrounding neighbors ; and WHEREAS , no one appeared in opposition to this proposal ; it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board grant permission to the applicant for the extension of a non - conforming structure . • The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Austen , King , Hoffmann Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The last matter on the agenda was as follows . APPEAL of Frank A . Bettucci , Appellant , requesting variance of Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to premises known as 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 21 Residence District R- 15 , said Sections requiring a side yard building setback of 15 feet , a lot depth of 150 feet , and a lot area of 15 , 000 square feet . Said existing lot is comprised of 12 , 500± square feet , with a lot depth of 125± feet and an existing building setback on the south side of 11 + feet . AND FURTHER , Appellant is requesting variance of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and Section 280 - a of the New York State Town Law , with respect to premises known as 108 Ridgecrest Road Rear , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 , said parcel having no frontage on a Town , County , or State highway . Mr . Frank Bettucci stated he was a native Ithacan and • currently resided in Arlington , Virginia . He stated that he was planning on coming back to Ithaca some day in the near future r 19 • since he had his roots here . He wanted to point out that he would like to make a correction on the sketch before the Board . The sketch said 11 feet on the south side and he believed it was 15 feet . He continued that the former owner that constructed that , he believed , was in compliance . Mr . Bettucci said he purchased this piece of property in August of 1985 and at that time his attorney had done a title search and there were no liens or encumbrances and no hindrances , but the attorney informed him of a dispute that dated back to 1974 and another one in 1980 between the Town of Ithaca and the former owner . Mr . Bettucci said he had an agent contact the zoning officer in March and April of this year and much to.-- his surprise she was told that the property was not in compliance with the zoning laws so he came from Virginia to talk with the zoning officer . He asked the zoning officer for a certificate of compliance which was denied . The zoning officer mentioned to Mr . Bettucci that he must go through the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Bettucci said he was trying to formalize an existing situation that dated back 20 years or more and he would like to have that formalization in the form of a certificate of compliance . Mr . Bettucci said he believed the front piece of property dated back 20 years or more and that piece of property at the time it was built was built under a different set of zoning laws that were in existence at that time . He continued that the Town of Ithaca was well aware of the existing structure and he thought the Zoning Board of • Appeals was involved in that also at the time . Mr . Bettucci stated further that in 1974 the back structure was purchased by him as it was now and he had a sizeable investment in it and under the present conditions it was a very serious hardship for him not to use that structure . He said that the existing structure in the rear was built , he believed , prior to 1974 and the Town of Ithaca was involved in the issue at that time as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals , and because of that and the way the property existed , the owner had rented it for the last twenty years since the other property was built in 1974 . Mr . Bettucci continued that the owner had lived in it for awhile and had rented it subsequently . Mr . Bettucci stated he was asking the Board to consider these things and grant a certificate of compliance based on the fact that this property was in existence when he bought it and in he had tried to comply with the existing zoning laws by coming in and asking for a certificate , and based on that , he respectfully requested the Board to consider this on the basis of the previous existing conditions for this piece of property . Mr . King said it appeared from the correspondence between Mr . Bettucci and the zoning officer that the residence in front ( the east towards Ridgecrest Road ) was the original residence and that the building west of that , which Mr . Bettucci referred to as the second parcel , was a garage or a workshop . Mr . Bettucci said • he did not know what it was as it was before his ownership . Mr . King inquired if when Mr . Bettucci bought the property the _. - -. . . . .. u • + r . . .•. N a •. . TrTnf- . F. ..9 . .w'.l s •(•. r...: Y, IC '. q a • . . .. . .. .. r .. • • . . .. 20 • westerly building was being used as a residence and Mr . Bettucci responded it was . Mr . King asked how many units it was and Mr . Bettucci responded it was a single family , three bedroom , three bath house and a perfectly good one . Mr . King said Mr . Bettucci had mentioned buying property to the rear and asked if he meant undeveloped land to the west . Mr . Bettucci said he was talking about a 17 acre piece of property to the rear of the rear structure to the west and he had an option to purchase that property . Mr . King asked if Mr . Bettucci had thought about the possibility of moving that existing second dwelling to a standard building lot and Mr . Bettucci said he had not at this time and that he thought the second structure in the rear complied with the square footage as it was 150 by 25 feet . Mr . Frost said the back lot did not have frontage on a Town road , and through the subdivision of the back lot , there resulted an undersized front lot and when this was apparently done Mr . Bettucci did not need formal subdivision approval from the Town . However , Mr . Frost continued , when it was subdivided it resulted in two deficiencies , one the front lot became under 15 , 000 square foot and the back lot did not have frontage on a Town , State or County highway . • Mr . Bettucci said he was confused because considering the dispute that went on previously as one lot and then the building of the back structure , still the Town had subdivided it subsequently . Attorney Barney said the Town never subdivided that Mr . Franciamone may have subdivided it but he did not do it with the blessings of the Town . Mr . Bettucci asked how he could buy two parcels of land that were on the tax rolls and pay taxes on two parcels of land and Attorney Barney said he had no idea . Mr . King said the Assessor might have assessed the two at Mr . Franciamone ' s request and Attorney Barney said this did not go through the Town . Attorney Barney said there was quite a bit of history to this property which he was not sure was clear and he was not sure it was Mr . Bettucci ' s fault , that he was rather the beneficiary of some rather unfortunate experiences the Town had with this property back in the early 1970s . Attorney Barney said the Town litigated at great length over this property with the initial problem being that for the building in the front a building permit was obtained for , he believed , a house and then a building permit was obtained for a carport . Attorney Barney continued that later someone went by and noticed three units , the carport had been enclosed and used as an apartment , the existing house was used as an apartment , and there had been a breezeway between the two that had been enclosed and housed a room and a kitchen . Attorney Barney explained that the Town brought an action for an injunction seeking to have the house restored to • 21 the condition it was supposed to have been in subject to the building permits issued , and in the course of doing that there was a building in the back for which a building permit had been obtained to build a workshop . In the course of doing some inspections in the front and the rear , he said , it turned out that the so - called workshop had a kitchen , dining facilities , bed , etc . and was obviously being occupied as a dwelling unit . At that time , Attorney Barney said that on an R30 lot , which was a 30 , 000 square foot lot , there were four units under building permits that allowed at most one and maybe two units . ( He could not recall if a building permit was obtained to get the carport enclosed ) . Attorney Barney said that the Town had gone all the way up to the Appellate Division and the end result was the final order which was in the record which , to his knowledge , had never been superseded in any way . The order , he said , specifically enjoined the use of the rear building for anything other than a workshop and it compelled the front building to be restored to the way it was supposed to have been according to the building permit . Mr . Franciamone neglected or failed to do that , Attorney Barney said , and a contempt proceeding was brought against him and he was tossed into jail for a period of time , and owed a fine to the Town and paid all but $ 50 . 00 of the fine . Attorney Barney said that was subsequent to the order in 1972 . Attorney Barney did not know what happened by way of enforcement because • obviously it had been lost track of it and he did not think anyone was aware that that workshop had never had a building permit issued for it for expansion into a house . Attorney Barney did not know what the condition of the front building was today but if it was not a single family house with a breezeway and a carport it was not in compliance with the order . Mr . Frost thought the record would show that the front house , at some time in the litigation , was acknowledged to be two families up front and the carport made three families , and the order was to convert the carport area back to. a carport and re - open the breezeway . Mr . Bettucci said he knew nothing of this situation until Mr . Frost informed him of it . Mr . Frost further added that when Mr . Bettucci made the request he went to the files and then discovered the history of the property . Attorney Barney said the order had some fairly specific directions in reference to the house and the accessory building including , among other things , that all plumbing related to occupancy in the accessory buildings be removed , all sinks , stoves and refrigerators and all kitchen related facilities be removed from the accessory buildings , and all .bedroom furniture , • drapes , and other items facilitating such use as a dwelling unit be removed . Attorney Barney said what bothered him was that the 22 • order was filed in the County Clerk ' s records and when Mr . Bettucci said his attorney did a title search he was a little puzzled as to how this order did not turn up . Mr . Bettucci said his attorney had mentioned there was an action in 1972 or 1974 and a follow-up in 1980 and since nothing had occurred on the part of the Town or the Zoning Board of Appeals from 1980 until the time he bought it and there was no indication that anything was pending at the time , they had assumed everything was in compliance and he thought that was a fair assumption . Attorney Barney said that he knew at the time the order was substantially complied with because they had followed up to the extent of determining that at that point but whether Mr . Franciamone or Mrs . Cascioli , unbeknownst to the Town went ahead and did something they weren ' t supposed do , he did not know . Attorney Barney said the problem was that they had an order that said that the building was supposed to be , in a certain condition and Mr . Bettucci had bought something that was not in the condition that the order required . Mr . Bettucci said that if that order was in existence no action was taken from 1980 until the time he bought it and he had to assume that everything was in compliance at the time . • Mr . King asked Attorney Barney whether a notice of pendency was filed in connection with.._ this action and Attorney Barney replied there probably was not as they are not generally filed in connection with an injunction proceeding . The public hearing was opened . Carolyn Richter of 110 Ridgecrest Road , Ithaca , New York , stated her family lived right door to Mr . Bettucci ' s property and were the ones most concerned with the dwellings that were there . She had several points she wanted to raise . 1 . Mr . Bettucci said that he was not aware of the problems with the units and she had no reason to doubt that but she did think his lawyer should have been aware of them and while she felt sorry for Mr . Bettucci she did not think that reason enough to grant him a variance . 2 . If Mr . Bettucci himself was not aware of these problems it was peculiar since at 110 , they became aware of the problems with the unit next door and it was rumored all over the street . She wondered how Mr . Bettucci could not have been aware of the problems unless it was because he lived in Virginia . 3 . Her concern was that Mr . Bettucci was an absentee owner . All of the other houses on the street , except for the first three • which are rental units , are owner- occupied , single family dwellings . She thought the character of the neighborhood was not ..p rl. GM: : y\•.t•• fiu•Y:i. A.v ..I a.. u4n .• . .a. . : V.::N q::1.,. � .. : .: .. i 23 • being maintained at 108 and in fact , people had mentioned to her that it was a shame that an eyesore such as 108 had to be next door to her . The house was not cared for in the same manner the other houses in the neighborhood were . 4 . The workshop certainly was not a workshop but was an apartment or house or whatever you wanted to call it . 5 . The previous tenants were somewhat of a nuisance to her for several reasons . They were very noisy and there was a problem with garbage . There were great mounds of garbage both in the front and especially in the back yard which repeatedly blew over into their property so they had to pick it up which was not pleasant . New tenants had just moved in and so far there had been a large van and several motorcycles parked there and she was hopeful that the new tenants would not be a problem . 6 . She was concerned that something that had been in violation for so many years had been allowed to go on . Now Mr . Bettucci was asking to have this made legal and she did not see any reason why something illegal that had been causing her problems aesthetically and with noise and garbage , should now be turned into something legal . 7 . One of the neighbors had put a fence up so they would • not have to look at the unit at 108 as they found it disgusting . Roger Sayre of 110 Ridgecrest Road , Carolyn ' s husband , concurred with everything she had said and wanted to raise a few points of his own : 1 . They were from California and enjoyed living in the east because there was not a lot of broken land and you did not see fences with the intent of excluding your neighbors and the fact that a fence of that nature was present was symbolic of the character of the dwelling next door . 2 . He did not . think that something which was already non- conforming and illegal should be granted a variance . He would encourage the Board not only to deny that request for a variance but perhaps open this issue back up legally and ask the zoning officer to actively enforce the order which had been standing for 20 years . 11 3 . He urged the Board to deny the request for a variance and take whatever legal action was necessary . Mr . Joe Jeraci of 112 Rid_ gecrest Road said that he did feel sorry for Mr . Bettucci because he had apparently been taken . Mr . Jeraci had been living in the area for ten years and three or • four years ago when he came to a Town Board meeting when Mr . Franciamone was acting as an agent for another lot , it was . . . . . . . . . .... . . .. . . ... . . . . _ . . .. r . . ...... . .._ -. . . ...RiC ... .nr'X' • .L(+• .. . : ,:ae ...v'e r•. ..';a••n rs: .n .. . i. • E. . Y :! •... a..`y'4 . •:L'::nip v'.t •. l'.. . .. a > 'A'. . . . ' • 24 brought up that there were people living at 108 in the back . He continued that they were told...,that it was known that no one was supposed to be living there and it was going to be taken care of . In the meantime , he said , Mr . Franciamone had 104 and he built an apartment in his garage and someone had called the Town Board several years ago when this was starting and let them know that this was occurring . Mr . Jeraci said what he was getting at was that he could not endorse the variance because even though he realized it was a hardship because Mr . Bettucci had purchased the property , it was a hardship on Mr . Jeraci and he thought he should have a variance to have an apartment on the back of his property to generate some income because everyone could use some extra income . Mr . Jeraci said he did not want to say that students caused problems as tenants but they stick out in the neighborhood because sounds travel . He continued that everyone wanted to have country living so the students like to have parties at one o ' clock in the morning . What Mr . Jeraci worried about was that if this variance was approved simply because it was existing and had not been resolved , then he assumed Mr . Franciamone would want a variance on 104 . Mr . Frost said that 104 , for everyone ' s information , would • probably be in legal hands in the near future as the notices alleging that there was an apartment in the garage had been ignored . Ms . Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road said that she knew her property was somewhat removed from the subject premises . However , she continued , she was an officer of the South Hill Community Association which included residents of Troy , Ridgecrest and King Road area . She said she came down to the meeting to see what the story was and felt moved to say something in support of her neighbors . She thought that multiple wrongs never make a right . She felt sorry for Mr . Bettucci as he probably did have a hardship but felt , however , that he had other recourses . One recourse would be to sue the attorney who did not properly advise him and another recourse would be to sue the person who sold the place to him under false pretenses . She concluded by saying she would like to request that the Board uphold the spirit of the zoning ordinance . The public hearing was closed . Mr . Bettucci stated that he had a few things to say : 1 . He was a little concerned about the lack of sensitivity . of some of the comments of the neighborhood people although he could appreciate their position . • 2 . He was also concerned that this situation had existed 25 , , for years and years and this group of individuals had access to this Board and a rebuttal system that was in place . He tried to comply with the State ordinance and the zoning laws when he bought the property and went to the Town for a certificate of compliance . He thought the Board had an obligation as well as the individuals present from the neighborhood who should have come to the Board when the previous owner owned the premises instead of letting Mr . Franciamone get away with murder without anything happening to him . 3 . The issue in question should have been resolved by the Board and the individuals present tonight prior to his purchase of the property . 4 . He would suffer from a negative decision and he felt that was completely wrong . Vice - Chairman Austen thought Mr . Bettucci ' s attorney did not do a very good job . Mr . Bettucci said he thought his attorney did his job , that he had told Mr . Bettucci that there was something in the record in 1974 and 1980 . Vice - Chairman Austen thought that should have stopped Mr . Bettucci then . • Mr . Bettucci said the point was that from 1980 to the present time the Board did not take any action . Vice - Chairman Austen said that the Board could not go down and check every residence and Mr . Bettucci responded that that was an obligation the Board had as well as the individuals present , that if there was something going on they did not like they should have contacted the Board . Mr . King asked Mr . Bettucci if he considered in 1985 , when he bought the property , of coming to the Board and asking for a certificate of occupancy at that time . Mr . Frost said that Mr . Bettucci had written a letter saying that after he had purchased the property he visited the Town Hall several times in 1986 , 1987 and 1988 . Mr . King asked if Mr . Bettucci had come to the Town before he bought the property and Mr . Bettucci stated he had not because there was no reason to . Vice - Chairman Austen said that there certainly was a reason to do so and his attorney should have made him aware of that . Mr . Frost said that most times when a property is purchased • the bank will require a certificate of compliance but Mr . Bettucci had bought the property outright . Mr . Frost continued 26 • that Mr . Bettucci might have been tipped off had a bank required a certificate of compliance . Attorney Barney said in fairness to Mr . Bettucci in 1985 it was not the custom to ask for a certificate of occupancy for a single family dwelling but more and more today that is becoming the case . He further stated that if Mr . Bettucci ' s attorney had said there was a problem that might have triggered Mr . Bettucci into coming to the Town . Mr . Bettucci said he and his attorney had discussed the matter and looked at the situation from 1980 to 1985 and there was no further action on the part of the Town and the neighbors were not complaining at that time . He stated that he felt that had this issue been raised at a meeting like this before he could have accepted it more . Mr . Bettucci said he went to the Board two years after purchasing the property because he was trying to comply with the rules only to be told by Mr . Frost that he had to get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals . But , he stated , he was there to do what he was told to do . Mr . Frost said that Mr . Bettucci came to the Town in 1986 prior to Mr . Frost working there inquiring about encumbrances on a property . In response to a letter from Mr . Bettucci Mr . Frost sent a letter to Mr . Bettucci , dated May 19 , 1988 , a copy of • which is attached hereto as Exhibit 10 . Attorney Barney said he hated to remind everyone but there was a case in New York City where someone in , the zoning office made a mistake and later when they learned of it the Court ordered that 17 stories had to come off of a building . He further stated that occasionally mistakes were made even though no one liked to make them but he did not think a mistake was made here . He thought if someone had taken a look at the order they could see it was very specific . ( A copy of said order is attached hereto as Exhibit 11 ) . Attorney Barney said that although Mr . Bettucci was saying the Town had done nothing with respect to this problem , then neither had Mr . Bettucci done anything with regard to the problem before he purchased the property even though his attorney had said there was a history there . Attorney Barney felt that Mr . Bettucci should have done some investigating in 1985 before he bought the property when he was alerted by his attorney that there might be a problem . He continued that when the Town knew a property was in violation the Town moved on it although maybe not as rapidly as everyone would like because sometimes the Town does not know about the problem . Mr . Bettucci said that for five years the Town did nothing . Attorney Barney said the Town did not know about it for five • years and Mr . Bettucci said the Town did because the records showed it . w - • • • :. : tr.. y...N 1. :• . : • .... , . .n. n ST::•NSRfi T•Y 4FYl4 '... 27 • Attorney Barney asked what records Mr . Bettucci was referring to and Mr . Bettucci said he was speaking of the order . Attorney Barney said the order was enforced in 1972 and in 1975 when Mr . Franciamone was thrown into jail for contempt . Mr . Bettucci said but nothing happened . Attorney Barney said yes , something did happen , Mr . Franciamone went to jail for his contempt and he corrected the situation . Mr . Bettucci said nothing was done about taking the building down and now the Board was asking Mr . Bettucci to do that . Attorney Barney said that in 1975 they got Mr . Franciamone into compliance . Mr . Bettucci asked what Mr . Barney meant . Attorney Barney said the building was restructured in accordance with the terms of the order and the back building was vacated as an occupancy in 1975 . Mr . Bettucci said the order indicated the building had to come down . Attorney Barney said it did not say it had to come down , but had to be restructured to comply with the building permit as requested . He said that there might have been modifications that the Town authorized and there was some • question as to whether the Town might have authorized the continuation of a two - family building in the front which he believed they did . Mr . Frost said the 1975 reaffirmation was sent to Mr . Bettucci along with the original letter . Mr . Bettucci said he could not understand how Mr . Franciamone was in compliance and Attorney Barney replied that in 1975 he was in compliance , that he vacated the back premises and used it only as a workshop . Mr . Bettucci said that was only temporary and Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Bettucci was here then and knew about this and if so , had he made a complaint because had he made a complaint then maybe something would have been done about it . Mr . Bettucci asked why , if Mr . Franciamone was in compliance and vacated the building , there was a problem now . Mr . King responded that Mr . Bettucci had a building that was being used as a dwelling unit when it was prohibited . Mr . Bettucci claimed that Mr . Franciamone rented out the workshop . Attorney Barney said as far as the Town knew when Mr . Franciamone was jailed he brought the property into compliance and he was not aware of any problem until Mr . Frost spoke to him several months ago about it . • Mr . Bettucci said that apparently people in the neighborhood f l l 28 • claimed this had been an ongoing problem . Attorney Barney said he did not personally know that as a fact and the problem was that Mr . Bettucci had a building that was not complying now and there was a history that said Mr . Bettucci should have known about this problem . Mr . Bettucci said it was unreasonable for the Board to expect him to take an investment like this and turn it into a workshop and therefore lose money . He said he could not go along with this . Vice - Chairman Austen said he did not think there was a choice . Mr . Bettucci said it would get involved then . Mr . King brought up the matter of the option on the adjacent vacant land . Mr . Bettucci said he did have an option but he was involved in a legal suit over this with Mr . Franciamone . Mr . Bettucci said if that was successful there was a proposal to knock all the buildings down in front except the middle one that was owned by another individual , and landscape the whole front end and if that ever came to pass it would be an aesthetically pleasing area . • Mr . King asked when Mr . Bettucci expected a resolution of that litigation and Mr . Bettucci responded he was looking for something to happen by September of 1988 . Mr . King asked if Mr . Bettucci had the same attorney representing him that he had when he bought the property . Mr . Bettucci emphasized the fact that his attorney had told him there was an action in 19 '74 and 1980 on this property and he thought the attorney was forthright in giving him that information . Mr . King said it seemed to him that Mr . Bettucci had taken a . calculated risk . Mr . Bettucci said he did not think so because if there was a zoning ordinance that said that everyone must have a certificate of compliance he would have been to the Town looking for one before he bought the property , but since there was no regulation on that he did not do so . Mr . Bettucci said he was a foreign service officer and had come from overseas to buy the property . He felt he went into the matter with his eyes open , that there was no calculated risk as there were no compliance requirements , and he bought the property . Vice - Chairman Austen cited Section 76 of the Zoning • Ordinance which states as follows : . . . . _,.... ... . . _ . . .. ... - 1 . a.. .a Y .i M1' •..)ft^11.MiV l P ^u'tR ii.R ^_T.KJ Yf fYn r4ey llrvlii> l4a.le w 'h y'Nr-.r . .Y:•TliX . ..,C . 1.v.. rr. . . . ;eC.'a. .l.•• . . .. 29 • " Certificate of Occupancy . Each property owner shall be responsible for compliance with all terms of this ordinance affecting his property , including restrictions on change of use . Upon application and inspection or explanation satisfactory to the person designated by the Town Board , such property owner shall be entitled to a Certificate of Occupancy certifying that the occupancy or proposed occupancy complied with this ordinance . " Mr . Bettucci asked how far back this went and Attorney Barney said it went back to 1968 . Mr . Bettucci asked if this was saying that he as a property purchaser was required to get a certificate of compliance and Attorney Barney responded that as a property owner he was required to comply . Attorney Barney did not want the Board to have any misunderstanding . He said the order was not cast in stone and if one read the order , each provision states that the building shall be in a particular configuration unless authorized by the plaintiff ( Town of Ithaca ) so the Board was not locked in by this order and could grant a variance just like it would to anyone else if it chose to do so . • Mr . King felt the variances should be denied and Mr . Bettucci asked if he was speaking of the front lot also and Mr . King responded he was , that he thought the Board should consider this as one lot until it saw a legal subdivision of it and there had not been one . He continued that the front dwelling would be in compliance but not the second dwelling . Mr . Frost said that the front lot through the process of the subdivision resulted in a square footage of 12 , 500± square feet , under the R15 today it needs to be 15 , 000 square foot , so the lot was undersized . Mr . King said that there was no evidence that there are actually two titles here so he did not see how that could be two separate lots . Mr . Bettucci said they had two separate tax parcel numbers . Mr . King said that tax parcels were not controlling and that the way the Assessor set them up has no bearing on the zoning ordinance . Mr . Frost asked if it would make a difference if they were two separate deeds and Attorney Barney asked if there was a map showing two separate lots . • Vice - Chairman Austen stated the map presented to the Board 30 was not a certified map . Mr . King said Mr . Bettucci acquired title to both parcels at the same time and whether they were separately described in that deed , he did not know . Mr . Bettucci said it seemed as though on the map it was subdivided . Mr . King said there was a dashed line across that the surveyor had surveyed it as one lot and somebody had set a pin in there . Mr . King said that based on these facts he would move that the Board find that only the easterly dwelling was in conformity provided that it be considered to occupy the entire parcel of 100 feet by 300 feet ; in other words that it occupied the original parcel that was the subject of the action previously . Mr . Frost asked that if the Board denied the back building tonight and Mr . Bettucci came to Mr . Frost the next day and asked for a certificate of compliance for the front building could that be issued by Mr . Frost , and Mr . King responded that no , he did not see how it could . Mr . King said the Board must regard this as one building lot , 100 feet by 300 feet , as it was originally . • Mr . Frost asked if Mr . Bettucci had to do something for the Board to regard this whole parcel as * one . Mr . King responded that he must terminate the use of the rear building as a residential unit and that would bring it into compliance . Mr . Bettucci said he had a year ' s lease on that and he would be in litigation with his tenants . Mr . Frost said that both the front building and the back building were vacant as of the date of his initial visit to that property and Mr . Bettucci said that was correct , that it had been vacant for almost ten months but he could not pay mortgages without collecting rent . Attorney ' Barney asked if there were mortgages on the property now and Mr . Bettucci responded there were . Mr . Frost said that on May 13th he was at the property and both buildings were vacant . Mr . King inquired when Mr . Bettucci had leased the buildings and Mr . Bettucci responded that one was leased on the 15th of June and the other one was leased shortly after the 15th of June , for one year . Attorney Barney asked if there were people in there now and Mr . Bettucci responded there were . • Mr . Frost mentioned that he had hada complaint about noise , motorcycles , cars , etc . on the property just several days • • 31 • earlier . A motion was made by Edward King as follows : WHEREAS , this Board finds the following . 1 . The area in question is a strictly residential area . 2 . The development on the subject property is certainly twice as intense as it ought to be under the Zoning Ordinance . 3 . While perhaps the applicant has been hurt financially it appears that the neighborhood would be even more hurt and depressed by our endorsing this kind of intense occupancy . 4 . The 100 foot by 300 foot total lot depth does not lend itself to the kind of subdivision that has occurred in the past on these lots . 5 . It may be that the applicant will find some other solution in his litigation concerning adjacent property where he might be able to consider moving this unit to a full size lot elsewhere . • 6 . The Board finding that it was dealing with one building lot rather than two legally subdivided lots . 7 . The proposal would not promote the general welfare of the community . THEREFORE , be it RESOLVED , that this Board denies the requested variances ; and it is further RESOLVED , that this Board shall require the cessation of use of the westerly building as a dwelling unit promptly . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Austen , King , Hoffmann Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . • .d ." .i" r„�)yi:w Ev".""w',Si:�,,: ei'u '!r ��F •,;� i f`i>a; i 32 • The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 45 p0me Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Linco Recording Secretary Exh ' through 11 attached APP V E Austen Vice - Chairman APPROVED ° a � Henry Aron Chairman • ^.v-..nv ne.aucc .evn�.vnrwr..).v., .z_sy a Statement from Betsy Darlington , 204 Fairmount Ave . ; Chair of the Conservation Advisory Council �lj e �sLl • June 28 , 1988 About a week ago I received a call from Mrs . Valenza . I dont know how she happened to call me ; perhaps she knew I was Chair of the CAC . She described the proposed action and asked if I might be able to suggest someone she could call about possible shoreline impacts of the action . After mulling over the many elements of the case over the next few days, I decided to go see her and find out what the situation was, first hand . What I found was an elderly woman living with and caring for her aging and infirm mother in a small cottage (once a boat house), right by the lake . She owns a second cottage of the same size, next door . Ideally , she rents this to one or two people . However , heart problems and stress prevent her from doing so at the present time . It is this rental cottage that would be ve � � Close --� � Mr . Jonsons house, if the variance is granted . Several concerns are raised by this variance request : 1 . Life safety (fire and highway safety) 2 . Parking 3 . Impact on the environment 4 . Aesthetics 5 . Effect on neighborhood character Before discussing each of these in detail, something that I gather has not been clear has to do with a possible fire in the cottage that • was later torn down and which sat where the addition would be built , if the variance is granted . I called Fire Chief Olmsted to find out when the fire took place . He searched the records for 1987 4 (now computer- ized) and found no record of a fire . 1 . Life safety a . The Jonsonshouse is one of six closely spaced houses along the shore of the lake . Only about 20 feet separate his house from his northern neighbors house ( Mrs . Valenza0s) , a space once occupied by the one- story, I1 - .foot-wide cottage of Mr . Jonsonos . Into this space Mr . Jonson proposes to put an 18400t - wide addition to his own house . There is no road access to his home or the ones on either side of it . To reach a fire in any of these homes requires carrying hoses from E . Shore Drive, down somesteep steps, across the railroad tracks, and down some more steps . This is problem enough . How would firemen safely maneuver between the houses? How would they reach the houses if the fire occurred when the train was passing on the tracks? The fire could race from one house to the next and destroy all 6 of them before firemen could even get to them . The removal of the cottage between Jonson �s and Valenza0s properties provided an important 20400t margin of safety . If that were again filled with living space--rented , by the way, - to several tenants any of whom might start a fire--a serious hazard would again exist . It is hard to imagine anyone being willing to rent Mrs . Valenza0s cottage with another house so dangerously close, though if the rent • were low enough it wouldnot be out of the question . r5Xhi 6 ;T b . East Shore Dr . is treated by many as a speedway . There have been fatalities along that stretch of road in the last few years . The Chamber of Commerce will soon be adding a new traffic-generating facility nearby . If the variance is granted, more people will be added to an already crowded neighborhood . More cars will be pulling in and out of the small parking area allotted to the neighborhood . 2 . Parking problems Residents of 7 houses, including Mr . Jonson and Mrs . Valenza, share 7 spaces along the road . Where will the residents of these 7 houses park their cars, once Mr . Jonson 's tenants have moved in? 3 . Environmental impacts a . Mr . Jonsons house sits just about on the shoreline of the lake . The yard consists of railroad-tie cribbing built out into the lake and filled with soil and seeded with grass . What would be the impact on the shore of adding 18 more feet of housing? And would more cribbing be put out into the lake and filled, to provide yard . space? The space where the addition would be built is now partly occupied by rubble such as old boards with nails sticking up from them , asphalt shingles, arx old paint cans . The one thing to be said for building here is that this junk would have to be removed and could no longer have the potential of blowing into the lake . However , the presence of this stuff so close to the water reveals a certain insensitivity to environmental (and aesthetic) considerations . Also, tenants are likely to disregard lake quality and throw trash in it . ( I know from living in a neighborhood with many tenants that there is a strong-tendency among them to drop • their trash whereever they happen to be .) b . Mrs . Valenza says that in the winter, there �s always a hole in the ice out from Mr . Jonson As home . She is quite sure that his septic system is inadequate ; she tells me that the Health Dept . shows that nothing has been done to it in about 30 years . How could it handle still more people? 4 . Aesthetics : From the point of view of people out on the lake or at Stewart Park , adding on to Mr . Jonsons already large house would detract from the appearance of the shore . As it is , what you see from the park are two rather large houses to the north of Mrs . Valenza, then her two tiny and inconspicuous cottages, then Mr . Jonson 's three-story structure which sports several mustard-yellow awnings or cloths (which led my husband to think his place must be a commercial establishment ) , and then another small cottage to his south . Surely the Town wants the houses along the shore to be as inconspicuous as possible . Yet , if Jonsons house is made still lar er , it will be even more imposing . p �1oA.. T.A Sfk6e waJUC —Pr r • 4VO. C'V � .4 4L,&;.v c � a ( -�lµ �C.L, 5 . Impact on neighborhood character J This is a small , quiet , tightly packed neighborhood made up at least in part of several elderly ladies . Adding tenants in the small space between the houses would introduce an unwanted and distressing element of noise, traffic , and litter . These women have , enough to contend with without havm5to deal with this additional element of stress . • Naturally , those most affected would be Mrs . Valenza and her mother . Mrs . Valenza herself has rather serious health problems and is under ia lot of stress already . How could she cope with this new problem? With property ownership comes responsibility . It doesnot give a person the right to run over his neighbors, degrade the environment , or jeopardize his neighbors' safety . The rich and the powerful can and do take care of themselves and the Town has a responsibility to stand up for the rights of the weak and defenseless . Zoning laws are designed to protect people . If variances are handed out regardless of the impact on neighbors or the environment , there is little point in having such laws . I urge you to deny this variance . Thank you . I hope you will give Mrs . Valenza enough time to tell you her side . It is difficult for her to come before you, and she only does so because this is of such great importance to her and her aging mother . • CITY OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS APPE --A- L 44 APPEAL No , 1325 . RECEIPT No . 897 DATE Oct: 14 ,. 1980 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , Ithaca , New York : tj 0 ��v-1 , '41 I ( We ) �� Q11: Jel (/ ( Name of pellant ) ( Street and Number ) � . hereby appeal to ( Municipality ) ( State ) the Zoning Board of Appeals from the decision of the Building Commissioner on application for building permit No . Dated , 19 , whereby the Building Commissioner did • ( ) Grant ( ) Deny TO ( Name of Applicant for Permit ) OF ( Street and Number ) ( Municipality ) ( tate ) OINNER OF PROPERTY ( ) A Permit for Use ( ) A Permit for Occupancy ( x) A Building Permit 1 . Location of Property of ,34 kz A 5J S• 1" ;? e ( Street and Number ) ( Use District on Zoning Map 2 . Provision ( s ) of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed ( Indicate the article , sec tion , subsection and paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance being appealed , by number . Do not quote the Ordinance . ) . loGr %2Y NL � '7 � N 3 d , 4- 9 L N cUC-o✓ o\J T 03F MO AJ C O "d)et t ( Xhi ITz BOARD OF ZONING WIIIEALq Appeal No . 1325 Page 2 . 3 . Type of Appeal . Appeal is made herewith fore • ( ) An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A special permit under the Zoning Ordinance ( ) An area variance from the Zoning Ordinance A use variance from the Zoning Ordinance 4 . Previous Appeal . A previous appeal ( ) has ( ) has not been made with respect to this decision of the Building Commissioner or with re - spect to this property . Such appeal ( s ) was ( were ) in the form of ( ) a requested interpretation ( ) a request for a special permit ( ) a request for a variance and was ( were ) made in Appeal No . dated 19dated 19 Appeal No . 19 Appeal No . dated Appeal. No . dated 19 S . Reason for Appeal ( Use extra sheet if necessary ) Describe the interpretation that is claimed , or the use for which a special permit is sought , or the details of the variance or exception applied for and the grounds for which it is claimed that the variance should be granted , as the case may be . Describe fully the use contem ,, • plated , and the physical characteristics of the property as they . re - late to zoning issues , giving figures for numbers of tenants , employees users , and off - street parking spaces . A dimensioned plot plan clearly . illustrating the location and outlines of all buildings on the , property, and lot lines is required , as well as elevation drawings for new con - struction . . Such drawings and / or plans shall be submitted on 8 � " x 11 " sheets , suitable for reproduction . a . Applications for use variances must demonstrate that ( 1 ) strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship ; ( 2 ) the hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district ; and ( 3 ) the variance would ob- serve the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the district . X b . Applications for area variances must demonstrate that ( 1 ) there are practical difficulties and special conditions which make compliance with the regulations impossible ; ( 2 ) the difficulties and conditions are unique and are not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district ; and ( 3 ) the exception would ' observe the spirit of the ordi - nance and would not change the character of the district : This home has been designed for students , to make it a home for my family I would need to make these changes . The lot size is too small for the building that is on it now . I am not going to increase the ground coverage , my intentions are to go up 1 / 2 of an upstairs for bedrooms . In front of this home is .rthe lake , in the • rear is the railroad track and on one side is an 8 ' right - of - way . I have no means of purchasing more land . The rooms in this home are minimum size now . I do not believe that the bedrooms meet the city code . I don ' t propose to increase the number of rooms , just to make them larger . EDITH J. BEASLEY 930 East Shore Drive ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • rnY o� rn-I �cf4 WILDING DFPAit` MEi1` Idr . ;..__ July 15 , 1980 Thomas Heard 1 !. __. 1 . . ..; ', ._... ! -L ( � Building Commissioner Zoning Officer I . l ; City of Ithaca ' < ,) UL 22 1980 108 East Green Street U Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 too . .� ! �- Dear 14r . Heard , gy �q k Time c� I need help ! I hope you carrlhelp relieve an impossible situation . First, my mother ( Bertha E . Beasley ) ; then I ( Edith J . Beasley ) have owned these properties : City of Ithaca- - 1 - 1iw9 ( since 1927 ) City of Ithaca - -- 1 - 1- 12 ( singe about 1947 ) , illiam H . Lower owned 1 - 1 - 10 perhaps ten years . In June 1980 Lower sold that property to Ivan Jonzon ( a self- proclaimed " Big Shot " ) . He immediately started tearing up and rebuilding the neighborhood ( with or without a building permit ? ) before anyone caught up with him . ( 1 ) iuilt a deck ( on the lake aide of the cottage ) , that blocks muchl. of my Soutloti view fromn 1 - 1 - 9 ; ; and only 03 ft . away . ( 2 ) Eliminated any semblance of privacy at- - 1 - 1 - 12 . I ' ve had to put up a black curtain at my window ; it shuts out ventilation as well as view . When his people stand on his deck , they can look directly, into my sitting room �10 - 12 ft . away ) . . Built the deck within the 8 ft . R . O . V19 ( Right - of- way ) that runs from Rt . 34 to . the lake ( Deeds say,-; it must be kept claar . I showed him the map , so he has no legitimate excuse . 4 . Filled the lake along about 50 ft . , and out 25 . ft . - stealing it from the N . Y . State Barge Canal System . Bill Lower partially filled that area , ille - gally , a few years ago . Jonson is aggressive ; he pays no attentinm to the neighboring proper- ties , or to the law . He has made. both . of mg- cottages unpleasant - almost impossible to live in . No privacy : '. Both cottages have . been ruined ; their esthetic and monetany value borders on zero . I don ' t want to have to drag in a lawyer , I dont approve of that kind Of settlement . Also , I know how spiteful many people can be , these days . Perhaps ( I hope ) " The City" ' could force Jonson to remove some of his super- structure * and to obey existing laws and zoning rules . The State Conservation Depahtdent has had its eye on Johnson , for filling in the lake . They took him to court . He has to pay a fine and remove the fill . These people don ' t want to live in the " natural country . " Why don ' t they stay in the central city , and leave us country people alone ? This area never was a ` show place ; Just a place to swim and lie in the sun ; I hope it can be kept that wayJq not a carpenter I s paradises" If,.f�YS 1 . Map of the whole area - in Tompkins Co . Clerks Office - " Perry Boat - house Lots at Corner of Lake , " by Carl Crandall , Nov . 6 , 1925 ; recorded Jan . 8 , 1926 - County Clerks Office - Maps , Town of Ithaca - Book F2 page3l . • 2 . Map of 1 - 1 - 9 is " Lot - #4 at Parkview ; Southeast corner of Cayuga Lake in City of Ithaca , " - is filed im County Clerks Office in Book 2129 page 83 , by Carl Crandall ; Sept . 262 1959 • Thmk:' c. you ; do what you can .' Sincerely , • 1•: r . 1400 Thomas Yayne - Assessment Livision June 30 , 1980 . 128 East Buffalo St . , Ihhaca , N . Y . 14850 Lear Tom , I hate to ask if yo canfit beptied ; but I don ' t know of anyone else to ask • lv�y two cottages are - City 1 - 1 - 9 and 1 - 1 - 12 . 13etvreen them is 1 - 1 - 10 . It belons . ed to Bill Lower ; he just sold it ,= `�/-� l^ tib. [7 ) ; ^r I to Ivor Johnson . I l � . � Johnson is btpiaing a deck , attached to the est end of + . his house , and extending North and south * It probably extends into the " Right - of - t ; ay . " Unfortunately for me , his deck is about three feet from MY green ( ;,` 4 ) cottage ; eight feet from my red ; 6 ) cotts~ ge . Someone standing aeither end of the deck can look straight j into one of � my cottages That would reduce its value by 95;n or more • ( :%o value to me : ) I don ' t know whether there is a city zoning ordinance against such a close - by structure ( eliminating all � pri �+ acy ) . Neighbors • . should be considerate of others ' privacy . Johnson is note, he is apparently going to - have what he vrants , regard- less of neighbors ! ht least the eight foot R0is specified in all of the deeds . 2lease do what you cam to preserve the value of my cot - tages . , I should hate to deal with a lawyer . Civilized persons shouldbe willing, to obey the rules and lays . ' 1 i Thanks a lot ! Sincerely , CITY OF ITHACA BUILDING DEPARTMENT f n. +IUL 28 i LTimo . . a � v_ TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 40 . 00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH • ( 607 ) 273 - 1747 CHECK ZONING : A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been denied permission to subdivide my property located at 817 Elmira Road Towi of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 350 - 1 - 129 2 as shown on the accompanying application and /or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of , Articles ) V Section ( s ) 23 , Paragraph 2 and NYS Town Law 280 - a , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows . (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) The proposed access is flat and most suitable for a driyewa :,r . If access to proposed lot were located on the other side of existing residence , it would divide the property into two separate parcels and leave access to remaining undeveloped land at north end of parcel only . Mrs . Sprague prefers to keep parcel intact and impose minimal environmental disturbance . At least 1 / 3 of frontage is undevelopable and most frontage has no access off Elmir_a Road . • If any future development were to occur , it would most likely be at the north end of parcel , leaving of frontage with existing ouse * Howevert eve op - ment of this end of parcel for res . use at this time is prohibited due to ex - cessive road noise . 1 / 3 of arcel is now in a wild state wou remain suc Signature of Owner/Appellant : ` ! �� / . ,, . �. � ; . � _ Date : even if dev . , causing ver envir nju a impact . Signature of Appellant/Agent. %4 . , ��c,i ��li Date : �/ ,? S rS * 500 ' to 650 ' J 14-16.4 Cin—Text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER , 017.21 SEOR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review • SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME Opal W . Sprague 3 . PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Town of Ithaca County Tompkins 4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 817 Elmira Road at intersection with Enfield Falls Road 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: in New ❑ Expansion ❑ Mod iflcationlalteratlon 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Proposed subdivision of 2t acre building lot from an 8 . 82tacre parcel . Proposed lot having 75 ' of frontage on Elmira Road . 7 . AMOUNT *OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 8 . 8 2 acres Ultimately 6 8 2 ± acres B . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? ❑ Yea ® No If No, describe briefly Requesting "frontage variance for the new lot . 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ID Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture Ci ParwForesvopen space ❑ Other Describe: 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL-AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAW? ® Yes ❑ No If yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovals Septic System approval from Tompkins County Health Dept . & Driveway Curbcut from NYS Dept . of Transportation . 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes No It yes, flat agency name and permlVapproval 12. AS A RESULT .00�FFy.PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ yes ��`NO I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Opal W Spraaue/ Sybil S Phillibs Data: 4/ 25 / 88 AppllcanUsponsor name: , ( owner ) ager Sfgnaturr. • / If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 f $ o„ A j Sf7 / / r5b• 0 16 0 goo" . r r sjb. se p . RIN, 91,% /] 4 Q o Olx' . ��r / / �'rot 'y •` i r ti P 4 g c �IF / 1 •\` ► • Y 0 a" o-0 P r � \ a / Pr•� ;grJoL 30 12 pis be 41 of Pro I or C Pi ar � �2 y ' 1 \� yt~ 50 �.: o,d ? \ r / t. ° 5 � Y P / p � � 3 y ` Q zoo, "b of ti YL 0 K 0 0`'� 11 0y J toL 4101 t PQ,� M° ^1 AoAJ e e 4 •s E 30 .; r �` /Y S7ISofE 4526f c,j .c-•t 6 /°ipa � 1 /yarra (/ F G/adti � P• Oe Graff - CJ S� •fatl 1 WOW MILLER �'fors,y ss, /9c/ iyq ,o Of OAY/ O �• SPRA4oIE PRO/ERTr Al Na • 8► 7ELHiRA RoA40frdWvOi /7HAC.q, N• r f« /a / �• /oo � Ca . / Cron dog 'r UPDATED ADRIL 14 1988 TO SNOW DRADO5E0 CO►lVE`(Ah10E — TG. MILLER ASSOC. P.C. EwatWEEIZs j5URVE`{ORS , ITNACA W .YP • a Opal W . Sprague Two-Lot Subdivision - 1 - 817 Elmira Road , Planning Board , May 17 , 1988 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Opal W . Sprague Two - Lot Subdivision 817 Elmira Road Planning Board , May 17 , 1988 MOTION by Mr . David Klein , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 12 . 2 , 8 . 82 acres total , located at 817 Elmira Road , 2a This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of any subdivision . The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of any request for variance . The Tompkins County Planning Department is being notified of this action . 3a The Town Planner has recommended . a negative determination of environmental significance . • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review related to the subdivision request , which is an unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . Abstain - Miller . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Opal W . Sprague Two - Lot Subdivision 817 Elmira Road Planning Board , May 17 , 1988 MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the • proposed subdivision of a 2 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 35 - 1 - 12 . 2 , 8 . 82 acres total , located at 817 Elmira Road . � x i, 6@CT Cop Opal W . Sprague Two-Lot Subdivision - 2 - 817 Elmira Road Planning Board , May 17 , 1988 • 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed subdivision , has , on May 17 , 1988 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on May 17 , 1988 , has reviewed the following material : Short Environmental Assessment Form dated April 25 , 1988 . Appeal to the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer dated April 25 , 1988 . " Map of David C . Sprague property at No . 817 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca , N . Y . ( March 25 , 1961 , Carl Crandall , C . E . ) , Updated April 14 , 1988 , to Show Proposed Conveyance " , by T . G . Miller Associates . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policiesenunciated or implied by the • Town Board , 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with the following conditions : a . Granting of variance of Article V , Section 23 , by the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit a frontage of 75 feet on a public road . b . The provision of a final subdivision map prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer , to be signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans, Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . Abstain - Miller . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy Md/Fuller , Secretary , • Town of Ithaca Planning Board , May 20 , 1988 . • F'A_ T_11=_"vir.g=%ntaI_Aasess9Lnt__Yroposed Sprague Subdivision A . Action is Unlisted . B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , Tompkins County Planning Department ) . any advors.Q - effaata..Qn . #.Q.Qr arieing.fl.m.th 1owla1g_ Ci. __� iatia?g_ or_grQyndWsl1gr gill l lty_Q rgu a tY Salo s g�l eYeia� _e .l a ilg_traf f is patterns , soi,ld_waste�r�,duQ�Qa1_Qr_di�Qaai.�Q�n��_fQr gro�a.Qz��_dr.al.nagQQr_��Qod�.ng�rQ��Q��._' Not expected from the proposed creation of a second building lot on this 8 . 82 acre parcel . The proposed driveway access , within a 75 - foot strip , would be adjacent to two existing driveways , and would be built on the bed of an old driveway . Limited sight distances , an embankment and a ravine north of the existing house make the proposed driveway access the preferred location for access to the proposed lot . The eastern edge of the proposed lot may be within the • 100 - year floodplain , but it is estimated that any house or septic system construction could occur outside of the floodplain . Tompkins County Health Department approval would be necessary for any septic system and well . 1,40 his o_rQJb �_��tur��_Q�� uiturQl_.r��sa�ar� ���_s��_�s��� y—or No significant adverse impact to the character of the area is expected from the proposed subdivision . The property is located in a Residence k - 30 District , and the Elmira Road corridor includes commercial , residential , and horticultural - related uses . The proposed building lot would be located in a small field , and the embankment , ravine , and wetland in the middle of the property would not be disturbed as a result of this subdivision . wildlife or thraal.famd.grendaLLgarad spegies ? No significant species or habitats are known on the lot site that would be adversely impacted . ingPlaria_Qr_gaala as official ly _adoptgdl,_or _a _ch' !ange _in_uSQ_or iteng1JY_of use of _land _or other _natural _resources ? Because the proposed lot would have only 75 feet of frontage on Elmira Road , a variance of Article V , Section 23 , pertaining to the minimum 150 feet frontage on a public road would be required . The lot would conform in dimension to zoning requirements . The reviewer recommends that there • is difficulty in subdividing the parcel because of the undevelopable land in the center of the property and the difficulty of other access to the back field /proposed lot . As only a single building lot is currently proposed , no significant increase in land use intensity is anticipated . QrQwth, subaaQaent development, _Qx.�ated act ties likelv_tg_he_jmduee by the proposed action ? Applicant indicates the possibility of a second lot at the north end of the property , though also indicates the disadvantage of road noise with such a lot development . Any potential further subdivision would be subject to further , environmental review . Qa�__&szag_tarm c �hQ ettee to no t_identlfled_1n_Q 1=C? Not expected . Q1 . quantity -Qr_-tie_Qfenergyl? Not expected . s ther_e_likalv _to hey q=trgYersy related to _pQtentiai_a vverde _erpv_iren.�Utal_i�acta? No controversy is known or Expected at the time of this review . PART.111 A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for reasons stated above . Lead Agency : For Subdivision : Town of Ithaca Planning Board . For Variance : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . , Beeners , Town Planner AA �NL Review Date : May 12 , 1988 /J • TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $40 . 00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : 5 t Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH • C607 ) 2134747 CHECK ZONING : A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to construct a 10 ' - 0 " x 30 ' - 0 " second floor addition MOMMUMIN to existing bedrooms at the east side of the building and a 4 ' - 0 " x 21 ' - 0 " exterior wood deck at the west , each over existing sections of . the building at 1006 East Shore Drive Torn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . US 19 - 2 - 25 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the ',suance of such permit would be in violation of : ArticleCs ) 'It" Sections ) TSF . oc �v r of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such dental and, in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : CAddltional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) The Owner/residents of 1006 East Shore Drive are expecting a child in mid - August and need to increase the - -size of bedroom and storage space in their home . A small office alcove created within the addition will allow both parents to work at home , when required , after the birth of their child . The plans call for closets to be continuous along the east side of the building acting as a. buffer to the noise of trains and traffic along East Shore Drive * e additional windows proposed will provide more light and • ventilation to the existing bedrooms . ( see attached page 2 ).r Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : Signature of Appellant / Agent : Date *. � ; 6 , r 8 • oil Page 2 . ( sta. tement of Appeal from- denial , cont ' . ) • The Owner also wishes to build a second floor exterior wood deck , which once existed , on the west side of the structure to take advantage of the views of the lake . Each of the proposed additions to the structure are designed to minimize increases to the " footprint " and lot coverage of the building , to limit the impact on. the site and neighborhood , and . to have no decrease in available parking space . Without the proposed additions to this structure , the Owner will be forced to relocate and would be unable to recoup recent investments in improvements to the property . For these reasons , denial of permission to proceed will cause practical difficulties and hardship for the Owner . • End of statement . i ADAMS & THEISEN 301 The Clinton House • Ithaca, NY 14850 • (607) 272-3442 MEMO - LETTER Mr . Kenneth Horowitz TO DATE _ May 16 , . 1988 . . . 1006 E . Shore Drive SU13JECT Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Ken : As owners of the - property next ' ' door to you, at 1010 E . Shore Drive in the Town of Ithaca , we have no objection to your proposed additions , to your residence at 1006 E . Shore Drive , to wit : . _ . M "' M J t�✓o ' oueu EaSt . _ ... . .. . . _ _ A . Extending the second story tm� - be ewexi wA4i t4e weet wall of the first story , Be Building a deck over the porch on the lake side . The above inprovements will enhance the appearance and usefulness of your residence and will be beneficial to the neighborhood . Sincere , e W . Theisen Kathleen A . else Ilem P ML4N'2 The D7awing Board, Dallas. Texas 75266-0429 FOLD Al I-) TO FIT DRAWING BOARD ENVELOPE P ENV 10P i. Wheeler Group. Inc., 1982 x k ; � ; rt TOVN OF, ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STRW • ITMACA, NEW YORK 14930 May . 19 , 1988 Mr . Frank Bettucci 3301 North 17th Street Arlington , VA 22201 Re : Certificate of Compliance 108 Ridgecrest Road Dear Mr . Bettucci : This letter serves as a follow - up to our recent telephone conversations with respect to your request for a Certificate of Compliance for your property at 108 Ridgecrest Road which you are now attempting to sell . As we have discussed , there is a rather long history involving litigation between the Town of Ithaca and the former owner , Vincent Franciamone . It is not my intent to review this history in this • letter ; my intent is to bring out certain details only as they may pertain to your request for a Certificate of Compliance . I am enclosing , however , copies of two documents , which are a Court Order issued to Mr . Franciamone in 1972 and a reaffirmation of that 1972 Order issued in 1975 . Where these documents discuss the use of residential space in a former " carport " in the front building , that matter has been resolved . I have received your letter. dated May 9 , 1988 , formally requesting a Certificate of Compliance which , as I indicated during our recent conversations , cannot be issued for several reasons which will be described further on in this letter . In your letter you stated that , since you purchased the property in 1985 , you have come into Town Hall several times over the ensuing years - - 1986 , 1987 , and 1988 - - to discuss 108 Ridgecrest . Road and the . seventeen acres of vacant land behind it , inquiring about any encumberances related to the properties . I must say that I have been . the Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer since August of 1986 and I have never spoken to you about zoning violations at 108 . Ridgecrest Road , until now , nor have I had reason , until now , to go back to past files on this property . Such record searches are usually done when certificates of compliance are requested . Perhaps your visits to Town Hall were for inquiries about the seventeen acres of vacant land only . It is noteworthy that when you purchased the property in 1985 you did not seek a certificate of compliance at that time and that your visits to Town Hall were made after your purchase . • Mr . Frank Bettucci r2 - May 19 , 1988 • At this point , your request for a Certificate of Compliance is denied for the following reasons . 108 Ridgecrest Road , located in a Town of Ithaca Residence District R- 15 , is lis-ted in the Town of Ithaca Tax Roll as two separate parcels , delineated as Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 ( 108 Ridgecrest Road Rear ) and Tax Parcel No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 2 ( 108 Ridgecrest Road ) . Relying on tax maps only and not official survey maps , _ along with past records in Town Hall , it appears that parcels - 5 . 1 and - 5 . 2 were created through the subdividing of the original parcel 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . At some point prior tothis subdivision , there was a two - family home in the front of that- parent parcel and a non - residential accessory building at the rear of that parent - parcel , however , the rear accessory building " became " a residential building , and remains so today . When the land was subdivided , the lot size created for the front " lot " , parcel 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 2 , was 12 , 500 square feet , whereas the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance required , and still does require , 15 , 000 square feet . This parcel , 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 2 , is in violation of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . The lot size of the rear parcel , 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 , appears to have the required 15 , 000 square feet , however , Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 , • of the Ordinance , and Section 280 - a of New York State Town Law , require that a front yard of a parcel . front on a Town , County , or State roadway . By definition in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , a " front yard " is " the open space between the street right of way line and the front line of the principal building . . . " Parcel 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 does not have a legal front yard and is in violation of the above - noted laws . The Town of 'Ithaca Zoning Ordinance also requires certain building setback distances from property . lines . Without " as - built " survey maps I cannot determine if any setback violations exist at this time . The other matter which is addressed. in the Court papers , was that the Court ordered Mr . Franciamone to revert the use of the rear residential building back to an . accessory non- residential. building . On May 13 , 19881v I inspected-- ' both buildings at 108 Ridgecrest Road , in the presence of a real estate agent , Ms . Kate O ' Brien , of Dick Wilsen Real Estate , and found the front building existing as a two - family structure and the rear lot building existing as a single - fami ;y structure . Again , your request for certificates of compliance ( one for each parcel of land would be required ) are denied for the reasons as noted above . • • i Mr . Frank Bettucci 3 - May 19 , 1988 As we discussed , you may apply to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for variance of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Zoning Ordinance for an undersized lot , and , variance of Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 , of the Ordinance , and Section 280 - a of the Town Law , with respect to the building without frontage on a public roadway . I recently sent you an Appeal Form --for making application to the Board of Appeals in this regard . I . would suggest that you submit such an application to the Board of__ Appeals , . with - the requested documents as described in the instruction sheet , along with a recent , as - built , survey map for both parcels . I . cannot issue any certificates of compliance to you until such .time as variances have been granted by the Board of Appeals .- We ppeals .We have also discussed other alternatives , such as the consolidation of both parcels back into one parcel , and the conversion of the rear building. back to non - residential use , as a means of abating the above - noted violations without the need for the granting of variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals . In conclusion , at this point , this letter also serves as Notice to you that your properties , known as 108 Ridgecrest Road Rear and 108 Ridgecrest Road ; are in violation 'of the above - noted laws , and , even though you should decide not to sell the properties , these violations remain outstanding and need to be resolved . Again , I suggest that an • appropriate avenue to such resolution is to seek variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals . Should- you have any questions , please do not hesitate to call me at ( 607 ) 273 - 1747 . Also , as we discussed , you may have your attorney contact the Town of Ithaca Attorney , John C . Barney , at ( 607 ) 273 - 6841 . Sincerely , 01 Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ASF / nf enclosures cc - Noel Desch Henry Aron John C . Barney , Esq . i ' TOWN OF . ITHACA , � „ . . r . ` . ,:. . . APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT j `' Application Date .�� . . Fee : Permit Number$2.50 Main- Main Building or Extension Date 1 .00 - Accessory Building Parcel Number Make checks payable to Town of Ithaca �• Return application too .1. ..... . ...... .. .. . . .. . .. ...... . .. ... .... . .... . . . Zoning District 30.. . .... extend ❑, convert ❑ E] ) a structure or use land Application �h��,y m de t ( build Rd ., Town of Ithaca, N. Y. ... . . At a cost of 1111. f..... .... To be used for ............ OX Structure is to be eted on or b ore ........`:/� .— �_, �!'. . ., . .,, ..;,....... . ... ...... .. . 1 . . ... . ..... ...... ....... .. 1.11..1.4l - -- Owner of land _ . . ct r-t-GGs,� Builder Land Owner's mailing address ...`/. . . .�✓G ' z '� ' � If building is being built for a person other than present land owner, show name . .. .. .. .... ... .. . ... .... .... ...... ..... ... ..... ....................... The structures ) will be as folio s : Square Feet Floor Area : g ,, ; 14 Type of construction ::�' G��'.: ''..... ....... ................... Basement .. . ••.. ....�...-r.... ...-1:ox... .. .. ...............-:1111.. 7l Number of stories —_' First FloorAL .10V0. .........11 = 1111............... ....................... ��1 _ -..... ... Number of Family Units ... Second Floor Percentage of Lot to be occic .,,� . ` .......:........... .. Over Second ....................... ... ... ............................................. by all structures . ....... .. . . Plot Plan on Back of Permit ... ... . ... . . or Attached ... ..... .... The required permits have been obtained as follows : Date Issued FROM TOMPKiNS COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT f� - ��`�'�` �� • Approval of septic system and/or well ��• � • . • . . . ,f'"LLl"'%'✓ ; .:"� ...... ` .i .... ...,-1111... .,.......i Mao FOM TOWN CLERK Street .opening ( if road must be opened for pipes ) .... ............ ....... •••• •••••• Blasting permit ( if blasting necessary) .. ...............1............111... FROM SUPERVISOR . WaterTap ... . .... ..... ..... .. . ............. ............. ...... ..... District . ...... _ :............. ..,. . SewerTap .. .... .. . .. . ........... ... ................................ District . --•..... ....... y FROM PROPER HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTJAI Culverts and driveways `' -��... ....pre. .• " - t FROM TOWN ZONINO OPFICERyr Multiple residence permit 0 a a 0 ...•1.11.1. 1 .:............ 111 ...�:....... .:.... The Undersigned hereby applies for permission to do the above; in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordlimnce and other Laws and .Regulations of the Town of Ithaca, New York, or others having . jurisdiction, and affirms that all o_iu; f statements and information given herein are correct to the best of his knowledge and belief, • 19f� Gr ` ..........Date : . ............ ... �. Signature of ) down' .. • Progress of work. Checked on 4: . Building permit ( ' ) approved by denied under Sectio denn . . ... ...... of the t s, rI. V• .,,;: Zoning Ordinance by . . . .. . . ..... ... .. . ..... ..... Foundation . .. 0...... . . ........... ..... .•1011............ ....... , to `0 • Framing - -. a action 1»111 ...» � . . . ,, Trim �.:...........::.. '�' . >R� Date, of appeal . .. . . . . .......... ... . .. ...... ...... .. ..............1. ._....1.. ....11. " r� , ,4 , Date of hearing .. ..... . ........ .......... .........:... ............ . .. .............. Completion ...................:.:;7, *;1. k '' r w c: Date of advertising . . ......... .. ... . .. . . ... .. ...... .. . .... ......•••..... . .. . ... .. Bomembers notified .. . .. .. . ... . .... . . ... .. .. .. .. . . .. .... .... ...... .1111 Order to refill excavation ard issued on ...41.. .... ....... . .. .. .... .... ' ..C:Li:. • ' ', `rg : _. . . . _ _ .. 1111 � lot IllJot;� h Order.� ....... ... .. . ..... . ... demolish structure . .. er to d l Id It . �^k; issued on ..... ....... ................ . ............::. .:«1 111 :. :...». ' r , Pl i $7.50 Appeal, advertiain$ e;L0 < s ' kjp _ }yq • Ri 11. 1.L .- R, r,v . e ,, , n� .: �toW4i �1 Yfti f 3 f i- 1 ��:. w t. Isis PLOT PLAN " ' INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : Dimensions of structures.W +,err Dimensions of lot. Names of neighbors who bound lot. Distance of Structures from : Set-back of neighbors. Road, North arrow, oth side lot lines, Street name and number. Rear of lot. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. J Is — *., it , . Is Is a • ' 44 IF Z. , s 4 r � �d h •, , E tiAl 6 Sg li. Iiu �1 �" .- ry 4 t a 4 .I ; Is 1c `� t . . gIt ra101, J. Is :'T. �. 4 fit 7.0 i �• ' s'! {ids J st & j art ,V k r l - k 9 f ♦rl P' I �' . y, •1 ilit :Tila r, u . . ' :a . . � .. "E,�YPp;f. a6 '.L t f it Is r S 'Nf ril r , r • r ♦ i . � is 1 . pY tl + 4 ds'ft� itir Its.' 'E, 1p ♦ 'YJ Vs Y`V 1 1 t Al t 1 :" .rf /,yl.•. t V i Isis d ris , �' .� . F[ , J !r f '}rl irl r« ' { * �, I /,, YYYDDD C + Fmb alt M JtSI'C , e tai. 7Mr 5i..{ t 1 � r i ♦ y1,rf �" r „r rb ' ; i 'i '.7,♦v (" 'r : 7 +J! . ? 1 ♦ n, 5 1 �.c�l ? i yy If i v t , r �lY'i 1 . .�yCt k 4 �,i♦c^ ! 7i , i. r V t Fy f r angy ^ x ! {;7'a` ^� t Cl .51r .ol,,, .'.Y � s, ,'Ydr?' '$+ : All it I r t .'. 4) , > Ir r tic v,5v� It f , I� ( r t ♦ 1 i nQr }fi.J�'i 11 1 1. `f f r � .. f � J G Y .0 •El - ; 1 ♦ L M JI"! L, a: `S,r '7 ,. .t.;at . d S�.-_•• s! wT J r •? .?ic3f - t ^ '` ;E 4,ch" S�ATL th91 ♦Y:-r.1f! \ atk Y�^P.t :: 4.i": , fi -:�'y ' ..{{ u ,i , `n. r rJtA J 1 , t :r ! + t ' 4 .• •=..iP i� �i3w't� .,Cik' .. '$$el k sJ ^ by°' !`. {t r� ! P..♦. T.Try[E ' _p . .. + r r ! [ r Sa- ' •aS',Yr (r 't 1 y r , T Lp a • > wlr i +. iy us' 41 4 :: ( .sr ' l 1 ✓�k� Y ♦ ,: 3 ya 1 r +`}♦ 31'{t .Y , '(j .4 ! :: i r -11 i �� tr. e . rtSCiIT. j . \,.t,y,• • r tt Iry . t# 34a r 1 , �. r r ♦ ,is ' . 133 `• Q I <' . 1Y g4'o ' 1 •ft'10 m, ! y+ ./•`r"J,t _ . t t� pq 71 L- :1 1 ry' •: + it Y } M i p �'a' r `'' i ^ fY .j ' i!ajf i) t p .. i� (+ I.k � t'':i� 1i t J' ��ar4a < ,t' ,r• i t 6r .•illi�Y . " �• , TC 1r!i,•, • r1 t ';t.— n Vit, : v g, ; . t i..�; it f r 4 {',f �}. v+t f.4rF., �: ,r • ' !x)p(p� 1 :r layr +gls ,y _ ,, ya, .! A ';"Ir �`6+ ' It .';;/'• {� . r,+ <,( t i !'i� v l .a . ; t(, K *i ,t 'pJ 3s, "' ' ' t, tl `.t .1;� 1 , ':j i• 1tft !�"1 " i� a.r ci a +b s�Y 4;U' 5 1 t . 2 , t 3ieit y�aa� ii { w�' }} qM It y2R S"tnf� t, t .<.i�' :t Jr Ifit ; ln R ( $ '` Is 'der' t.a�: �. v r, ✓" . 1MN.. Po { i�'b 1 t7'. 9 5 n , 1� ' ,.t il�� �i:� S' i. X `1{r rf ity' r . e . Kt y�9ry,,,ye' i+ k , + "t4 ! .L ,YES` } aA{ t ti'._4� 4"`,!A '!` •l}�' 1 .. i , .�1 r:• 4t a St r r C S�ro hin' r ilt �ir 4. , r I .. .r r rr >I� I • y, r l Is, w .0 i•r , . 4,, Is tire �41 �IJLii Is. . • n -3 - i 'riri rl . }'lj ja? x.. o-�r . t . rt '. . f 3 1�rt v ', I ` 1 . It 4 � �{V � °r' I hereby eartify that the structure iii 'r .� ; , 1 rl• . V : �, 1 , ich thin Permit (will be ) ( ��or ed ( Will su ++ )built a Wr !t r All . c rdin be ) ( �� to the a. . . ,t y l B latest Standards of the rr , `'°`' N York State .. `` doo . . ding Code . Signed '� '.�" � ��-�,.�-qty.---O--e•� I I • l ., J. i At a Non-Jury Trial Term of the Supreme Court , State of New York , heldin and foi the County of Tompkins at the Court House in the City ' of Ithaca on the • 17th day of January , 1972 , I PRESENT : HON . PAUL J . YESAWICa , Jr . Justice of the Supreme Court i SUPREME COURT TOMPKINS COUNTY THE TOWN OF ITHACA , - Plaintiff , FINAL ORDER vs . Index No . 70 - 696 i VINCENT Re FRANCIAMONE , i Defendant . The issues in the above entitled action having duly come on to be heard before this Court at a non-jury trial term of this Court on the 17th day of January , 1972 , and the issues havinc, been duly tried on that day , and the plaintiff herein having duly appeared by Buyoucos & Barney , John C . ' Barney of counsel , its attorney , and the defendant herein having failed to appear personally but being represented by counsel , Frank Re Bell , Esq . and the ' Court having heard the allegations and proofs of the plaintiff and the respective counsel having been heard , and the Court having after due deliberation on the 27th day of January , j 1972 made and filed a decision in writing and directing the entry i of judgment as hereinafter provided , it is - ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant be permanently enjoined from using or occupying the areas denominates. i " breezeway " , " laundry room " , and . " BR Bath " on the sketch annexed i ' as Plaintiff ' s Exhibit I , a copy of which is annexed to this Order , of the buildings erected on 108 Ridgecrest Road , Town of i Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York-, for any use other than that of I a carport unless otherwise authorized by the plaintiff ; and it is further ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECREED that •the defendant be and IYOUC05 & BARNEY hereby is directed to alter the aforesaid areas by removing i � ATTORMYS AT LAW kVINOO OANN OUILDINO i NAC^, 14EW VON" 149SO i II ' . . . . .. ,.. . n.. s.r. •i .: ii :t- 1 1 1 . :i. .(�2f7i1ixK�yrl� t21' rx: i i t . ?i i� d^'v s�.< .r;..... . . - . ' O 1 • . partitions , exterior and interior walls , plumbing fixtures and any other items located in said areas , so that the entire 18-foot area denominated on said sketch is open from the front of the house to the back , is visible and is usable as a carport ; and it is further ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant shall maintain said area as a carport and the defendant be and he hereby is permanently enjoined from erecting or constructing or causing the erection or construction of any other type of unit or structure or area other than a carport in said space ; and it is . further ., ORDERED ,. ` ADJUDGED AND DECrUEED that the - defendant be and he hereby is permanently enjoined from using or occupying or i permitting the use or occupancy. of the area denominated " accessory building " , for any purpose other than that for storage and a shop or Jor such other use as the plaintiff may hereafter authorize and in particular , defendant be and he hereby is permanently enjoinedfrom using or occupying said accessory building , or permitting the use or occupancy of said area , in any manner whatsoever as a ' dwelling unit ; and it is further ORDERED , `ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant be and he hereby Is , directedPto remove the existing tenants from said accessory . . building ; and it is further ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendant be and he hereby is directed to remove the kitchen facilities , including the sink , stove, refrigerator and all otherkitchen related facilities from such " accessory building " , and he is further directad to remove all bedding , bedroom furniture , drapes and all other items facilitating use of said accessory building as a dwelling unit ;_ and it is furtHA� ORDERED , ADJUDGED AND DECREED that derendant shall have `YOUCos & BARNEY thirty days after the service of a copy of this Order with notice ATTOKNCTS AT LAW ' 4 -/ONO% DANK DOILVIt .. � IIACA. NEW TOKK utloo 1 1 i f ' Y. : t -1 . Y 'Y wvY.. r . . ♦ nl s' - 3 - i • of entry thereon on defendant ' s attorney , Frank Bell , Esq . , within which to comply with the mandatory provisions of this Order ; all other provisions of this order to be effective `!t I immediately upon such service . ; . Dated : Cortland , New , York February / t 1972 , > T • J . S . C . J y i i .I : i fUYOUCOS E. BARNEY .. .'•!• ATTORKOVS AT LAW .+.AVITIC6 DARK OUILOI NG 0 : TNACA. HIW YORK 1/030 t �•iT. . 1 .' 'r 7 e♦:rw+tpnra T . T.�'T+'iTYtiW T�a 1 r 9s�,�ay ^"'1 .4]v;r..i 'V 'wn vvr �, ,' . .. •rw. i . , - si l' �. tt t t t t { � .t . ,::. 1 y �. : a `t. / rt . �ierle�� { t t}'9 , '• !C ,.. =.3f,j } is y y I i • • 1 h . Pltf's Ev VPN i y o 7 30 Z DD n c �es•r I 1, �I ,I j • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING" . BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS I WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1988 . AFFIDAVIT CW PURUCATI01V - 7:00 P.M. - . . 1 . . 8 direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap- peals: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning THE ITHACA JOURNAL Board of eofthe Town on • of Ithaca on Wednesday, June 29, 1988, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM- 4MMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , on .�.�.� � }� the following matters. O� 'n' � L� 1G � � �� � r � � ADJOURNED APPEAL (from i May 11 , 1988) of Ivor and Jan QQ�� .�' p � et Johnson, AppPellants, • re- " ' - -•. . . -• • •_ • •• • • • �+ �- +�� ✓• -� Y �J. . . . . . being dull' smvorn , deposes g�uesting the out of ; the . Zoning Board of Appeals: for the construction of. a sec- and sa }'S , that he resides in Ithaca and dwelling unit to be at- , County and state aforesaid and Cached to on existing legal non-conforming single-family ' Mat be �-, �' dwelling at 934 East Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... • • _ • • --• • • - •• -• - --- • - •- • •-• • -• • - .. Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- ; cel No: 6- 18-5-10, Residence . District R-15. The proposed ad- ' Of TEC ITwC*& jot'aNAL a public newspaper printed and published clition is to be located on an Zi . abutting legal non-conform- 1 ing vacant lot, Town of Ithaca 1 in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice , of w-hick the annexed is a true Tax Parcel No. which is to be consolidated dated wi with said Parcel No. 6-18-5-10. The re- I copy, R'aS published in Said p a .. quest is made under Article ' . . . . . r1Q.. . �. •••• {-- •• •- ••-••.--- ... XII , Section 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning -0rdiance - - .. . .. . . ..... whereby no non-conforming .. ... . ... . ... . • - •• - -• - • • -- - •-• . .... ... .... .. .. ......_. .. building may be extended ex- cept as authorized by the Board of Appeals. -.. .. . . .. . ..... ... . . . . . ... ... 1 . .. .._ .. .. ..... . . . . . .. . . .. . ... . . . .. . .. . . .. . . APPEAL of Opal W. Spra ue, Appellant, Sybil S. " Phi ips, - � Agent, requesting variance of and that the first publication of said notice K•as on the « Article V, Section 23, Par- - • • ••• •• • - •• • agraph 2, of the. Town of Itha- ca Zoning 0rdiance and Sec- _ _ 19 tion 280-o of New York State _ . . . .. . .. . . . . . I ... . . . �� • • - Town law, fora 2 plus or min- us acre Parcel proposed to -be • ,��.L� subdivided from 8. lo plus or minus acre parcel located � • "' at 817 Elmira Road, Town of - Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-35- 1 - .511 bed and sworn to before me, this . 12. 2, Residence District R-30. ... . ... .. .. .. . .... .. .... ... . . . . da y Said 2 plus or minus ave par- -- - Of cel is proposed to have 75 feet O 1� of road frontage, 150 feet of - ---- • • ••' road frontage being required. APPEAL of Kenneth A. Horo- witz, Appellant, William Gal-- ... .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . .. . al= -•• •• • - • . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . lagher, Agent, requesting au- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . .. . .. . .._ . .1 . . . ... . .. . . ... . . .... .. � ry Board by the Zoning y Pt1�7ItC , Board of Appeals for the ' ex- tension of on existing legal JEAN FORD non-conforming building on o legal non-conforming lot at Notary Public, State of New York 1006 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 19-2- No. 4654U, ; . , 25, Residence District R- 15. Qualified The proposed extension will in TOf ;; � . f; S County not substantially increase the footprint of the existing build- Commission expires Ma ,y 31 , 19- ing, being primarily the addi- tion of living space over o ground floor -through the ex- tension of o second floor. The request for authorization is made under Article XII, Sec- tion 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Frank A. Bettucci, Appellant, requesting vari- ance ariance of Article IV, Sections 14 and 16, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning 0rdiance, with respect. to premise 's known at 108 Ridgecrest Road, Town of Itha- ca Tax .Parcel No. 6-45- 1 -5. 2, Residence District R- 15, said Sections requiring a side yard building setback of 15 feet, a lot depth of 150 feet, and a lot area of 15, 000 square feet. • Said existing lot is comprised of 12, 500 plus or minus square feet, with a lot depth of 125 plus or minus feet and on existing building setback on the south side of 11 plus 'or i minus feet. AND FURTHER, • Appellant is requesting vari- ance aryante of Article IV, Section 16, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning - • • of dinance and rhe New York State ction 280-a ooState Town �— '11117 Law, with respect to premises known as 108 Ridgecrest Road Rear, TownofIthaca Tax Par_