Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-07-12 ` TOWN OF ITHACA Date3/ 4 Town of Ithaca 1 Clerk— Sc� Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 12 , 1989 A Regular Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on July 12 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p . m . at Town Hall , 108 East Seneca Street . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Eva Hoffmann , Joan Reuning , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Town Zoning Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney . OTHERS PRESENT . ( SEE ATTACHED SIGN- IN SHEET ) Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 06 p . m . The first matter before the Board was to consider decisions with respect to the following : MODIFIED ADJOURNED APPEAL FROM MAY 24 , 1989 , JUNE 7 1989 AND JUNE 26 , 1989 ) OF MARIE L . BROWN , APPELLANT , RANDOLPH F . BROWN , APPLICANT/AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON- CONFORMING USE KNOWN AS INDIAN CREEK FRUIT FARM AND STAND , LOCATED AT 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 - 24 - 1 -25 . 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID EXTENSION PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BARN AND ATTACHED GREENHOUSE TO BE LOCATED IN AN AREA BEHIND THE EXISTING " STAND" . AND ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM JUNE 15 , 19881 MAY 24 , 1989 , JUNE 7 , 1989 , AND JUNE 26 , 1989 ) OF MARIE L . BROWN , APPELLANT , RANDOLPH F . BROWN , APPLICANT/AGENT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 56 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AND PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATED MAY 13 , 19871 APPLICATION FOR SUCH OPERATING PERMIT HAVING BEEN MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT ESTABLISHED BY SAID BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER SAID RESOLUTION , FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A BARN DESTROYED BY FIRE , AT 1408 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 -24 - 1 -25 . 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 Chairman Aron declared that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency for the environmental review , the greenhouse matter is being reviewed as an Unlisted action , the barn matter is a Type II action and does not need any further environmental review . Environmental Assessment Mr . Austen made the following motion : RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Marie L . Brown requesting authorization by the Board of Appeals for the extension of a non - conforming use known as Indian Creek Fruit Farm and Stand , located at 1408 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel # 6 _ 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 , Residence District R- 15 , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The vote on the environmental assessment resulted as follows : Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Hoffmann , Austen , King . Nays - None . The motion was unanimously carried . Chairman Aron stated that the matter that is before the Board now is whether or not the Board should or should not grant the request by the Browns for a Special Approval for the reconstruction of a barn that was destroyed by fire . Mr . King submitted to members of the Board some suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions and a proposed resolution approving the request with conditions . There was substantial discussion and amendments to Mr . King ' s materials . After such discussion and amendments , Mr . King MOVED the adoption of the following : TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONSOLIDATED APPEALS FOR SPECIAL PERMITS MARIE L . BROWN ( by Randolph F . Brown , Agent ) Appellant . ( Re-heard Upon Remittal by the Appellate Division ) APPEALS FOR AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT ALTERATION [ = ' EXTENSION ' ] OF THE LEGAL , NON-CONFORMING , AGRICULTURAL USES OF PROPERTY NOW ZONED R- 15 RESIDENTIAL [ Town of Ithaca tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 -25 . 21 ] BY THE INTERIM RETENTION OF THE ' TEMPORARY ' GREENHOUSE ; Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 EVENTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BARN INCORPORATING IT ; and THE CONTINUED USE OF THE ROADSIDE ' FRUIT STAND ' , LAND , AND SUCH ALTERED BUILDINGS FOR ON-SITE DISPLAY AND SALES APPELLANTS seek Authorizations ( Special Permits ) from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Sections 54 and 56 for the Extension of the legal non - conforming agricultural uses [ including the roadside sales of agricultural produce ] on that part of their land , and in and from the farm buildings [ and replacement buildings ] which are now located in an R- 15 Residential Zone , such extensions to include authorization for the continued temporary use of a 1 , 440 sq . ft . greenhouse , and the eventual replacement of the fire - destroyed main barn - - but in a different location and of a design which would incorporate the greenhouse into the barn on the site of such existing green -house . APPELLANTS ' PROPOSALS thus include their ERECTING a slightly smaller , REPLACEMENT BARN at a DIFFERENT SITE ( viz . , partly on the site of the existing , temporary greenhouse , which is located north of and further away from the nearest other buildings in 40 the Residential Zone - - i . e . from the Bower house and barn , than where the fire - destroyed original barn stood ; their INCORPORATING INTO THE DESIGN of such new barn at the first floor level the GREENHOUSE , and their continuing the PERIODIC , SEASONAL USE of THE EXISTING ROADSIDE STAND [ as well as using the new Barn ] for the DISPLAY & SALE of FRUIT , VEGETABLES , PLANTS , and other FARM PRODUCE including not only produce grown on - site , but also produce grown . at their other Tompkins County farm , and produce grown at other local farms not owned by them , and ( to a degree ) produce brought in from other suppliers , some of which is not indigenous to this area . ADOPTION OF FINDINGS RESOLVED , that the Board of Zoning Appeals , with respect to the several appeals of Marie Louise Brown , Appellant ( Randolph F . Brown , Applicant/Agent ) as a result of the many hearings held ( 1987 , 1988 , and 1989 ) upon her applications to extend in the several respects noted , the legal non - conforming , agricultural uses known as the Indian Creek Fruit Farm and Stand , located at 1448 Trumansburg Road ( NYS Rte . 96 ) Town of Ithaca , New York , Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 , Residence District R- 15 , based upon the evidence previously submitted and further evidence received upon the re - hearings we have held upon the Remittal of this matter to us by the Appellate Division , Third Department , of the Supreme Court of the State of New York upon the written opinion ( unanimously adopted ) of Hon . Associate Justice Hon . John T . Casey dated November 23 , 1988 [ Appeal No . 563521 , does hereby i Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 find as follows : SPECIFICS AS TO PARCEL , BARNS , ETC . ( 1 ) The Appellant ' s [ Mrs . Brown ' s ] property is a 25 acre parcel of her 45 acre farm , fronting on the west side of New York State Route 96 ( also called the Trumansburg Road ) in the Town of Ithaca , and it is a sub - divided portion of the former Raymond Frear farm . It borders on the north and west the 6 - 1/ 2 acre parcel owned by John and Celia Bowers ( who have vigorously opposed most aspects of the Brown appeals ) - - the Bower parcel also having been sub -divided from the Frear farm . Both parties acquired title to their respective properties in. January 1980 , as appears from the records of Deeds in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office , and from the filed Miller survey map , a copy of which has been made part of the record herein . ( 2 ) These and other adjacent parcels were operated as part of one or more active farms for probably one hundred years or more last past - - well over half a Century before the Town of Ithaca adopted a Zoning Ordinance . ( 3 ) Both the Brown and Bower parcels were further sub - divided in 1980 in preparation for the sales to them , by enlarging the ' Bower ' parcel northerly by a new north line running about half way between the main sections of the two barns which stood on the ' Brown ' parcel - - leaving the ' Browns ' barn about 28 feet north of the Bower property line , according to the Survey Map in evidence . ( 4 ) In laying out Zones upon the adoption of its Ordinance a couple of decades ago , the Town put the easterly part of the Frear farm into an R- 15 Residential Zone , such that this R- 15 Zone slices into the Brown farm as a wedge , thus in a sense ' isolating ' its Agricultural Zone acreage to the west from the only highway access this particular parcel has - - i . e . the Trumansburg Road . The Brown parcel here concerned is thus at the northerly apex - - that is , at the outermost fringe of this R- 15 Zone , and is bordered westerly , easterly , and northerly by Zones wherein the uses and extensions here sought are statutorily permitted - - albeit within limits and restrictions in the R- 30 Zone . ( 5 ) The properties immediately adjacent north of the Brown parcel on the west side of Trumansburg Road are zoned Agricultural District - - including the portions of the former Babcock Farm , except for that portion recently zoned Special Land Use District . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 ( 6 ) The land on the east side of the Trumansburg Road opposite the Brown and former Babcock farm lands is Zoned R - 30 Residential - - the next less restrictive residential zoning from R- 15 , but a zone wherein farm and nursery uses are permitted , as are usual farm buildings and as is the sale of farm and nursery products from roadside stands " or other structure [ s ] " . Zoning Ordinance Section 18 Subdivisions ( 8 ) and ( 13 ) . ( 7 ) An Agricultural Zone is considered to be 4 Zones ' less restrictive ' than an R- 15 Zone , according to our Ordinance . [ Section 55 . ] ( 8 ) The original barns on the Frear farm [ the one here concerned having since burned down ] were thus put into an R- 15 Zone , and the only access this easterly 25 -Acre parcel of the Brown ' s portion of the farm has to a public highway is at this Trumansburg Road frontage . That part of their farm which is in the Agricultural Zone appears to be an average [ varying ] distance of from 300 to 500 feet west of the highway . The Agricultural Zone here is also at a considerably higher elevation than is the highway . 4D ( 9 ) The Agricultural Zone boundary line lies roughly 250 feet to 350 feet southwesterly ( on the perpendicular ) from the said highway in the area of the Roadside Fruit Stand on the Brown parcel . ( 10 ) ( a ) Neither the Frear farm nor the 45 Acres thereof now owned by Brown had any significant farm buildings on it other than the barns in this R- 15 Zone . ( b ) The Frear ' farm house ' is the house situated on the subdivided parcel adjacent south of the Brown parcel , and such farm house and one barn are now owned by Mr . and Mrs . Bowers . ( 11 ) ( a ) The Bowers use the house and barn for the storage and sale therefrom of antiques , and such business is claimed by the Bowers to be a use ordinarily permitted in an R- 15 Zone [ but at a much lesser degree of intensity than this ] as a " home occupation " . ( b ) Only 200 square feet of building space may be devoted to such a home occupation use in an R- 15 Zone under our Ordinance , but this Board granted [ June 41F 1980 ] a Variance to the Bowers to permit them to use nearly 8 times that amount of space [ 1 , 592 sq . ft . ] in the barn for this business . ( c ) Mr . & Mrs . Bowers also maintain on this adjacent parcel an ' oversized ' advertising sign [ 23 . 8 sq . ft . as opposed to the normal maximum 4 sq . ft . area sign permitted in R- 15 ] for Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 this business , the sign being situated on the Trumansburg Road at the front of their parcel - - this large sign having been erected in 1980 under a 5 - year Special Permit from the Town , and this Board having in July 1988 granted a Variance from the Sign Law to permit the Bowers to continue to maintain such oversized sign , even though the permit therefor had expired 3 years earlier and the sign had thus been maintained by the Bowers illegally for three years thereafter . ( d ) The principal and preferred [ for safety ' s sake ] access into this antique business and barn of the Bowers is via a long [ c . 225 feet ] driveway which extends some 180 plus or minus feet southerly across the subject property of Appellant Brown , leaving the Trumansburg Road a few feet south of the Roadside Stand ( often referred to in the testimony as " the Fruit Stand " ) on the Brown parcel . ( 12 ) ( a ) It was the total destruction of the Browns ' barn , by fire , which brought these matters before this Zoning Board of Appeals - - initially to obtain a special permit for the construction , on an interim basis ( pending the planned ultimate replacement of the barn ) of some substitute farm buildings or facilities : walk - in coolers , which were approved in 1984 but never built , and a temporary greenhouse , which was approved and built , and which is the existing Greenhouse herein concerned . ( b ) This Board approved such interim structures and granted extensions of time for Mrs . Brown to replace the destroyed barn - - extensions permitted ( and required where more than 1 year elapses ) under Article XII , Section 56 of the Zoning Ordinance regulating the reconstruction of damaged or destroyed legal non - conforming buildings . ( c ) The evidence indicates that the roadside stand was not always or continuously used for the display and sale of produce , that such use might have ceased for even several years running , that for a considerable time , sales took place from a large sales room in the main barn itself ; and that it may be that no substantial sales took place from either building or any other structure for periods of a year or more ; but that use of this land and buildings for agricultural uses , . although diminished in volume and intensity and varying in manner , has continued without significant interruption . ( 13 ) Such barn on the Appellant ' s property is the barn referred to in some testimony as " the main barn " , and from it farm produce sales were conducted with some regularity using a large " sales room " therein - - such produce sales having been conducted ( with perhaps some interruptions ) for at least 40 years prior to the destruction of the barn in or about 1987 . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 ( 14 ) The roadside , farm produce stand ( the " fruit stand " ) on the Brown parcel has not always been used for the sale of produce - - the main barn sales room having usually supplied that need and purpose while it stood . The road stand was previously used for a period as a hot dog stand , as a residence for a farm worker , and perhaps only for the last few years ( under the Brown ownership ) for the sale of fruits , shrubs , trees , vegetables , and other produce - - some locally grown , and some ' imported ' non - indigenous produce . ( 15 ) The Bower barn and house are situated about 20 feet above the elevation of the highway , and are reached by either of two long driveways climbing the hill - -- one of such driveways ( the southerly ) being almost entirely on the Bower parcel , and the other ( the northerly , ' easement driveway ' ) being almost entirely on the Brown property as aforesaid . ( 16 ) The Brown ' s roadside stand is located over 230 feet northerly along the highway from the nearest line or corner of the Bower parcel , and is a straight line distance of over 275 feet from the common property line between the barns ; and the stand , greenhouse , and proposed new site for the Brown barn are located some 400 feet or more north of , and some 20 feet - below the elevation of the Bower house , as judged by scaling such distances on the Survey Map of a portion of the DeWitt Historical . Society property , made by T . G . Miller , P . C . under date of December 11 , 1979 , as filed in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office . The subject greenhouse has been constructed an estimated 150 feet back from the highway . ( 17 ) The Brown application to permit the construction of a smaller 2 - story barn west of the roadside stand , with an incorporated greenhouse occupying the footprint of the present greenhouse , contemplates in effect the relocation of the barn from its previous location [ viz . 28 or 30 feet north of the Bower property line ] to an area some 150 to 200 feet northerly therefrom , and at a much lower elevation , and accordingly , its visual impact from and upon the Bowers ' house and property , as well as upon other neighbors , would be considerably diminished from that which the original , close - sited barn imposed . And the new barn ( proposed to be 36 feet x 96 feet overall ) would incorporate the greenhouse structure into its front wall , making itan integral part of the barn and thus reducing the visual impact which the present greenhouse , standing alone , presents . ( 18 ) The Brown applications also contemplate that the replacement barn would be partly dug into the hill which lies behind [ i . e . westerly from ] the greenhouse site . ( The greenhouse appears to be located at least 30 feet west of the Roadside Stand . ) ® Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 ( 19 ) The footprint of the proposed new barn is 36 ' x 96 ' _ 3 , 456 sq . ft . ; if to that is added the area of the present greenhouse site [ 1 , 440 sq . ft ] the total ground floor area of the new barn would be 4 , 896 sq . ft . - - 1 , 176 sq . ft . larger than the footprint of the old barn . However , even so the total usable area within the new structure would be only 8 , 352 sq ft - - which is less than the approximate 8 , 500 sq . ft , of activity area which existed in the barn which was destroyed by fire . ( 20 ) The facade of the proposed barn , as viewed from the road , would be 36 feet longer than the facade of the former barn ; but it would , however , be within the 30 - foot maximum exterior height limitation requirement of R- 15 Zoning ( there being no such limitation in the neighboring Agricultural Zone [ Section 51 ] or in the neighboring R- 30 Zone [ Section 18 ( 8 ) ] ) . This lower and lowered profile of the new barn must be contrasted with the 3 to 3 - 1/ 2 story height of the original barn . Considering these factors , the higher elevation of the old barn , and the relocation of the structure so much further away from the Antique barn on the Bowers property - - all of these aspects would mitigate any potential adverse visual impacts with respect to building mass . ( 21 ) The remainder of the premises owned by the Appellant to the west of the subject parcel are located in an agricultural district ( the boundary line of which District is approximately 200 feet to the west of the proposed greenhouse ) . That area , as well as certain portions of the land owned by the Appellant in the R- 15 Zone to the south of the proposed greenhouse are currently operated as the only non - Cornell owned orchard in the Town of Ithaca . Approximately 50 acres are devoted to such orchard uses . Additional lands owned by the Appellant further to the west are used for pasture and vegetable crops . ( 22 ) Waste materials from the operation of the fruit stand are recycled on the agricultural land of the Appellant to the west of the fruit stand . ( 23 ) The members of the Board are familiar with the general neighborhood in which the proposed construction is located and find that there are a number of commercial or quasi - commercial activities and uses in the vicinity including the Bowers ' antique shop to the south ; the Tompkins County Hospital and the Tompkins County Professional Building Complex to the southeast ; a working fruit farm to the north ; and very few residences other than that of the Bowers next south . ( 24 ) There are no other retail fruit and produce sales outlets within three miles of the subject premises . • I Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 ( 25 ) Almost all of the customers visiting the fruit stand are already traveling on Trumansburg Road and thus there would be minute , if any , additional traffic load on Trumansburg Road . ( 26 ) The location of the greenhouse adjacent to the side of the hill and at this lower elevation is such that it has minimal visual impact on the owners of any of the surrounding lands ; and because of its location back from the road and behind the fruit stand it has minimum visual impact upon persons traversing Trumansburg Road . And if this Board approves the re - construction of the barn on the new proposed site and the incorporating the greenhouse into it , then it will have even less visual impact upon neighbors and those travelling the highway . ( 27 ) Sales of farm produce from this parcel , with entrance from and exit to the Trumansburg Road in the same ( or substantially the same ) place , has been conducted for at least 40 years , antedating the adoption of our Zoning Ordinance , and such sales activity has been carried on without creating unusual or untoward traffic hazards , odors , noises , fumes , or the reduction of property values of the surrounding properties - - perceived highway access problems having been specifically addressed by the imposition of conditions by this Board in 1987 when , following the destruction of the barn by fire , it granted specific permission to the Appellant for the construction of temporary facilities behind the stand , the use of the roadside stand for sales , and an extension of time to apply for a permit to rebuild the barn . In accordance with ZBA requirements , the appellant cooperated with the New York State Department of Transportation in developing and implementing acceptable physical measures to dissuade customers from pulling off the highway or parking directly in front of the stand - - thus diverting vehicles to the sides and rear of the stand . ( 28 ) No credible or convincing evidence was presented to us which would indicate that the existence , use , and traffic in and out of this site , whether related to the sales activity on the Appellant ' s property or to the sales activity on the Bowers ' property [ their traffic having an entrance near the Browns ' roadside stand ] or both , has caused anything more than perhaps an occasional and minor mishap such as might occur as a result of the existence and use of any driveway ; and the actions taken by Brown at the recommendation of this Board and the highway officials noted , should lessen even more the likelihood of any vehicular accidents as a consequence of the extensions of agricultural and sales activities which we are here being asked to authorize and re - approve . ( 29 ) The Board has reviewed the provisions for traffic access and parking and , finds that such design for traffic flow and Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 indeed the actual traffic flow as it has existed since the construction of the greenhouse , adequately provides for vehicles to enter and depart the premises in a safe manner without interfering with the traffic on Trumansburg Road . ( 30 ) ( a ) Many neighbors and others have expressed support for the extension of these non - conforming , agricultural and sales uses by letters , petitions , and testimony submitted to the public hearing , favoring the retention and support of this remaining vestige of the historic agricultural character of this region . ( b ) The adjoining property owner to the south ( John and Celia Bowers ) and some other members of the West Hill Neighborhood Association and its Executive Committee , property owners , and others , oppose the extensions as encouraging commercialism in the area . ( 31 ) The proposed project does not require sewage connections or any septic systems as there are no toilets at the fruit stand. or greenhouse - but there is a porta - john available for employees . Under our building code and zoning ordinance no toilet facilities are required for the operation of a fruit stand or a greenhouse , nor for a barn . ( 32 ) The existing greenhouse structure consists of plastic over a wooden framework with a compacted gravel floor . The building inspector has examined the framework and the attachments of the plastic thereto , and has stated the structure is safely designed and meets all applicable building codes related to the structure . ( 33 ) The present supply of water for the premises is adequate . The Town of Ithaca is proposing to expand public water service to this property , among others , and with such expansion the supply of water will be adequate for all current purposes and any presently anticipated future uses . ( 34 ) This Board had previously authorized the Appellant to build free - standing walk - in coolers immediately behind the roadside stand , to supply a need previously met by the old barn , but the present applications contemplate that any coolers would be built inside the new barn , not as a separate , free - standing structure . GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND OPINION Based upon the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , general principles of law , the foregoing findings , and upon its evaluation of other testimony not specifically referred to but Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 included in the minutes of the meetings on these applications , the Board therefore concludes that . ( A ) It is not the province of this Board to pass upon the character , moral fibre , or motives of any Appellant or of any Witness who appears before it beyond that limited degree necessary to judge the truthfulness of the Application and of the testimony given before the Board . If there have been or are in the future any transgressions of good manners , good taste , or of laws other than the Zoning and Sign laws of which this Board has cognizance , they must be addressed and remedied in some manner or forum other than this . ( B ) If this portion of the Appellant ' s property had been located in the nearby or adjacent R- 30 Zone , the existing and proposed uses and building constructions would be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance with only minor conditions being placed upon the siting of some buildings in particular cases . [ Zoning Ordinance Section 18 . ] Had it been located in the nearby or adjacent Agricultural Zone , the Appellant would have an almost unfettered right to do as she pleased in furthering these and other constructions and uses on this land . ( C ) It is the general agricultural uses of this land and its buildings which is the legal , non - conforming use for which we may grant or deny alteration or extension . We conclude that we are not required to focus upon the continuity or length of use of each particular building for a particular purpose or in a particular manner , nor must be decide upon a building by building basis , where , as here , all have been devoted in one way or another , to a use in furtherance of the owner ' s agricultural businesses . Section 55 of the Ordinance , in the non - conforming use Article , makes it clear that one may change " A non - conforming use . . . to another non - conforming use of the same . . . classification . . " , and we are of the opinion that in the case of an agricultural non - conforming use , this gives some leaway in shifting a particular operation from one building to another , as has been the historical practice here . But even if it were otherwise , we would still be permitted to ameliorate , in a particular case such as this , the 1 - year cessation rule which the statute applies to the non - conforming use of a building . ( D ) A grant of permission to extend the agricultural uses of this land and these altered buildings in the R- 15 Zone is not to be considered an unbridled authorization to treat the land thus Zoned the same as land lying in an Agricultural Zone , or to engage in all manner of commercial ventures upon the site . Rather , the extensions of such uses here granted must be construed and treated as constrained by the more restrictive provisions for agricultural uses as apply to such uses in an R - 30 Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 Residential District under our Zoning Ordinance , and henceforth , any further alteration , enlargement , reconstruction , change of use , etc . of any building in the R- 15 area of this parcel , which is not in conformity with either an agricultural use permitted in an R- 30 Zone , or an R- 15 permitted use , must have the special approval of this Board . ( E ) Because this easterly end of Appellant ' s farm is located in the more restrictive R- 15 Residential Zone , except as permitted under Section 55 , the Appellant is not free to erect , enlarge , re - site , or otherwise significantly alter farm buildings or uses without prior application to this Board and securing its authorization [ or " Special Approval " ] under Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance - - which governs the Alteration or Extension of a non - conforming building or use , and in accordance with Section 77 ( 7 ) of that Ordinance which guides the determinations of the Board in all cases of Special Approval . ( F ) The health , safety , and general welfare of the community ( in harmony with the purposes of our Zoning Ordinance ) will not be harmed by our allowing the construction and use proposed - - but • rather , they will be promoted by our permitting the continuation of the existence and use of the roadside stand and the greenhouse in their existing locations , and by our permitting the construction of a new barn in place of the old , destroyed barn , immediately west of the greenhouse , and by our permitting the attachment of the greenhouse to such replacement barn . ( G ) The property is reasonably adapted to the proposed uses , and such uses will fill neighborhood and community needs and convenience . ( H ) The proposed uses and the location and design of the structures , are consistent with the sparse residential , quasi - commercial character of development in the area , and are completely consistent with the agricultural uses on the remaining lands of the Appellant to the west , and with permitted uses in the Agricultural and R- 30 Zones of adjacent lands north and east . ( I ) The character and specifics of the use and proposed uses are not and will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character to a degree sufficient to significantly adversely affect or devalue neighboring properties , or to seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants and property owners . • ( J ) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses has been safely designed . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 ( K ) The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including the traffic load upon the public highways in the area , and load upon water and sewage systems , will not be detrimental to the health , safety , and general welfare of the community . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVES : ( I ) . ( a ) THAT this Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grants authorization for the continued use of the . subject Tax Parcel 24 - 1 - 25 . 21 for agricultural purposes as a permissibly extended legal , non - conforming use in an R- 15 Zone , and hereby also authorizes the further alteration or extension of such non - conforming agricultural use by permitting the continued use of the existing greenhouse situated west of the road side stand , and permitting the continued use of the road side stand , greenhouse , and contemplated new barn for the exhibition and sale therefrom of farm produce , but subject to the conditions previously imposed by this Board for the regulation of ingress , egress and of parking by customers and employees on the site , including compliance with the recommendations of the State Department of Transportation and other local highway and public works departments which had been previously consulted in the matter ; and reserving to this Board the right to re - open this matter at any time upon Notice to the Appellant , for the purpose of imposing such further or other conditions or requirements as the Board shall find reasonably necessary to the mitigation of any traffic or other problems which might arise in the employment of the property in these uses . ( b ) It is a CONDITION of this and the further special permits and authorizations hereby granted that the items which may be offered for sale at this site shall be limited to those which have been customarily sold from farm Roadside Stands in this County , especially as enunciated by this Board in the matter of the applications of Eddy [ July 22 , 1981 ] - - i . e . , this is not a license to operate a convenience food store or market at this site , despite the fact that the importation and sale of some non - indigenous farm produce will be permitted , and it is to be further understood that the uses of this R- 15 land and these authorized buildings are to limited , restricted , and governed by the same rules as would apply to agricultural uses in an R- 30 Zone , not those which apply to a regular Agricultural Zone under the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . ( II ) . AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that this Board grants permission to the Appellant to construct a 2 - story , 36 - foot by 96 - foot barn adjacent to and covering the footprint of the existing greenhouse , such barn to incorporate a replacement greenhouse on the ground floor and forming ( at least in part ) the ® Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 easterly wall of the barn on that floor . Such construction shall not commence until the Appellant has submitted a Building Permit Application and plans and site plans therefor to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer and Building Inspector and to the Town Engineer , and said Officers have found all to be satisfactory and in substantial compliance with applicable codes , the proposals herein presented and approved , the representations made to this Board as to the size , design and siting thereof and the incorporation of the greenhouse therein . AND such construction must be substantially completed within the time period provided by the Zoning Ordinance . ( III ) . AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that these authorizations are granted in place of the previous authorizations given by this Board for the construction of free - standing walk- in coolers immediately west of the roadside produce stand , and for the rebuilding of the fire - destroyed barn upon its original site . Mrs . Hoffmann seconded the motion . A Roll Call vote resulted as follows : Austen - Aye Hoffmann - Aye King - Aye Reuning - Aye Aron - Aye The motion was carried unanimously . At this point , Chairman Aron called the public meeting to order at 7 : 50 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . He reminded the public and the Board that the meeting will be adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . The first Appeal on the agenda was the following : APPEAL OF RICHARD B . THALER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE EXTENSION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 1030 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6- 19 -2 - 15 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . SAID EXTENSION PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO SAID EXISTING RESIDENCE RESULTING IN A DECREASE OF THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE SET BACK FROM 13 - 1/ 2 ' TO 9 - 1/ 2 ' ( 15 ' BEING THE STANDARD ) AND A DECREASE OF THE REAR LOT LINE SET BACK FROM 35 ' TO 17 - 1/ 2 ' ( 30 ' BEING ® Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 THE STANDARD ) . SAID RESIDENCE , IN ADDITION , HAS AN EXISTING NORTH SIDE LOT LINE SET BACK OF 8 ' ( 15 ' BEING THE STANDARD ) WITH THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO CONTINUE ALONG SAID NORTH SIDE LOT LINE SET BACK THEREBY EXTENDING SUCH 8 ' BUILDING SET BACK . AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Richard Thaler , Appellant , addressed the Board and explained that he has owned the house in question since 1983 and has utilized it in its present condition since that time . The house was built in the early 1920 ' s and very little has been done to it since that time . He said that what he proposes to do is to upgrade this property to the 19901s . Mr . Thaler explained that the lot lines are non - conforming , presently . The south lot line borders on a house ( 1028 East Shore Drive ) that is in a fairly dilapidated condition . He said that since he has owned his property he has never seen anyone at the house on the south lot line . Mr . Thaler stated that what they would like to do is to cut down or decrease that lot line for the space between the two properties from 13 feet to approximately 9 feet . He referred to the survey map and the site plan map which are attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 . Mr . Thaler stated that the north lot line is also a non - conforming line . The house , at the time it was built , was built approximately 8 feet from the north line . He said they do not intend to go any further to the north even though he owns the property that is located to the north . Mr . Thaler said that the extension toward the Lake would permit them to have a sun room . He is going to tear off the existing porch that is there now . It will not adversely affect the neighborhood , in fact , it will enhance the neighborhood . Chairman Aron read into the record a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Jonathan Albanese , dated July 12 , 1989 , and attached hereto as Exhibit # 21 stating his support of Mr . Thaler ' s proposal . Mr . King asked Mr . Thaler if he is planning to change the other porch that is facing the railroad . Mr . Thaler said , yes , that is also going to be changed but it is not going to be extended . The porch is going to be taken off and a new stairway constructed with a small porch on that side of the house . Discussion followed regarding the house to the south and the derelict condition that the house and property is in . Town Attorney Barney said that the property is owned by P G & E L Enterprises . Mr . Thaler explained that he wrote the owners of the property a letter on June 26 , 1989 indicating that he was ® Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 planning on coming before the ZBA and he did not hear back from them . Mr . Frost stated that they were also sent a Notice by the Town . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mr . Austen asked Mr . Thaler if he is raising the roof on the house . Mr . Thaler replied , no , he is only proposing to add one dormer so that the one bedroom is usable by adults . Mr . Austen made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant special approval for the extension of a legal existing non - conforming building to add approximately 4 feet to the southerly side of the building , making the side yard to the south approximately 9 feet 5 inches , and to extend the westerly portion of the building approximately 15 feet , having a westerly yard of approximately 20 feet to the shoreline , in conformity with ® the architectural plans submitted , with the following findings : 1 . This will enhance the looks of the area and will bring the building up to a reasonable dwelling unit ; 2 . No one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposal . 3 . The health , safety , morals , and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purposes of the ordinance shall be promoted , 4 . The premises are reasonable adapted to the proposed use , such use to fill a community or neighborhood need ; 5 . The proposed use and location and design of the structure will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located , 6 . The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenities or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue a neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience neighboring habitants ; ® 7 , The proposed egress and access of all structures proposed will be safely designed , ® Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 8 . The general effect to the proposed use on the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load on public streets , and load on water and sewer is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare of the community . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting on the resolution was as follows : Ayes - Aron , King , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning . Days - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL OF LOUIS E . PENDLETON , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A LEGAL NON- CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 316 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6- 66 - 3 -9 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO SAID EXISTING RESIDENCE WITH ALL REQUIRED BUILDING SET BACKS BEING MAINTAINED , HOWEVER , SAID LEGAL NON- CONFORMING LOT IS 90 ' IN WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SET BACK ( 100 ' BEING THE STANDARD ) . AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron asked to be excused from this appeal . Vice Chairman Edward Austen took over for Chairman Aron . Vice Chairman Austen read the appeal into the record . Mr . Louis Pendleton addressed the Board and explained his reasons for the request . He stated that there are three people in his family and there is a need for more room . Mr . Frost , for clarification on the Zoning Ordinance , stated that the 90 ' width that they have along the road is legal non - conforming but the ordinance says that the maximum front yard set back , which is 601 , has to be a 100in width , so they are essentially 10 feet shy of the 100 ' width at the maximum front yard set back . He further stated that the lot itself opens up to a 100 ' width to a depth of 155 feet so technically that meets the requirement the Town has for describing a rectangle of the 150 ' ® depth in there . Town Attorney Barney referred to the map that was submitted to the Board and asked Mr . Pendleton what the building is in �I Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 front of the house . Mr . Pendleton responded that it is a garage . Vice Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mrs . Ann Pendleton , 326 Forest Home Drive , spoke in support of the proposal . She stated that she lives two parcels to the east from her son ' s property . She said that the designs that they have for the renovation were drawn up by an architect . She thinks it would be a tremendous improvement to the property and would enhance the aesthetics of the whole area . Discussion followed on the sketches that were presented to the Board . Mr . Pendleton explained that his proposal would add 15 feet to the width of the house . Vice Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mrs . Reuning made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant special approval for an extension of an existing single family residence on a legal non - conforming lot located at 316 Forest Home Drive , in accordance with a determination as set forth in Article XIV , Section 77 , subdivision 7 , subparagraphs " A " - " F " , AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that the granting of the special approval be on the condition that , other than the fact that the lot has a frontage of 901 , all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance , in particular the side yard and rear yard requirements will be met . Mr . King seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - King , Austen , Reuning , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF THERM , INC . , APPELLANT , ROBERT R . SPROLE II , APPLICANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL SPACE TO BE ADDED OVER AN EXISTING BUILDING RESULTING IN A NEW BUILDING HEIGHT OF 28 ' + ( 25 + MAXIMUM BEING THE STANDARD ) , AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT AT EXTERIOR GRADE TO Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 THE ROOF RIDGE AND A HEIGHT OF OVER 29 ' AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST INTERIOR FLOOR . SAID BUILDING IS LOCATED AT THERM , INC . , 1001 HUDSON STREET EXT . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 - 54 -2 - 1 , IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE . Chairman Aron read the appeal into the record . Mr . Christopher Black , representing Therm , Inc . addressed the Board . He referred to the plans that were submitted to the Board and that are attached hereto as Exhibits # 3 and # 4 and explained that the difference in the two exhibits that were handed to the Board is that they reflect the concern that the Planning Board had for site approval about the interpretation of the height ruling . He explained that he adjusted the original paperwork to show the elevation ; there is no change in the design of the building . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Black to explain to the Board the need for the new building . Mr . Black stated that the new building is a proposed addition in height to square the original roof line of the original building which was built in the early 1930 ' s for Ithaca Acquisitions . Mr . Black said that if the Board will look at the profile for visual impact they will see that the architect has given them a small cross -hatched section as a reference . The cross -hatching actually indicates the proposed roof line change . That will allow them an additional story over the initial building and they plan to put the computerized engineering group in there . Mr . Black further stated that Therm , Inc . has taken into consideration what they consider to be the necessary egress routes . As the Planning Board suggested it is a very low impact on the neighborhood and the required engineering space will relieve them of that space that is now in manufacturing and give them that manufacturing space . Chairman Aron read from the Adopted Resolutions of the Planning Board , dated June 27 , 1989 , attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mr . Austen asked if the new construction will be steel . Mr . Black replied that it will be steel construction , block walls , with plenty of windows . Further discussion followed on the maps that were presented to the Board . Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 Mr . King made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance with respect to the proposed extension by the conversion of attic space to create a second story on a portion of the Therm , Inc . building in place of the peaked roof to permit construction as proposed , which would give an exterior elevation of 28 feet to the top of the new flat roof and would constitute approximately a one - foot variation from the maximum 29 feet permitted from the lowest interior floor height , finding that that lowest interior floor height in this case is in a portion of the building at lower elevation to the east of the section that they propose to increase by putting the addition on , AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does find that the proposed extension will be in conformity with the guidelines set out in the Town ' s Ordinance , Section 77 , subdivision 7 , subsections " A " - " F " . The Board further finds that there would be practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship to the applicant if the Board were to deny this appeal inasmuch as it appears to be a relatively innocuous addition of facilities to an existing building . The Board further finds that the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed and public safety and welfare secured by the granting of this variance , and the Planning Board did grant site plan approval for this project , subject to the granting of a variance , and no one appeared in opposition to the proposal . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . The voting on the matter was as follows : Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The last Appeal on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF GAIL S . SIMINOVSKY , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE EXTENSION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 5 DOVE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL # 6 - 61 - 1 - 8 . 51 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID EXTENSION PROPOSES ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE ADDED TO SAID RESIDENCE WITH A PROPOSED NEW REAR LOT LINE SET BACK OF 46 ' ( 50 ' BEING THE STANDARD FOR • Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS ) ; THE EXISTING SOUTH SIDE YARD SET BACK OF 16 ' IS MAINTAINED , HOWEVER , 25 ' IS THE STANDARD FOR IRREGULAR SHAPED LOTS . AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE . XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Chairman Aron read the appeal into the record . Ms . Gail Siminovsky addressed the Board . She stated that what she and her husband are proposing to do is to construct a 38 ' by 22 ' addition to the back of their home . She referred to the plat plan that was submitted to the Board , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . She explained that there is no storage area in the house except for the garage area . The addition will be constructed with a basement under it and that would give them the storage area they need for their growing family . Chairman Aron asked when the house was originally built . Ms . Siminovsky replied that the house was built in 1987 . She said when they built the house , they thought there would be enough room but as it turns out they need more . There is no basement under the house , only a crawl space . ® Chairman Aron asked what the total square foot area that they have now is . Ms . Siminovsky replied that they have a little over 2 , 000 square feet of living space now . With the addition there will be approximately 2 , 600 square feet . Chairman Aron asked why the house could not be raised and have a basement built under it . Mr . Lou Riccardi , Builder , responded that it would not be feasible monetarily . Structurally , there would be a great chance of disturbing the structure when digging out from underneath . Mr . Frost interjected that depending on how much they might excavate , they might undermine the foundation as it is . Further discussion followed on the possibility of constructing a basement under the present structure . Mr . Ricarrdi stated that it could possibly run $ 30 , 000 to put a basement in there . He said that if the $ 30 , 000 were put into the addition , the Siminovskys will end up with more living space on the first floor plus they will have the benefit of the basement . Chairman Aron read a letter into the record from Mr . and Mrs . Quash , 7 Dove Drive , dated June 21 , 1989 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 7, and a letter from Thomas F . Lynch , 3 Dove Drive , dated June 20 , 1989 , which is attached hereto as Exhibit ® # 8 . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals July 12 , 1989 Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does find that the proposed addition to the east side of the Siminovsky house , over the deck area by 22 feet by 38 feet , north and south , would constitute a minimal impact upon the neighboring properties ( in particular that of owners Quach to the east ) even though the rear deck is considered the rear yard and the proposed addition would reduce that from 50 feet , its present width , to 46 feet . AND FURTHER FINDS that the addition would be a substantial improvement to the amenities of this house providing basement space , additional living quarters , making a total square footage of the house under 3 , 000 square feet , AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board finds the non - conformity of this particular lot is due to its being a corner lot in an approved subdivision and that the house as it stands was constructed in conformance with the regulations existing at the time . AND FURTHER FINDING , that the proposed extension would meet all the criteria of the Town ' s Ordinance , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , subsections A- F , ' and that no one appeared in opposition to the proposed addition , and that there was written correspondence from neighbors supporting the proposal . ACCORDINGLY , the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the extension according to the plans submitted , upon the condition that there be a change in drainage flow from the rear yard westerly into the ditch along the east side of Dove Drive , in front of the house . Mrs . Hoffmann seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - King , Reuning , Austen , Aron , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 27 P . M . Exhibits 1 8 tached Respectfully Submitted , APPROVED . Connie J . Holcomb S i Recording Secretary Henry Aron , Chairman � 0 3 5 RD a 3 qG • 1 /j�/� a fir7 a � end I &. + c> tq 3a6 rUr esf & D r, p � _ Con 0 eir ) I i Ari qe i EAST SHORE DRIVE 0 ✓J� DRi +' a .S to O ` Y • l - a LEHIGH VALLEY Ln TRACK RAILROAD vcr tn r, N ACCESS DRIVE FROM EAST SHORE DRIVE - ON RA PROPERTY 40 7 S230 30 ' W 40 ' � z NTS RI HT OF WAY oa r r I a 0 O Z OD to O N i Gt �• ld ao co 3w 0 _ cn JO Q ►� 1 �' W to z � t11 rn j U Z o w de — Q -j /� .,J Y � I W Q 0 a _ Q � (D a. 2 Q Q V: Y O m � L7 til W X Q ^ Fa o �- o r — Y c i a O o� - � � w tu `o '' w v / CL Q 7 a Q N a j U ® w z o o I"" U O Y O L Z a,l > a ¢ y r 0 Qz i { - IN ► A I No +t _ a J _ -- i t ,d I + Io f k k! E Q 31 I ti h I 'll, J. dig'. ' 1{e +pI a I' 1 �1 ' '��f , I � ' � 1 II;, ! , I h ' 1t Il I . J 11. - - i - - --- - - - - _ - + x - - — - ---- t < 11 +j I FI I a , . , J , v {h = I I I , IN ry,,tool ll3/d" �T�I �, _ — —2 . •Zrtdo - - — —I ��qq"" � Nto .i� . ! . .IQ �1. I 'I . 41 fill n pJTIS�ii�COi� V%h_f 1 h. _ — _ 1 . ' I � 1 j :FNNy61J1 ! tL - ' .I �L�' L : . '^`"'yXIO �{ FIi . OF ' ' ) �. + , 1— Ir . loll.' , '� o y I 1 I: �--- 1 I I 1 i I 1 I II� , jI r' �, f E I + � ' �+ I' q�' 1 EI {i Ito AP -OF ! f- , J`7 I 0 ` . ' I IV1d '� �I ' I ��y �� 4 01 if A it d' d (yif I r 1 if th I ,� III. fl I' - t a ,I i _ —___ I , ON . it Ir � + I I II ,� FS,1 �rd':�J I. + ' I ' 'I` , F '° - f It !`=I�f > `�.'ri ,N • lZi '� kr ' y1 !14 q "^'"'k'� too , took 1 1� J11 II 1 I i II {1, N {pI Ion1 illi I! I .VII\ (f f:.!- c!r'� II , +J .4,._ (Jr I + +II ' f 'y ,�I i1 �+ N'+41f+a. i 1 + r � �., f ff 1'• P' � � . i �- _I I I - I � . .. � � '� ,I 11 „ 1 , I , a I i � h II T I yY- ,M.I - r � \ ' t� ' fl f I I1 �ilP. FN I .l . . • ! 11 I ' ' � f '.{ + I � ' ) " �I y r l I V . ip" j 1 7 Atl if I : `I ?.'_ NI I .�.� � II + ' II kd ' I r 4 OF N I m K ' ii I. -- -.. { f r 1 L L2 14f J. F 41 N 4 s F. TKrD p I I W p I 1 � - Irl � F ' No > IF , + NN— oi IN—�k I l Noll I I� I I i dl 'r � Q, f � ' I b r I 't I OF+ ' u I hoin i ! � � ` 994 r - Jj •- � : �'. ' + .f J�� , .- , F If `�7� rL,7979r •y�..,� LI/ IIS `'I' ,t - • I� * . ,111 I ,�� • {+ iIF II1 + I '1 '—r' Irl 1 1 , i + I I - �. I I a �� .. k. . I+ y ,; {,. I r l J �44olt ,, k� F,,11r e it if r r, to tt It hIt a — 0 "' r I, 2rsv Ii y oN xu� 5,Al � , Pit � 4 � l I 1 1 11 I I t II it 31 too to I 000 000 rI ' rl ' u i IF I pit : r - - ❑ Q r � ¢ N I. . I a — ,1 • i 1 4F ai _ + � � ;f , � I �� i III 4ED�JM , •� " �:y .�_ ,.. , � � � I i{�� I� I � ' � ; I 1 ISO � .. 7777L 111>h� il �1Fti rUl �, t...( 1 . .IlO000loo "of : I 1 {s� lIII11: IL:1 � i , Y Vr2 it ol Z „ bo too IL N IOR i of n-4rM �k r / . t I ! it ❑ 4rZl'L G4 ; ;� I I? o r 1 - i 'I —t „ .i a I I I of 4 l ��( ItEU qti C�� i— \. 1 III I ' Io-F• PEE R, , cf• • 31 �U �1 �1 11 1 I — ^ I _. -. - 11) ' i Mme . j - I I p I I 1 I I I , I , 1 jl � i ,'li) I er��,.. IfI I I It i It if If j,, � I ( , I � fl� I I • � I I . I w I . lit . 1 If it , 1 i'I I I I tf r I I I I ' i 1 t { I I ) c pp I i• I II! !I I` I t � I I II i , 1 I i Yi ' I'I I "'!�{I- I i i r li I '� I 1 � I 1 t jP 1 'II II I � � : � E {' !j I _� I It ��• �� I � 11 , � �� i� � i � r _ r I - II, ( � I I ! i � •i, - 1 , r L ;,• . 1 i I I I ' �lit l i ' 1x11 r I I t 2 � 1 I, li, i�• i .� ' i i , . I I I 1 ! IVk ( f 1. 1I 1; . I . I I ' � ( i � I I •I Y. I' ' I a. i;. i o . I it Ir 1 ItI It 1 � 1 r 1� 1 ��' ��I; ; •� . lit {, t4 1'�•i� 1 1- - . IIII : , I i int I � t i , I ' t � I I I a •' r1 I ? '1 . Atl i' , 1 i � ,I i • I 1 ' x .I ( • , �I .� CCCp I, , !! UL I N It Lj IIAI _ { � I . 1 , I II ' I 1, i. li. i 4p 11 1 1 Y h111 11 I `• i , l) I . �.1 nl �r . 11' 11 � I 7 I 1! } 1 1 1. I! SII , �' Ir s r I J I f IIS � '� ` > . .11 .i I r l f 1 1 ,I �:I ra�r 1 I I ,I � ,I ,11 I � .I C� I it �� I � � I I I , I e41 !� , I �C II I ! I • 1 • •�' � � i ' i �� � � IIIc � ;1�: ,� , . � � $ Iii � � ' '; � 1 � �. i. i M if 1 � IP if PL 41 ,1I I I 1 e ; j 1 . � , h • ! ' ! • r SII I �I I ,' .I 1 • I ' i� � { , I r I E ) I I „ ail 1; i I, I; ,I� �T YS i I i 77 I R II r I � I If • � t Z 01 { - it Zit l -- - r ri Pit, 171 r ! J ' ;� ' ' I I, I I llI o i I1 Iitt , 11 . ; i I x1 1 � it I , Irk d 141 1� '� �S 1 I (� 6 pi it It 6 fil 4 . , I ! I ' A :� II I14 lli _ till 1 � �I _ }• I ' .v 1t - 1' {I ' � � °f' --10� - I � 1 , t y' s I1 IN s � a • ,�/ . '�I lift � ' , I � , , ' 114 d I r +. : t n,yy+. r•r.+7 l .!i-tl• }) al � I f 4 II , � t 1 � � {70��1� ° ' ,l i 1 ^•.' r1t. . II , � , ' .I s eel I I F , �s�SC.%l , . � i k tt jj y, , t7rS , i ilii r iC � rlss :l Tejwj Th, too 0 !Jr� 0010l � �� �a �.� S w , � �/' t- IZ � ��� l�-�� � �;,,�-�' f� t•1-Q b c �-„-�l � r h-e. � �,ti► �'�'�►�' t S 1 `f' lil (. l J -b .tr� Gi I- V Y "T L: i ? {1,' /•Q 'J r I 1 / .> n n'p u�•./� 1 ^ti J'tjvlV7v� {r r 1 em �Gti ,� � j� fwV . fit Gi J I� 1 S 5 � � %Are( 6: j �C �,.. : I1, {/� �.,. /n.` � `�'� �) T , f- , •,.' ,� � (�,� ;,! � f-V , he V� `"�� �,4.�,.•4L k�LhL s C a lrvlj D i f J F � 4 I � I � i � I y i N W cia r t /1V.•. i ' i - r , SAM f f i Zl . a • 0 , Q _ I I \ � II � B 1 II I � I l I \ I F � 1 1 1 I r I I I 1 1 , 1 � o r ` I fee Id — If lee a 1 ` � 1 f I 4 f � x F y f dP . 2� x Fgo a 146" i Therm , Inca , Manufacturing Facilities 1001 Hudson Street Extension 1 , 000 sq . ft . Addition Planning Board , June 27 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Therm , Inc . , Manufacturing Facilities 1001 Hudson Street Extension 5 , 000 sq , ft , Addition Planning Board , June 27 , 1989 MOTION by Mr . Robert Ren arson , seconded by.. Mrs Montgomery May : WHEREAS , 1 . yThis action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 5 , 000 ± sq . . ft . addition to . the offices of Therm , Inc . , , - , 1001 Hudson _ Street Extension , Townof . Ithaca , . . � Tax Parcel No . 6 - 59 - 2e1 . 2 . This action is an Unlisted action for - which --the Planning Board has been legislatively . determined to . Oact . .as Lead Agency for environmental review of .the proposed site . pl an. . The Zoning Board of- Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review of any required variances , { 30 ,The . Assistant , - Town ' Planner has . . recommended .. that a negative - = determination of environmental � - 'significance be made ' for this proposed action , i i THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : . I That the Planning Board , acting as - Lead Agency - for environmental review of the proposed site plan , -make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for - the proposed . action . Aye - Grigorov , May , Baker , Langhans , Renerson , Smith . .. Nay - None , CARRIED ... UNANIMOUSLY . - -- -- -- - - ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Therm , Inc . ,, . Manufacturing Facilities 10 01 Hudson Street Extension 5 , 000 sq . ft . Addition Planning Board , June 27 , . 1989 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : I Therm . Inc . . Manufacturing Facilities - 2 - 1001 Hudson Street Extension 5 , 000 sq . ft . Addition Planning Board , June 27 , 1989 WHEREAS ; 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval . for a proposed 5 . 000t sq * ft . - addition to the offices of Therm , Inc . , 1001 Hudson Street Extension , Town , of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 2- 1 . _ 2 . This . action . is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed site ' plan , ha-s , on . June 2.7 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance: - . 3 . The ,- . Planning . Board , . at Public H-earing. on. . June - 27 , 19890 has reviewed plans for the . proposed - addition ,. the Short Environmental Assessment Form , and other relevant materials . F THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED * _ . „ That - -the Planning Board grant and hereby, does grant Site Plan Approval. for the project as proposed , - subje.ct to the granting of any required . height variance by the Zoning Board . of Appeals . Aye - Grigorov , May , . - Baker , Langhans # . Renerson , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . »_ _. . .. . . �• ase%�:C�t/ Nancy Nor Full er , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , June 29 , 1989 . /• + .}�;�a� .�,�,•,4r�i � y�y'A9' - . ' � . � ' '+ . ` .!• '�+�-" 4L�.oLfaY-...t. 't� MOM � JP r ei^ �, �+ ,. • i 1 �j.- 'V,f ''tx7Ya••.i�.1'wTti l`�xl1�]tiY Y • oJ1.. x Q ��PftJ':rr}MJnr•,7.'•a�L L. f'tt v : 21 :11 •pr �� Y>r,�[�}�,� ` bJ{� �+S,I� �1� a ��'i Wv Jj � ,��eYf�j' nF � , � �rj8�y,•0�1.�� i - . . Z y i�'•Y - - '�4 '4'+ N , '- ' •I ) t f ice^'/�y i . �li o_. _ ... a :• : ' F' :6 w e.:� �� j . �y.'al rr1. . r 'L' S i n � � {t11 • 6 If it It . IP i �:� , ; •� � it i hp L.. IL, .e. .. i ' ; 4 •.'.r��.----' t .r JI 11 - Z IGO e44 Iv I ' h ..•• v ,a Sw Y J f2+kb T!t �. y�,��..{� ,�. . '.. , •1 K i1' . 'g` "1�}. _ II '•IiY.+ ?-!>.Z.f� ;\Tji jyYy.Y �'Wl't'Y:• ;.. ^ •1 ••V�'� y F.f:L Z�/ �r :! a i '� y 1 . Mulft ♦ } + �-f t e' 4- ':: t � 4'�' J7' ^..1-Z -w" ,a , i •r.i/le�C r,viyFi .y . t pip. ee- t'' r'oh1� y, • , f \ , .- hfifi -.ni�3 • ry.''+ •a� � w Y, ..+�T:ylw � ' . !{� �Y , $� � � *i4��r,♦'1►t,+M'W.•_ � =�J � � �ftJ+ f :;.� � :.. iV ,4.p - ` f I6 , •.♦.!' 1 . ,y..r �*.r: r, •ij_. a t 1 �y .:. ,.le , P , lk 1 � , ILE- 1 I � r ' 1I I db kk ��, .... fk Z I W / IL Im i Ile 1. X47 ! S�QJ�I� �•i!�111 a 1 1111Ic � �' �' i *^ � ._ter . , =3 Ai`.�1�5e� - - - - ' -^• _j.'��-'.j,�.wo 03 ' • L w I: -F— . �. � •� vIL A,e OF rI o ,. � I� �r-i ice ' � l>• : : Z ? 3 I`Ir I. I \ Fill It We i 4� To : Town of Ithaca Zoning board & Zoning Enforcement oi' ticer Re : Attachment to Building Permit Application Gail and Bill Siminovsky , 5 Dove Drive From , Mr. and Mrs . Quach , 7 Dave Drive Date : June 21 , 1989 It is with my knowledge that the Siminovsky ' s , 5 Dove Drive , will be building an addition onto their home . This addition will be built where their back porch is currently located and will adhere to all building and zoning rules and regulations set Birth in the Town of Ithaca . This addi - tion shall be consistent with the character of the homes in the neighbor- hood . I have seen a ropy of their proposed plot and building plana . 1 Mr. and Pers . i? uach nature : Dove Drive Dated : _) M ' r �r T0 : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board FROM : Thomas F . Lynch , 3 Dove Drive DATE . June 20 , 1989 I have received a copy of William and Gail Siminovski ' s plans for an addition on their house at 5 Dove Drive . This 38 by 22- foot addition to the east end of their house is shown as " addition" on the attached plot plan and " laundry room , kitchen expanded , great room , and bath room" on the first floor plan . Subject to the following two conditions , I do not object to this addition . 1 . That the drainage from 5 Dove Drive , some of which now flows on to my lot , all be routed westward , on the Siminovsky lot , directly to the ditch flowing north to south along the east side of Dove Drive ; and 2 . That the Siminovskys agree to accept my own proposed addition , 15 by 28 feet on the north end of my house , which will not be closer than 15 feet to the lot line dividing our pro- perties . I hope that you will approve the Siminovsky addition and ask the Siminovskys to indicate their aggreement by countersigning this memor- andum . Date �`�"_ Thomas F . Lynch Date ( " 20 " g g William Siminovsky Date - w ' Gail Siminovsky TFL / llb Of T LL• AT14N' peals for the extension of a le- 0 ' non-conforming single JOURNAL * amily residence on a legal TxE ITHAC /� non-conforming lot located of �J1 1030 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel N6- 19-2- 15, Residence District R- 15. Said extensionproposes the con- struction of additional living (` L space to said existing rest dence resulting in a decrease i ' of the south side lot line set 1 back from 13 '/A ' to 9 '/2 ' (15' } n5 _ . .. t being the standard) and a de- crease of the rear lot line set back from 35' to 17 'h ' (30' be- in the standard ). Said resi- Q! ms ' - LZ : dence , . in addition, has on existing north side lot line set dar - _ back of 8' ( 1 w 5" being the stan- E.2t %ZS - e - -- --- • •- - •• - - ---.- - . — .__ _ _ . ___ . . _ . . _ . .. __ _. . : d ) ith the proposed addi- lion to continue along said north OG _. `• - F. _ ._ __ . . dset ck thereby such jOiF� AL 8 building ser bock. Authorize- P^ tion is requested under Article LE : : �. t1� a _ �,3 _ . � �� � � i" � CxC u t A1C -XII , Section 54, of the Town of TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. • •------:--•- -•- - --->- = --= - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - • - -- - - - BOARD OF APPEALS APPEAL of Louis E. Pendleton, i NGS 'Appellant,gon requestin outhori- _ . . .� �. ....: "' 989 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS g W DNESD7 0 P. M. 12 1 Peals forythe extension of an Jthe Board of • G By direction of the Chairman existing single family resi- � ' ` � of the Zoning Board of Ap- derice on a legal non-can- --" peals NOTICE IS HEREBY forming lot located at 316 For- GIVEN that Public Hearings est Home Drive, Town of - _ y will be held by 'the Zoning Ithaca Tax Parcel /t6-66-3-9, .. . . .. .. . -- "" - ^- •-• -- -- Board of Appeals of the Town Residence District R-15. The of Ithaca on Wednesday, July extension proposes additional i.ru� .. fe �� L' S � _ _ •Jy � y ` r 5 ; s ! 121 1989, in Town Hall, 126 living space to said existing East ' Seneca Street (FIRST residence with all required Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST building set backs being O • Q t� Side, ) Ithaca, N. Y. , COM- maintained, however, said le- J: . v \• _`' . .. . .. .. ... . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . i C) 1. . , MENCING AT 7:30 P. M. , on gal non-conforming lot is 90' the following matters: in width at the front yard set- i Appeal of Richard B. Thaler, back ( 100' being the Stan- M ^ � 1 _ - -• - - • -• aid ). Authorizations e _ . .9..r .._._ . . . Appe ant, requesting aut on r ' ., • •---•-- • zatron the and of - _quested 54n of theder rtiTownXtol . wrw � " e t �•- Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL f. ttt////r C•• I APPE L ofInc. ,. Appel AI lant, Robert R. Sprol II, pi . .. . . . . . . T � cant, requesting a variance -- . . -_ from Article VIII, Section 44 Paragraph 4, of the Town o Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to a ... . _—_—_ _.. _ ._._. _ , . . .. . . _.. . low for additional. space to be added over an existingbuild r• cr^�` t U.:*# �. i gresulting in a new uildinc _. ; . height of 28' plus (25' maxi JEAN r FORQ mum being the standard), o Notat-A measured from the lower ry PUbll point at exterior grade to the C State of New roof ridge and a height o Y r �' NO over 29' as measured from the 4 (� J ' i0 lowest interior floor. Saic Qualified ; T i building is located at Therm yfl�klns : COun t Inc. , 1001 Hudson Street Ext. ®InITiISSIOn ry _ Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel q6 : 'Plies 54-2- 1 , in a Light Industria ] Q� � `i � T (y District. APPEAL May / oar amino vskf Appellant, requesting autho ' - . . _- � �: zation by the Board of Ap _ .. peas for the extension of o le gal non -conforming sing Y family residence on a legs non-conforming lot located c - 5 Dove Drive, Town of Ithaca - _ _,: :. ,.- . _ , -., _- ... . .. . - , _ • - _. Tax Parcel #6-61 - 1 -8. 51 , Resi istrict ex - . ensionD propo es5 d additonc living space to be added t said residence with a pro Eosed new rear lot line se ack of 46' (50' being to ston dard for irregular shope( lots); the existing south side yard in tt back of 1 o edehowever, isath, _ . standard for irregular shope( . lots. Authorization is request �- - ed under Article XII, Sectioi 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zon - ing Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appec will at said time, 7:30P. m . and said place, hear all per sons in support of such matter or objections thereto. Person may appear by agent or ii person . Andrew S. Fro! Building Inspector.