HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-02-28 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date O .
®. Town of Ithaca Clerk1
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 28 , 1990
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Joan Reuning , Eva
Hoffmann , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Officer/
Building Inspector Andrew Frost .
ABSENT . Edward King .
OTHERS PRESENT . Mary Blumen , Harrison Rue , Bruno Schickel ,
Isadore Blumen .
Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and
stated that all posting , publication and notifications of the
public hearing had been completed and that proper affidavits of
same were in order .
The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
® APPEAL OF ISADORE BLUMEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , OF A MODIFICATION OF A PRIOR
AUTHORIZATION , GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS ON AUGUST 9 ,
1989 , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON A
LEGAL NON-CONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 122 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 2 - 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 .
THE EXTENSION , AS AUTHORIZED , INVOLVED THE ENLARGEMENT OF AN
EXISTING CARPORT TO BE EXTENDED IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION UP
TO , BUT NOT BEYOND , THE PROPERTY LINE ADJOINING LAND OWNED
BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA . SAID CARPORT WAS EXTENDED 6 PLUS OR
MINUS INCHES OVER THE PROPERTY LINE AS MEASURED FROM A
CARPORT SUPPORTING POST , AND 1 . 4 PLUS OR MINUS FEET OVER THE
PROPERTY LINE AS MEASURED FROM THE CARPORT ROOF ,
Chairman Aron referred to the minutes from the Zoning Board
of Appeals meeting on August 9 , 1989 , attached hereto as Exhibit
# 1 . He also read a letter into the record to Mr . Blumen from
Town Attorney Barney , dated February 16 , 1990 , which is attached
as Exhibit # 2 .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Blumen if he has taken steps in
regard to the agreement that was attached to the letter from Town
Attorney Barney . Mr . Blumen responded that he has not contacted
his attorney . He stated that he was waiting until this hearing
took place before doing so . He is prepared to accept the
agreement but he thinks he should wait until after this meeting .
® Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
Town Attorney Barney stated that since he did the agreement ,
there is now reason to question as to whether the Town actually
owns the land adjacent to Mr . Blumen . He thinks that at one time
it was probably owned by Amy Whetzel or her estate - - it is
unclear . Attorney Barney said that Mr . Blumen may be getting a
license agreement for the wrong entity .
Mr . Blumen stated that it is his impression that his
property goes from the north end of the old Cornell boundary ,
adding that the Town has since gotten authority to move into the
old Cornell property .
Town Attorney Barney stated that his concern is that there
is a map in existence that was done at the time when the County
was refurbishing Warren Road which also shows the 20 - foot
frontage between Mr . Blumen and Cornell .
Mr . Blumen referred to the survey map that is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 3 .
After further discussion , Town Attorney Barney stated that
since this is unclear , if the Board chooses to grant the
variance , he would suggest first that there be a condition
imposed that the Town get a survey of who owns what in the
northerly end of this property because he is hesitant about
signing an agreement until he is satisfied that someone has
certified that indeed the strip in question is not owned by the
Town . He thinks Mr . Blumen may need his license agreement from
the Whetzel estate .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the hearing . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
Town Attorney Barney explained to the Board members that in
terms of their action tonight he does not think it makes a great
deal of difference because whoever owns the piece next door is
the person that Mr . Blumen is going to have to deal with to get
legal authority to maintain the post there . He stated that if
the Board grants a variance , they would be granting it to allow
the structure to be erected as it is , slightly across the line ,
conditional on Mr . Blumen obtaining a license or some sort of
agreement from whoever owns that property to maintain it .
Mr . Frost presented photos to the Board showing the old
carport and the new carport .
Mrs . Hoffmann asked how the building got built this way .
® Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
Mr . Blumen explained about " snapping the line " and how he
suspects it happened . He stated that the overhang is simply a
consequence of having miscalculated . He explained that they
wanted something that looked square - - it is not square - -
because the road does not run parallel to their house and they
wanted to give the illusion that he was parallel to the house so
they had to angle in front and they angled in on the side . They
did keep it square on the back , which is the west side and on the
south side .
Mr . Austen agreed with Mr . Blumen that it is an unusual
terrain in which to try to build a structure .
Motion
By Mr . Edward Austen ; seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby
does grant a modification of a previously approved special
permit to allow the extension of one -half foot for the post
and 1 . 4 plus or minus feet over the property line for the
overhang , which will be subject to the following conditions :
• 19 that the owner of the property next north grant
appropriate permission to maintain the existing
facility ;
29 that a survey map or other evidence acceptable to the
Town Attorney be provided demonstrating who the owner
is of this property next north , and if it is somebody
other than the Town , that a license agreement in form
satisfactory to the Town be provided , and
39 that the evidence of title or appropriate documentation
be provided within ninety ( 90 ) days of this date ,
February 28 , 1990 .
A vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes - Austen , Reuning , Hoffmann , Aron .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
•
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF CHASE FARM ASSOCIATES , APPELLANT , HARRISON RUE ,
AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE
IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR
SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACKS AND REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACKS
OF 15 FEET AND 30 FEET , RESPECTIVELY , FOR RESIDENTIAL
DWELLINGS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT UPON IRREGULAR-SHAPED
BUILDING LOTS REQUIRING 25 -FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND 50 -
FOOT REAR YARD SETBACKS . THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS ARE TO BE
LOCATED AT LOTS NO . 1 , 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 18 , 19 , 25 , 32 , 36 , 43 ,
44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , AND 51 AT THE CHASE FARM SUBDIVISION , TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 -45 - 1 - 23 , - 53 , - 58 , - 59 , - 60 ,
- 661 -67 , -731 - 32 , - 361 -431 -441 - 45 , -491 - 50 , AND - 51 ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE 15-FOOT AND 30 -FOOT SETBACKS
ARE ADEQUATE FOR REGULAR-SHAPED BUILDING LOTS IN THE TOWN OF
ITHACA .
Mr . Harrison Rue tacked enlarged colored - in maps to the
wall for the Board to review ( the same map was attached to the
® Board members ' agendas ) . He explained to the Board why the
variance is needed for the lots in question .
Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rue what the hardship is that he
wants the variance on the lots for .
Mr . Rue stated that the practical difficulty is simply that
t ifiiimpossible to fit their most popular housing
model within the constraints of the additional setback
requirements that would be imposed or addressed except for a
variance . He explained that these are some of the same houses
that are on some of the other lots and , as the Board can see ,
they fit within the existing R- 15 setbacks but in almost every
case would not fit within the new setbacks that would be imposed .
Mr . Rue passed around photos of the houses that are in the
development . He stated that the practical difficulty is also
that they are trying to preserve as many trees as possible as was
mentioned in the Environmental Assessment Form . He said that
they have gone to great lengths and quite a bit of expense to try
to save those trees . He explained that they need a certain
amount of flexibility to move the houses back and forth within
the confines of the lot and within the trees that they are trying
to save . They would like to be able to continue to do that on
the sites that are in question .
Mr . Rue stated that the economic injury that would be
sustained would be , for instance Lot 19 , they had a client that
wanted to buy that particular lot and they were not able to give
the client an answer immediately as to where they would be able
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
to build the house and they lost a $ 40 , 000 sale on that one lot .
Mr . Rue explained that these 16 lots are roughly $ 40 , 000 - $ 45 , 000
for over $ 600 , 000 worth of sales and they are finding that they
are unable to give people quick answers and they lose the sale of
the lots .
In answer to Mr . Frost , Mr . Rue stated that there are 3 lots
that do fit - - Lots 50 , 25 , and 32 .
Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Rue if they had these styles of
homes already chosen before the change in the Zoning Ordinance .
Mr . Rue stated , yes , they were working on the architecture
at the same time as the amendment went into effect .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing .
Mr . Bruno Schickel addressed the' Board in support of
granting this variance . He thinks that Mr . Rue has very easily
demonstrated economic hardship which , basically , at this point
for them , would mean that they would have to re - design their
homes and they have spent a lot of money and time designing
their homes to create a certain atmosphere and a certain feel to
their community up there and he thinks they have done an
admirable job .
Mr . Schickel stated that what Chase Farm Associates is
putting together there is a very first class development and
giving them and allowing them some flexibility in that , he thinks
is very important . Mr . Schickel stated that it is unfair to have
a subdivision approved and go through the process of planning the
whole subdivision , and get it done and then suddenly you run into
an amendment . He hopes the Board will see the good side of
granting the variance .
Chairman Aron stated that he wants it clear that this
request for a variance is only for Phase 1 . Anything that the
Board does tonight does not reflect anything which will be before
the Board for Phase 2 .
Mr . Rue stressed that the variance that is being requested
is very small . It most cases you are looking at a small corner
of this rectangle . In every case there is more land on the lot
that would more than compensate , usually a wider frontage or a
wider rear yard . Mr . Rue stated that , to demonstrate , none of
these lots are sold yet . They are roughly two -thirds sold out in
the development but the ones in question are not sold yet . He
said that the economic injury is not self - created , as he
mentioned before . This was passed after the subdivision was
approved and the main thing that he can see on a practical level
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
is that there is not going to be a substantial , if any , change to
the character of the neighborhood . He stated that there will be
45 feet between these houses .
Chairman Aron stated for the record that he has written a
letter to the members of the Town Board as well as the Town
Supervisor and has made it quite clear how he feels as to the
rectangular lots and he feels very strongly , as he felt two years
ago about it , when they worked on it , that it does not work and
they should look into it and make their decisions accordingly .
Town Attorney Barney stated that when the Klondike
Subdivision was proposed , there were some very extremely odd
shaped lots on little narrow , not very deep lots , but wide - -
very strangely shaped lots , the effect of which was that they
jammed up the houses and people were not to happy about it . It
was felt that if the lots were going to be in odd shapes , it
would be appropriate to require somewhat larger side yard and
rear yard setbacks . That is the history or the genesis behind
that amendment . By adopting it , it probably threw a third of the
lots in the Town of Ithaca into a non - conforming status . "
• Town Attorney stated that he thinks they are going to look
at it again .
Mrs . Hoffmann complimented Mr . Rue on the colored maps that
he showed to the Board . She said that they make it much easier
to consider it . They are very clear and very " descriptive .
Discussion followed on the models of the houses in the
development .
Mrs . Hoffmann stated that she has a problem when Mr . Rue
says that they lost some $ 40 , 000 from not having that one sale .
She said that they still have the lot and can sell it to someone
else . She does not see that as an economic difficulty .
Mr . Rue responded that when you are in the business they are
in and you lose a customer , you tend to think of it , and your
banker tends to think of it , as a lost sale even if you are
sitting there with that lot on paper , because it is money that
they could have in the bank right now . Any business needs that
cash flow , the profit and overhead , to keep operating .
Mr . Frost interjected that Mr . Rue ' s point is reasonable .
Mr . Frost stated that , the point that he wants to make , not that
it applies to Mr . Rue ' s particular case , is the question of what
is a reasonable return . They can maybe down - scale the house ,
design a smaller house - - it is going to cost them some money ,
maybe sell the house for less money but if they make less money ,
® Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
then they have lost some money , in that sense , but perhaps they
are still getting a reasonable return . The reason he does not
think that necessarily applies in this case is , that in fairness ,
they were granted approval ; they did go ahead designing their
subdivision after they got their approval , and all of a sudden
after several months , we changed the ordinance with the rectangle
business , which seems to be of some question , therefore , as that
is applied to this particular project , it makes it a question of
fairness .
Ms . Hoffmann stated that she understands that but at the
same time , there are only two months between those two dates and
there must have been some discussion about it . She asked Mr . Rue
Of he was totally unaware .
Mr . Rue responded that he was not aware of this and he
follows the Codes in the Town of Ithaca probably closer than most
people . He said that they were not aware of this until they
actually went to try to get a permit on one of these lots - - that
was roughly in the middle of 1989 .
• Mr . Austen stated that he certainly has sympathy with a pre -
approved subdivision that has to change their act in mid -
stream .
Mr . Frost remarked that his department has looked at all the
cases heard , essentially in the year 1989 which totalled about 60
cases and roughly 22 % of those cases came before this Board
because they had some kind of problem in dealing with this
rectangle .
Mr . Austen asked Mr . Rue what the percentage is here in this
particular case that do not conform .
Mr . Rue answered that roughly one -third of the lots in the
development don ' t conform . He said that it is common sense that
any curved road or cul - de - sac is going to have essentially less
frontage or a slightly odd shape , still meeting the basic rules
of where you can site a house and have the space around it , and ,
most importantly , be fairly efficient in how much
road , water , and sewer you have to pay for to give that person a
buildable lot .
Environmental Assessment
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen .
• RESOLVED , that in this matter the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative
declaration of environmental significance .
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
The vote on the Environmental Assessment was as follows .
Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Hoffmann , Aron .
Nays - None .
The Motion was carried Unanimously .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Rue when the construction on
the roads was started .
Mr . Rue responded that he got the final approval in October
of 1988 , let the contract for the road , water and sewer in
November and started construction in December of 1988 . Before
the ordinance was passed , they had cleared the road and started
work .
Town Attorney Barney stated that he wanted to get a sense of
how far into this program Mr . Rue was before the ordinance
changed .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Rue how far along under that
contract does he think he was in December of 1988 .
Mr . Rue responded all the materials would have been on the
site ; the forest was cleared and they were partly into the water
and sewer work and the road clearing . The lots were laid out at
that point , staked in the front corners at least . The biggest
thing in lot lay out is actually the engineering . There is
roughly $ 50 , 000 worth of engineering to get it to that point .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Rue if he were required to go
back and do the program again ; does he have any sense of what the
cost would be to re - design the subdivision to allow him to build
his most popular model .
Mr . Rue responded it would be $ 75 , 000 to $ 100 , 000 for
architecture and engineering for the quality level at which they
are operating .
Chairman Aron emphasized to Mr . Rue , as well as to members
of the Board , that we are talking about Phase I only .
Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
•
® Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
MOTION
By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , that this Board finds :
10 that the proposed buildings for this Phase I of Chase
Farms development are in non - compliance because of a change
in the Zoning Ordinance that occurred after plans were well
underway ,
2 . that this is not a self - imposed hardship ;
3a that the distances from the lot lines will be in
conformance with the Zoning Ordinance for regular - shaped
lots ;
4 * that the cost of re -designing the homes to fit in
compliance with the new Zoning Regulations and/ or the cost
of re - subdividing the property could be upwards to $ 100 , 000 ;
5 . that the development has been handled with integrity and
aesthetics by placing these houses so as to not disturb
some of the trees and the natural settings ;
6 . that the project will not affect the character of the
neighborhood .
79 that no one appeared before the Board in opposition to
this particular request , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals grant and hereby does grant the variances to permit
construction using the side yard and rear yard requirements
as they were in effect prior to the change in the orginance
that requires larger side yard and rear yard if / certain
sized rectangle cannot be fitted on the lot , and
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the variances are for all 16 lots ,
including those lots where they can at present , even under
the new requirements , site a house .
A Roll Call vote resulted as follows .
Reuning - Aye
Austen - Aye
Hoffmann - Aye
• Aron - Aye
Nays - None .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
The motion was carried unanimously .
At this point , the public hearing section of the meeting was
closed .
Mr . Frost spoke to the Board on the Rumsey Appeal that was
heard by the Board in January . He gave background information on
o the case . Mr . Frost stated that at the last Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting he presented the proposal that Mr . Hayes had to
deal with the outside storage .
Mr . Frost stated that he recalls it was the Board ' s feeling ,
and particularly Mr . King ' s , that relocation of the outside
storage to the west side of the building would be acceptable and
the rest of the Board concurred , and in particular , as Mr . Hayes '
diagram showed , that storage would be at least 5 feet in from the
corners of the ends of the quonset hut .
Mr . Frost explained that the Town Planner has had
reservations about signing off on this project even though the
Zoning Board seemed to indicate at their last meeting that they
would accept moving the stored materials to the west side of the
building . Mr . Frost referred to the Adopted Resolution of the
Zoning Board of Appeals of January 24 , 1990 , attached hereto as
Exhibit # 5 . He said that perhaps what the Board needs to do is
consider modifying the resolution to provide more leeway so the
Town Planner will feel comfortable with signing off on this
project .
Mr . Frost stated that he is in receipt of a letter written
to the Planning Department from Mr . Hayes which stated that since
he has had no response to his February 7 , 1990 letter ( which was
shown to the Board at the last meeting ) , he had gone ahead and
relocated the cable and moved the dumpster to the west side of
the building and he is submitting that this arrangement is
complying with the Zoning Ordinance since we have not responded
to his plan ; he feels he is in compliance .
Mr . Frost stated that he took pictures on February 27 , 1990
and he presented before and after pictures to the Board for
review . He explained that in terms of the visual storage on the
east side of the building , which was the big object of
discussion , it no longer exists . He would submit that he feels
this property is now in compliance with what the Zoning Board
wanted .
Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
February 28 , 1990
Motion
By Mrs . Joan Reuning ; seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann .
RESOLVED , that the Town Planner have and hereby does have
discretion to waive the formal requirements of Section 46 and
Section 46a as to site plan and to
accept the site plan in such form as she
deems appropriate .
The vote on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Hoffmann . ( Chairman Aron out of room
at the time of the voting . )
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p . m .
Respectfully Submitted ,
Connie J ." Holcomb
Recording Secretary
APPROVED :
Henry Aron , Chairman
•
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date & W�/ 4?9
Town of Ithaca Clerk
® 1
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 9 , 1989
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
August 9 , 1989
A Regular Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
was held on August 9 , 1989 at 7 : 00 p . m . in Town Hall , 126 East
Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron . Edward Austen , Edward King , Eva
Hoffmann , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning
Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost ,
ALSO PRESENT : Mary Blumen Isadore Blumen , Helene Porte , Joel
Porte , Gary W : - od , David Axenfeld , Ed Olmstead ,
Mike LoPinto , Jr .
Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 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 .
• The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following :
ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM . JUNE 14 , 1959 ) OF ISADORE
BLUMEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM
THE BOARD OF "PEALS - FOR .THE EXTENSION OF A NON-
CONFORMING STRUCTURE . ON A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING
LOT , LOCATED AT 122 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO , 6-66-2 -3 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15 .
THE EXTENSION INVOLVES THE ENLARGEMENT OF AN
EXISTING CARPORT CURRENTLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 5
+ OR - FEET TO THE NORTH SIDEYARD IAT LINE AND IS
PROPOSED TO BE DECREASED TO J�FOOT + OR - THROUGH
SAID ENLARGEMENT . CURRENT ZONING WOULD REQUIRE A
10 ' SIDEYARD SET-BACK FOR A GARAGE STRUCTURE .
AUTHORIZATION IS REQUESTED UNDER ARTICLE XII ,
SECTION 54 , OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Aron referred to the survey map that had been
provided to the Board by Mr . Blumen , stamped . by Mr . Richard A .
Slade , dated July 21 , 1989s ( Attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 ) .
Chairman Aron stated that he noticed on the Survey Map there is a
wall which extends over and above Mr . Blumen ' s lot line . He
asked Mr . Blumen to address the Board .
Mr . Blumen stated that the wall on the northeast corner is a
retaining wall which , at the maximum is 1 foot above -the grade ,
• and extends slightly into the Town line , and that , therefore ,
does affect their proposed structure . The other thing is that
EXHIBIT # 1 '
® Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 9 , 1989
he based his drawing on the center line of the road as it now
exists . That center line apparently has been moved since Carl
Crandall did his survey and that is reflected on both the
easement map drawn by Hunt _ Engineers and on the map as drawn by
Mr . Slade . Mr . Blumen said that the center of the line which
reflects his right -of-way is as currently given on the map by Mr .
Slade . It is , therefore , approximately 1 foot west of where he
thought it was . He said that clearly he cannot build on someone
else ' s property , therefore , what he proposes to do is to modify
his existing plan by chamfering slightly from the middle of the
carport so he will remain inside of the property line . The
carport would run back roughly speaking 8 feet from the. right - of -
way and .then it would cut in slightly south so that he is within
that line .
Mr . Blumen sketched in on the Survey Map , for the Board ,
what he proposes to , do .He said that the point in chamfering it is
to avoid giving the impression of an oddly shaped building . Mr .
' Blumen said that he is not clear on what the law is here and he
asked how far off he can build to the right -of -way . From an
aesthetic point of view , it would be nice if the carport were
balanced so that it is as far forward as it is back from the
center lines . If he has to move back to the right-of -way line ,
he will do so . If he has to do that , he would like - to have about
a foot overhang on the west side , backward , away from the road so
that they have a little more coverage of the cars . Mr . Blumen
said that he will have to ask for advice from the Board on
whether he can use any portion of the right- of -way since there
are obviously a lot of . people who are using it now .
Chairman Aron referred to the Minutes of the June 14 , 1989
Board of Appeals meeting in regard to the statement made by Mrs .
Hertel concerning the protection of the walkway on Warren Road .
Mr . Blumen stated that the drainage was an old culvert that was
put in just under the road and then there was an open ditch
there . The Town has buried that . It is on the right-of -way away
from his property . The Town has extended culverts , he believes ,
20 feet from the existing culvert . It is now covered by 10 - 15
feet of dirt .
Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing .
Mr . King stated that he thinks the Board should make the
observation to Mr . Blumen that this Board considers zoning
matters only and if he builds something on somebody else ' s
property , like Cornell ' s or the Town ' s roadway , he does it at his
own risk unless he has obtained some formal easement , which he is
not likely to obtain , to build in a roadway .
EXHIBIT # 1
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 9 , 1989
Mr . Blumen responded that .it is unlikely that anybody would
move anybody off but that is not the issue . Mr . King said that
the possibility is always there and if this Board should grant
Mr . Blumen the right to extend his carport to the north in
proximity to the line of the neighbor ( Town of . Ithaca ) and the
Town at some point decided that they wanted to make some other
use of that land they could chop off his carport .
Mr . Blumen said that he understands that and that is why he
is willing to accept the idea of . chamfering so that possibility
does not arise .
Mr . King asked Mr . Blumen if he understands that this Board
is not going to say that he has the legal right to build there .
Mr . Blumen replied that he does understand that .
Mr . Frost said that he would not necessarily give Mr . Blumen
a permit if he showed a plot plan that crossed the property line .
Mr . Blumen stated - - that the plot plan would show that it would
possibly be going into the right - of -way . He said he certainly
would not go across the property line ; no question about that .
There is no question that he would not build over the walkway .
He further stated that the only reason he is suggesting that he
is willing to go out one foot is that he thinks it would look a
little - better . That . way the rear end of the carport would line
up with the house .
After further discussion regarding the plot plan and the
right- of -way , Mr . Blumen said . that . he would only go up to the
easement line and would extend . the overhang one foot in back ,
beyond what it now shows .
Chairman Aron said if there were no further questions , he
would entertain a motion as to whether or not the Board should
grant Mr . Blumen approval for a variance for the back set for
,building a carport as shown on the survey map of July 21 , 1989 .
Mr . King made the following motion :
RESOLVED , That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
finds the following .
1 ) , that Mr . Blumen ' s residential parcel is in a unique
situation topographically as there is very little room
to the front of the house because of the steep drop of -f
of the property toward the west from the roadway .
2 ) o that the Board further finds that the property to the
• north of his carport where he would like to extend
adjacent to the property line is owned by the Town of
Ithaca and presently utilized for a recreational
EXHIBIT # 1
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
August 9 , 1989
bikeway or pathway .
3 ) o it does not appear that the shifting of the carport
wall to the north would pose any serious problem for
the Town .
4 ) 9 that the property directly opposite the Blumen property
( on the east side of Warren Road ) is rather a
wilderness area ;' the one house over there being almost
invisible from the road and therefore the carport will
have no significant visual impact on that house .
5 ) . that the Board has heard evidence about the drainage
situation and it- appears that the proposal would not in
any way adversely affect service to the storm drainage
and water .
6 ) . that the carport might actually assist in removing at
least one vehicle from Warren Road which is a narrow
and steep road at this point .
7 ) . the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on
traffic .
8 ) 9 the proposed access and egress to the structure are
designed safely . Therefore , be it
RESOLVED , that this Board grant and hereby does grant an
extension of a non - conforming use to permit the extension
northerly of the carport along the lines as modified before
the Board of Appeals on this date by the applicant , that
extension to be as indicated on the applicant ' s original
drawings which were 6 feet plus or minus northerly ( it
appears from the survey that it might be 8 feet ) from the
. . west end of the present carport . Mr . Blumen will be
chamfering the northwesterly line to parallel the property
line rather than crossing it . This authorization as far as
this Board is concerned is to construct the addition within
the property line to the west side of the highway right- of -
way line .
Mr . Austen seconded the motion .
The vote on the motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Austen , Hoffmann , Aron .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
EXHIBIT # 1
BARNEY , GROSSMAN , ROTH & DUBOW
® ATTORNEYS AT LAW
315 NORTH TIOGA STREET
P . O . BOX 6556
JOHN C. BARNEY ITHACA. NEW YORK 14851 - 6556
TElECO PIER
PETER G . GROSSMAN
NELSON E. ROTH ( 607 ) 273 . 6841 ( 607 ) 272 - 6806
DAVID A. Dueow
February 16 , 1990
RICHARD P. RUSWICK
ROSANNE MAYER
Mr . and Mrs . Isadore Blumen .
122 Warren Road
Ithaca , New York 14850
Dear Mr . and Mrs . Blumen :
Pursuant to resolution of the Town Board of the Town of
Ithaca enclosed is a proposed revocable license agreement
allowing you to maintain your carport in its present location .
This agreement , as you know , is not yet effective until the Board
of Zoning Appeals has determined whether they will grant you a
variance for maintaining the carport as presently located .
Please forward this agreement to your attorney and have your
attorney contact me if there are any , problems . , or questions
regarding the agreement .
It is . necessary to have this agreement executed by you
within the next month if the carport is to remain . Accordingly ,
I would appreciate your forwardingthis to your attorney at your
earliest convenience so that we can discuss the matter and bring
it to a conclusion .
Very t ly yours ,
JCB : bl
Enc .
cc : Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger
Mr . Andrew Frost
EXHIBIT # 2
8/h ,ed �
REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1990 , by and
between the TOWN OF ITHACA , a municipal corporation , having its
principal office at 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York ,
hereinafter called the " Town " , and ISADORE BLUMEN and MARY- W .
BLUMEN of 122 Warren Road , Ithaca , New York , 14850 , hereinafter
collectively referred to as " Blumen . "
WHEREAS ; Blumen has constructed a carport which encroaches
onto premises owned by the Town of .. Ithaca adjacent to the
northwesterly property line of premises owned by Blumen ( see deed
recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Deed Book 344
at Page 463 ) all � as more particularly shown on the attached
survey map of 122 Warren Road , and
WHEREAS , the . Town for the present does not object to the
occupation of its property , subject to the conditions of this
agreement , but wants to reserve its right at any time in the
future to exclusive and sole occupancy of the premises ;
NOW , THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein , the Town hereby grants irrevocable license to
Blumen subject to the terms of this agreement as hereinafter
provided , and Blumen hereby - takes -such t license, tto use, and occupy
• the premises described herein upon. the following terms and
conditions ,
1 . Use of premises . Blumen may use said premises solely
for -the encroachment of its carport onto the premises owned by
the Town , said encroachments consisting of the following .
( a ) A post constructed on the property approximately one -
half a foot over the property line ,
( b ) A railroad tie located across the property line by
approximately two feet ; and
( c ) A carport roof encroaching over the property by
approximately 1 . 4 feet .
No other encroachments or use of the premises are granted by
this agreement .
2 . Termination of . license . This license shall continue
indefinitely until terminated by either party . This license is
revocable by the Town at any time . If the Town revokes said
license the Town shall give Blumen ninety ( 90 ) days prior notice ,
and upon the expiration thereof Blumen shall remove from said
premises and cease to occupy or use the same .
• 3 . Removal of property . Blumen agrees to remove , upon the
EXHIBIT # 2
REV . LIC , ITH , 2 / 16/ 90 2 : 29pm
termination of this license , any property or encroachments placed
upon said premises including , without limitation , any posts ,
railroad ties , fences , or any other encroachments or any other
evidences of occupancy of any nature whatsoever . Without
limiting the remedies of the Town , in the event any of said items
are not removed at the . termination of this license , at the option
of the Town they shall become the property of the Town and the
Town shall be free to remove same from the premises without any
further liability or responsibility whatsoever to Blumen . At the
option of the Town the Town may remove said encroachments and
charge the cost to Blumen . The Town may,. remove said same free of
any liability for any damage that may occur to the remainder of
any buildings or structures , the support of which is altered ,
damaged , or removed by the Town in the course of removing the
encroachments on the Town ' s property . The Town shall have
absolutely no liability arising out of any losses or damages to
property or persons arising out of such removal .
4 . Binding nature of license . This license is binding upon
the Town and upon Blumen and their respective heirs , successor
and assigns . Both parties , for themselves and for their
respective heirs , legal representatives , successors and assigns ,
agree to be bound by the terms of this license .
5 . Payment of taxes . Blumen tagrees to pay any and all
• taxes or assessments that may be imposed against said premises by
reason of the license or the - Blumens ' use of said premises .
6 . Indemnity . and insurance . Blumen agrees to indemnify the
Town against and hold it harmless from any claim , demand , action ,
suit , liability or judgment , including attorney ' s fees and any
other costs of defense thereof , ( including any claims for
personal injuries and property damage ) that may result from or
arise out of the use or occupancy of the premises by Blumen ,
( including the maintenance of the encroachments permitted by this
license agreement ) their employees , agents , guests , licensees , or
invitees . Blumen agrees ' to maintain liability insurance
protecting both Blumen and the Town from any liability arising
out of the use of the premises permitted by this license . Blumen
shall provide the Town with a certificate of insurance evidencing
such coverage in an amount determined by the Town from time to
time but which , initially , shall be not less than $ 500 , 000 . per
person and $ 1 , 000 , 000 . per incident for bodily injury including
death and $ 50 , 000 . for property damage .
7 . Maintenance of property . Blumen agrees to maintain the
premises and encroachments in reasonably good condition so as to
minimize the possibility of accidents occurring on the property .
8 . Acceptance of condition of premises . Blumen accepts the
_ 2
EXHIBIT # 2
REV . LIC , ITH , 2 / 16/ 90 2 : 29pm
• premises herein licensed in an " as is " condition . The Town makes
no representation or warranty as to the actual condition of such
premises . Blumen releases the Town from any liability to them on
account of the present visible condition of such premises .
9 : Representations as to title . The Town makes no
representation or warranty as to its title to the premises herein
licensed . The use and this license are subject to all title
matters including , without limitation :
( a ) Any state of facts which inspection or an accurate
survey would show .
( b ) The rights of the public in and to any roadway or other
thoroughfare and the use of the premises .
( c ) Any easements , restrictions or encumbrances whether of
record or otherwise .
10 . Termination by Blumen . Blumen may terminate this
license at any time by giving notice of such termination to the
Town and by removing all of the property on the licensed premises
prior to the effective date of such notice .
11 . Grant of . variance . by . BZA . The: granting of this
• revocable license is conditional upon the Board of Zoning Appeals
of the Town of Ithaca granting a variance for the .maintenance of
said carport in its present location . If no such variance is
obtained by Blumen . .by April 1 , 1990 , . this license shall
automatically terminate without any further. . notice from the Town
and Blumen agrees to remove all encroachments from the Town ' s
property by May 1 , 1990 .
12 . Payment of attorney ' s fees . In the event it becomes
necessary for the Town to enforce . any provisions of this license
agreement , including bringing any action for purposes of
ejectment of Blumen upon termination of this license or for
damages for Blumen ' s failure to remove the encroachments when
required to do so pursuant to the terms of this license , the Town
shall be entitled to recover , in addition to any other damages
and costs awarded in such action , reasonable attorney ' s fees and
any other fees of professional outside consultants incurred by
the Town in bringing , maintaining , - prosecuting , and concluding
EXHIBIT # 2
• 3 -
REV . LIC , ITH , 2 / 16/ 90 2 : 29pm
® such action or proceeding .
TOWN OF ITHACA
BY
Shirley Raffensperger
Town Supervisor
ISADORE BLUMEN
MARY W . BLUMEN
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss . :
On this day of , 1990 , before me , came
Shirley Raffensperger to me personally known who , being by me
duly. sworn , did depose and say that she . resides at 139 Pine Tree
Road , Ithaca , New York , and that she is the Supervisor of the
Town of Ithaca , who executed the within instrument , and she
acknowledged to me that she executed the same , and that such
execution was on behalf of the Town of Ithaca and that the Town
Board . of such Town duly authorized such execution .
Notary Public
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss . :
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS )
On this day of 1990 , before me personally
appeared ISADORE BLUMEN and MARY W . BLUMEN , to me known and known
to me to be the same persons described in and who executed the
within instrument and they severally acknowledged to me that they
executed the same .
Notary Public
4
EXHIBIT # 2
oo
to -
om row
��'•.,, � SAND 5V 1.••A�
''ANIIIIIHII•`•
to
I
c 0
m
c
J
r �o10
Q h PIN
S �y'� F•ouuO
o '
j� A6F.. a z
o1
CORNEI.1- UNIVE2SITY91.
�p� ' 0 - O .
� R. Q) QU I 3T ove
syfiR 0i
.
4
a� G) C�yC �P�,I CAROoRT Q
a. 77
1 y
y 4I '0.0
t 1 W
7 �Ly W J 1 Q
.
? of
F 3
v�s' Y 0 s
� = Z a y
Q R.R l'LQ
STEI'� 1 .
ISADORE AND MARY W. BLUMEN '1FILUC
0. OECD BK 344 , Pc. 4(ax
Ctj TAX MAP PARCEL 66 -& 3 . )- 2 PIPE wP 13 seT 2T. SAMMtj
NETATO IW w 0, 13 R eco `� N 64'- 31 40. 5 FROM
ROAD DEED 36) aa►
1 p• dop
° m . � 18moo
ia $ 9 � d
e A 0 u
PIPG 3tL
07 ? 20 u
rou.+o 12 a - ul _ Y 0
1J ovn.K �4.0.� S OF < V y
w e3z ` (a.Ca) se4�stO a a N 1 a
9 to
o0inUg3
CREST
ROAD
SURVEY MAP
I.lo. 122 WARREN ROAD
TOWN OP ITHACA TOMPKIMS Co. ) N .Y
JULN( ZIt 1989 SCALE 1 ° = 26
T G . MILLER A550c1ATE3 P. C .
ENGi ►JEEQS 4 50jZVEYOQ5
ITN /SCA OEW ALUx,.NINRATI 11 W Not
1 CONFORMING to SLCnON plot,
AMIEW0190 DEC. 114 Ig69 SUBDIVISION t. 0.1. SIAIS
IDLAT• TO Show Slew CAitpo" 11 LAW.�ALL( 1111111t�tI911SE0
NERt91I All VALID FOR tNIS IW
AND COPIES futoloo 91GV IF SAID
PAP DA COPIES ION Till IMPRESSION
UAL OF tilt LICENSED LAND SVNITOA
WHOSE 916NAIUAI ANEW 119111911. '
EXHIBIT # 3
14.16.4 (2187)—text 12
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 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
Chase Farm Associates Chase Farm
S. PROJECT LOCATION:
Municipality Tu.im of Ithaca County Tompkins
4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)
East King Road , Chase Lane , and Lagrand Court . .
See map submitted with variance application .
8 . IS PROPOSED ACTION:MAN 13 rAfnn � �
New ❑ Expansion Ie1•Modifleatlon/alteration
So DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
Appeal to 7BA for variance from Article VI , Sec . 14 of the Tovm Zoning Ordinance to
allow for flexibility in siting houses . Variance if granted would allow us to save
4 important trees .
1 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Initially 6 . 84 Mcrae Ultimately 6 . 84 - acres
a . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
® Yea ❑ No If No, describe briefly „ r
If variance is granted , the project will be in compliance with all applicable regulation
If variance not granted , project willstill be in compliance but house siting will be
• y ' ,
9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY. OF PROJECT?
Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ PerWForoet/Open apace ❑ Olhm4
Describe:
Single-family homes .
10, DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
Yes ® Mo If yea, Net 80e1100) and permlUapprovals
11 • IoDOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTIOM HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
Il&Ya ❑ No If yes. Ilat a0ency name and permit!
approval
Existing subdivision has allrecruired approvals .
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMR/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
❑ Yes IdNo
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Appocanusponec; nam C11ase Farm Associates 2/20/90
H . Rue , Agent Dats:
alOnaturrVA
a�
It the action is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
. . Coastal Assessment Form More proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
EXHIBIT #4
PART II -- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 811. 127 It yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
❑ Yes ogNo
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 8 NYCRR, PART 817.6? , If No, a negative declaration
may be supersed�e,d(( by another Involved agency.
❑ Yes ,�l.No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible)
C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste Production or dlgposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly; 40+— e e ee to d 011VIOy1 �'1nL 5 I �
t3 �jo ' -beh�1eJ env► �u t 1 d H c� 5
GY,d a UP-4- de5,,c vi cey�&,ft5o� t2e . .1uW ► Vis "t"o
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood charactar? Explain bMftr.
IJot *fec , k 1 �r � ea5v" S 51a4ed e h G I t, }:>ave, .
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangared specles? Explain briefly.
Net K-4e►0Wv1 'Ivj • VQ. 0%4C�44 6 .,(e0el5 o-F �1 e 514Z ,
C1. A community's existing plans or goals ss officlally adopted, or a change In use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly
AG4 ;u-v, wev�1 d h4v e. a rr,�d� r e. 't vK [ ' -i'o' �,Gis-h'r9 2�+? h wa,,�v�.►�-�s � Yac_ec1 u res .
Tka 5Ya `lrt1 v" 1 m W -h p lL k0+5 tcyr6l ,no d �J , Y1 2. Su b5t2t1rrh o I h t. v+ r�e�'
o� itlb4vijVOA Ylav) Co o;) A3 lots receh't iLl re? \) L"q -b Ll rtLc Z , fg � ,
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. J
A6 ) yt G � a �( �� tvlda �a-f1'Vp� �� G rtt'1[ G�, 1-0 (eQ �CG1m � rMi h^-?�
re Cfize YlIto " yroc, ,IA IV ein eAt* -. - ------- -
06. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In C.1,C6? Explain briefly. .
C7. Other Impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
N d� gc �.�� a 5 cc ,r�su I -I- �-F �t'LI �S a'c�h e►n
PON
D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
At No If Yea, explain briefly r
S f e4 A 4M '. 0 "n^2- Goin u jaoi' oT -a f e?A I S �frY h,"� f1 r r E (ti
PART Ill— DETERMINATION. OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant.
Each effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting p.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (o) duration; (d)
Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that
explanations contain Sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified and adequately addreased.
❑ Check this box If you have Identffled one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration,
Check this box If you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental Impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, thea reasons supporting this determination: Ae. the Sv✓�
1Y, G 1 – eG atcveo�
�Ow +J 6 7F rM-A<A 5D >J , iJ 6 6—D UP ,Al
Name of Lead Agency
Print w Ype Name of ItesPonsible Officer in Lead Agency Title OVVe�sponsible Officer
0 C
Signature esPorn' a icer in lea Agency --;ignaturc e� (it� different from responsible icer -
Date
EXHIBIT 2#4
1
i
MODIFIED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 91 1988 ) OF MARGARET RUMSEY , etc . ,
etc . , etc .
• Motion
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann :
RESOLVED , that this Board will conditionally modify certain
previous conditions of the March 9 , 1988 Zoning Board of Appeals
Resolution , being # 2 which required that the dumpster be located
in a certain place and that it be screened , and # 1 which required
that there be no outside storage of materials other than in the
dumpster , to the following limited extent :
1s that outside storage of materials such as are being used at
this site , namely , spools of wire and the dumpster , may be
permitted on the north side of the building , or to the west
of the building , provided they be screened with plantings ,
fence , or other materials which will protect the view from
the Park so that such materials will not be readily seen
from the park area to the east , and
2e that the applicant present detailed proposals including a
site plan for such screening and location of materials and
dumpster to the Town Planning Department within 15 days from
this date , and
39 that such site plan shall contain property lines including
metes and bounds , adjacent public streets , topography
including existing and proposed contours , size and location
of structures , area and location of parking , off - street
loading and access drives , proposed signs and lighting ,
proposed landscaping , and any other features deemed
reasonably necessary for adequate study of the proposed
plan , and
4e that the applicant work with the Town Planner to obtain the
approval of the Town Planner as to adequacy of the proposed
screening , and
59 that the proposals which are approved be thereafter put in
place within thirty days after the Town Planning Department
has approved them , but , in any event , that should be
completed within sixty days of this date , and
6a that , if the foregoing is not accomplished within the
timeframes as spelled out in this Resolution , the Resolution
reverts to the form of the original [ March 9 , 19881 approval
and the modifications approved this evening [ January 24 ,
19901 shall be void .
The voting on the Motion was as follows :
Ayes - Hoffmann , Reuning , King .
• Nays - None .
The Motion was carried unanimously .
EXHIBIT # 5
Town of Ithaca 1
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990Owe
DRAFT EXCERPT DRAFT EXCERPT DRAFT EXCERPT
MODIFIED APPEAL ( FROM MARCH 9 , 1988 ) OF MARGARET RUMSEY ,
APPELLANT , ALLEN W . HAYES , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII ,
SECTIONS 54 AND 55 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ,
FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE , FROM A MORE
RESTRICTIVE USE TO A LESS RESTRICTIVE USE , LOCATED AT 1-16
EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -
38 - 1 - 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT . R-30 . THE PROPOSED USE IS TO BE
A TELEVISION CABLE SYSTEM SERVICE CENTER WITH OUTSIDE
STORAGE . APPROVAL . FOR USE AS A TELEVISION CABLE SYSTEM
SERVICE CENTER WAS GRANTED BY SAID BOARD OF APPEALS ON
MARCH 9 , 1988 , WITH NO OUTSIDE STORAGE PERMITTED . THE
EXISTING BUILDING WAS PREVIOUSLY USED AS A KARATE
INSTRUCTION SCHOOL .
Resolution
By Mr . Edward King , Seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann .
RESOLVED , that this Board will conditionally modify certain
previous conditions of the 3 / 9/ 88 Zoning Board of Appeals
resolution , being # 2 which required that the dumpster be located
in a certain place and that . it be screened , and # 1 that there
will be no outside storage of materials other than in the
dumpster , to the following limited extent :
1 . That outside storage of materials such as are being used
at this site , namely spools of wire and the dumpster may be
permitted on the north side of the building or to the west
of the building provided they be screened with plantings ,
fence or other materials which . ' will protect the view from
the park so that such materials will not be readily seen
from the park area to the east , and
2 . That the applicant present detailed proposals including
a site plan for such screening and location of materials
and dumpster to the Town Planning Department within 15
days from this date , and
3 . That the applicant work with the Town Planner to obtain
the approval of the Town Planner as to adequacy of the
proposed screening , and
EXHIBIT # 5
hib� f s
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 24 , 1990
DRAFT EXCERPT DRAFT EXCERPT DRAFT EXCERPT
4 . That the proposals which are approved be thereafter put
in place within thirty days after the Town Planning
Department has approved them but in any event that should be
completed within sixty days of this date ,
with the following conditions :
10 if the foregoing is not accomplished within the
time frames as spelled out in this resolution , the
resolution reverts to the form of the original
grant , and
2 * the site plan shall show property lines including
metes andbounds , adjacent public streets ,
topography including existing and proposed
contours , size and location of structures , area
and location of parking , off - street loading , and
access drives , proposed signs and lighting ,
proposed landscaping and any other features deemed
reasonably necessary for adequate study of the
proposed plan .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Hoffmann , Reuning , King .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
t
•
EXHIBIT # 5
0
of Ithaca on Wednesday, Feb- -person. . ;,? - ,i , r
ruary 28, 1990, in Town Hall , 'Andrew S. -. Frost;• :BuilI
ding n-
126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST, Spector/Zoning ;Enforcement i
Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Officer; Town ciQti;&Co. ?
Side ), Ithaca, N. PY. , COM- 273- 174771:�. . `C;;i ;:F?=� r : ._
MENCING AT 7 :00 . M. , on February 23,% 1990. 4; ,ry;. f
the following matters. If
ITHA "' A
APPEAL of Isadore Blumen,1112--11111 JOUILNAL
Appellant, requesting authori-]PLAE I
zation, under Article XII , Sec-
tion 54, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance, of a mod-
ification of a prior authorize -
State of New York , Tompki !ls County , ss . : tion , granted by the Board of
Appeals on August 9, 1989, for
Cts`til Sullins the extension of a non-con-
being duly sworn , deposes and forming structure on a legal t
non-conforming lot located at
122 Warren Road, Town of
Says , that she/ he resides in Ithaca , county, and statc . Iforesaid and that Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-66-2-31
Clerk Residence District R- 15. The
she/he is extension, as authorized, in-
volved the enlargement of on
of' The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper rinted and ublished in existing carport to be extend-
pp p ed in a northerly direction up
to, but not beyond , the prop-
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true erty line adjoining land
owned by the Town of Ithaca.
Copy , was published in said paper Said carport was extended 6
plus/minus inches over the
property line as measured
u a ry ( (� 90 from a carport supporting
►JJ 11 I post, and 1 . 4 plus/minus . Pet i
over the property line as mea-
sured from the carport roof.
APPEAL of Chase Farm Aso-
dates, Appellant , Harrison
Rue, Agent, requesting vori - I
once from the requirements of
Article IV, Section 14, of the ;
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi. I
and that the first publicittion of said notice was on the nance, for side yard building
da setbacks and rear yard build-
ing of to r u C4 r �-r 19 � Ing setbacks of 15 feet and 30
feet, respectively, for resi-
dential dwellings proposed to
be built upon irregular- t
shaped building lots requiring
25-foot side yard setbacks and
50-foot rear yard setbacks. ;
The proposed dwellings ore to
be located at Lots No. 1 , 5, 10,
u
Subsc ' ed and sworn to before me , this day 11 , 12, 18, 19, 25, 32, 36, 43, !
44, 45, 49, and 51 at the .
Of 1 (� Chase Farm Subdivision , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-46- 1
1 -23, -53, -58, -59, -60, -66, - I
67, -73, -32, -360 -43, -44, -45,
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING -49, -50, and -51 , Residence ,
' BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE District R- 15. The 15-foot and
OF PUBLIC HEARINGS , 30-foot setbacks are adequate '
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, for regular-shaped building
1990, 7:00 P. M. - lots in the Town of Ithaca .
B direction of the Chairman Said Zoning Board of Appeals..
JEAN FORD of the Zoning Board of Ap- will at said time, 7 :00 p. m . ,
r peals NOTICE IS HEREBY and said place, hear all per.
Public, Sin_ v of
Ne GIVEN that Public Hearings o objectins in onst of such matters
Persons
will be held by the Zoning I �
41 / 10 Board of Abpeols of the Town may appear by agent or in
No. 46 � -
, ., . , -
Qualified in Tc ;, rte :
� - 31 190.) U1111 �
Commissicn expires M67
•