HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1991-10-09 FLED
TOWN o1.
r ITHACA
Date
TOWN OF ITHACA
L
lerk4� j & .�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS W1-
OCTOBER 9 , 1991
THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON OCTOBER 9 , 1991 BY THE BOARD .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM C . AND THEO H . JENKS , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING A
VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 21 AND 23r OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE MODIFICATION OF
PROPERTY LINES AT 651 AND 655 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF - ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO . 6 - 31 - 2 -- 25 . 2 AND 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 , RESPECTIVELY , RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R - 30 . THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION AT 651 FIVE MILE DRIVE
CREATES A SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 32 FEET , WHEREAS 40
FEET IS REQUIRED , AND A LOT WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SET
BACK OF 147 FEET , WHEREAS 150 FEET IS REQUIRED . THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATION AT 655 FIVE MILE DRIVE RESULTS IN AN INCREASED NORTH
SIDE YARD BUILDING SET BACK FROM 2 ( + OR — ) FEET TO 32 ( + OR — )
FEET AND AN INCREASED FRONT YARD LOT WIDTH FROM 116 . 5 ( + OR — ) FEET
TO 146 . 5 ( + OR — ) FEET .
GRANTED WITH ONE CONDITION .
APPEAL OF JENNIFER C . GREENEr APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO EXTEND A NON— CONFORMING
BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 235 FOREST HOME DRIVEr TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 4 - 11 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , THE EXTENSION
PROPOSED IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENCLOSED STAIR TOWER AS PART OF
AN EXISTING SINGLE — FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT
OF WAY . SAID STAIR TOWER WOULD HAVE A FRONT YARD SET BACK OF
APPROXIMATELY 16 . 25 ( + OR — ) FEET FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ,
WHEREAS 25 FEET IS REQUIRED . IN ADDITION , AN OPEN SPACE BENEATH A
FIRST FLOOR ROOM IS PROPOSED TO BE ENCLOSED , TO CREATE A RECREATION
ROOM , BUT WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT .
GRANTED .
APPEAL OF RICHARD E . SWEET , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM
THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE 8 . 4 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST SIDE LOT
LINE , 10 FEET BEING REQUIRED , AT 120 BURNS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 4 - 1 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ,
DENIED .
APPEAL OF HARRY S . NEWMAN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A DETERMINATION BY
THE BOARD OF APPEALS THAT A GROUP OF FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS ,
RESIDING AT 116 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 2 -
5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , IS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A
FAMILY . SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL BE MADE UPON REVIEW OF THE
STANDARDS ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE I , SECTION 1 , " DEFINITIONS " ,
PARAGRAPH 51 SUB — PARAGRAPH ( F ) , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE .
ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER 231 1991 .
FILED
TOWN Of ITHACA p
Date� � /
® Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals Clerk.
October 9 , 1991 tit
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 9 , 1991
PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Joan Reuning , Pete
Scala , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost ,
Town Attorney John Barney .
OTHERS : Rebecca Schmidt , Erin McDonnell , Scott Newman , Kristen
Vardy , Jennifer Greene , Jean Sanders , Richard Sweet , Bill
Jenks , Theo Jenks , Greg Heist , Virginia Langhans .
Chairman Austen opened the meeting 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 to be heard by the Board was the following .
APPEAL OF WILLIAM C . AND THEO H . JENKS , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING
® A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 21 AND
23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE
MODIFICATION OF PROPERTY LINES AT 651 AND 655 FIVE MILE DRIVE ,
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 31 - 2 - 25 . 2 AND 6 - 31 - 2 - 2401
RESPECTIVELY , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE PROPOSED
MODIFICATION AT 651 FIVE MILE DRIVE CREATES A SOUTH SIDE YARD
BUILDING SET BACK OF 32 FEET , WHEREAS 40 FEET IS REQUIRED , AND
A LOT WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SET BACK OF 147 FEET ,
WHEREAS 150 FEET IS REQUIRED . THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION AT
655 FIVE MILE DRIVE RESULTS IN AN INCREASED NORTH SIDE YARD
BUILDING SET BACK FROM 2 ( + OR - ) FEET TO 32 ( + OR - ) FEET AND
AN INCREASED FRONT YARD LOT WIDTH FROM 116 . 5 ( + OR - ) FEET TO
146 . 5 ( + OR - ) FEET .
Mr . William Jenks addressed the Board and explained the
reasons for his request .
Mr . Frost pointed out to the Board that Lot No . 655 was
legally non - conforming . The moving of the lot line in fact
decreases the deficiency for non - conformance for that lot but it
nevertheless remains non - conforming . The action of granting the
variance actually also involves modifications to Lot No . 651 which
would be part of this appeal .
•
1
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
Chairman Austen read a letter signed by Jack Gainey , Louis J .
Mobbs , Martha Mobbs , Ralph E . Bacon , Edith Becker and William R .
Slade stating that they are in accord with Mr . Jenks ' proposal .
The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 .
Chairman Austen referred to the Adopted Resolution and the
SEAR Resolution from the Planning Board meeting of September 17 ,
1991 . The Adopted Resolution and SEQR Resolution are attached
hereto as Exhibits # 2 and # 3 .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the Board . Chairman. Austen closed the public hearing .
MOTION
By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning ,
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
grant and hereby does grant the appellants , William C . and Theo H .
Jenks , a variance for the relocation of the lot line between
Parcels 31 - 2 - 25 . 2 and 31 - 2 - 24 , as shown on the survey map of Howard
Schleider , dated April 23 , 1991 , with the following findings and
condition :
19 that the existing lot line imposes a difficulty and hardship
on the proper and adequate use of the premises of the
applicant , being parcel 31 - 2 - 24 .
2o that the relocation of the lot line as proposed relieves the
applicant of that hardship and imposes no hardship on any
other premises .
3 * that several of the neighbors who are affected by this request
are agreed that this is an appropriate application and have
given their consent to it .
4a that the relocation of the lot line is consistent with the
structure and layout of lots in the neighborhood and
consistent with the general character of the neighborhood .
5o that the subdivision map and deed shall be filed with the
Tompkins County Clerk .
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Austen , Scala .
Nays - None .
2
® Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
The Motion was carried unanimously .
The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following .
APPEAL OF JENNIFER C . GREENE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII ,
SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO EXTEND
A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 235 FOREST HOME
DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 4 - 11 , RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R- 15 . THE EXTENSION PROPOSED IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF
AN ENCLOSED STAIR TOWER AS PART OF AN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY
RESIDENCE LOCATED WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY . SAID STAIR
TOWER WOULD HAVE A FRONT YARD SET BACK OF APPROXIMATELY 16 . 25
( + OR - ) FEET FROM THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY , WHEREAS 25 FEET IS
REQUIRED . IN ADDITION , AN OPEN SPACE BENEATH A FIRST FLOOR
ROOM IS PROPOSED TO BE ENCLOSED , TO CREATE A RECREATION ROOM ,
BUT WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT .
Ms . Jennifer Greene explained to the Board that her request is
for the addition of a playroom and a stairwell for access to the
playroom in her home . She stated that the playroom will add one
more central living area to her home , which currently only has a
living room and a dining room . The playroom will be primarily for
children ' s use . The playroom will fit within the existing
structure of the house . The stairwell will constitute a minor
change in the house ' s " footprint " .
Ms . Greene referred to drawings of the proposed room and
stairwell and discussion followed with her answering questions from
Board members .
Chairman Austen read letters from Karen Baum and John Hoffman ,
237 Forest Home Drive , dated September 26 , 1991 ; Terry N . Garrison
and Roger W . Garrison , 233 Forest Home Drive , dated September 24 ,
1991 ; and Nancy Brcak , 228 Forest Home Drive , dated September 25 ,
1991 in support of Ms . Greene ' s proposal . The letters are attached
hereto as exhibits # 4 , # 5 , and # 6 .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Chairman Austen referred to Part III of the Short
Environmental Assessment Form which was signed by Assistant Planner
George Frantz , dated October 3 , 1991 . The entire SEAF is attached
hereto as Exhibit V .
3
® Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
Environmental Assessment
MOTION by Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines .
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Jennifer C .
Greene requesting authorization to extend a non - conforming
building / lot located at 235 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 4 - 11 , for the purpose of the construction of an
enclosed stair tower as part of an existing single - family residence
located within the road right - of - way and for the purpose of
enclosing an open space beneath a first floor room to create a
recreation room , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make
and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental
significance .
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows .
Ayes - Reuning , Hines , Scala , Austen .
Nays - None .
The Motion carried unanimously .
MOTION
By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala :
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
extend and hereby does extend the non - conforming building / lot
located at 235 Forest Home Drive to allow for the proposed
construction of an enclosed stair tower as indicated on the plans
submitted , with the following findings :
10 that it is a hardship to approach the proposed playroom
because of the size of the home .
2 * that the plans as submitted will certainly enhance the
building aesthetically .
3 * that there were letters from three neighbors in support
of the proposed construction .
4w that the non - conforming character of this structure
relates to the unusual road that goes through Forest Home
which makes a lot of properties non - conforming .
59 that the proposed structure does not increase any other
aspect of non - conformity .
4
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Scala , Hines .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
The next Appeal before the Board was the following .
APPEAL OF RICHARD E . SWEET , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF
ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE 8 . 4 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST
SIDE LOT LINE , 10 FEET BEING REQUIRED , AT 120 BURNS ROAD , TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 4 - 1 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ,
Chairman Austen read into the record a letter from Richard E .
Sweet , Jr . , dated September 23 , 1991 and attached hereto as Exhibit
# 8 .
Ms . Jean M . Sanders and Mr . Richard Sweet appeared before the
Board and explained how the error occurred when the property was
surveyed . Mr . Sweet admitted that he made an 18 " error in his
calculation .
Mr . Greg Heist read a letter from James W . Hamilton , 1603
Slaterville Road , into the record expressing his displeasure over
the location of Mr . Sweet ' s garage . The letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit # 9 .
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to
address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Mr . Frost , for the record as a matter of clarification , stated
that we have issued in the last 5 years 450 building permits for
new buildings , and the Zoning Board of Appeals has entertained 5
variances , three were for violations of building height from the
construction and two were for side lot lines . Two of the three
building height variances were denied by the Zoning Board and the
other side yard variance request on new construction was also
denied . There has been only one variance granted by this Board up
until tonight for those four past applications made for
construction .
Discussion followed with Mr . Sweet answering questions on how
the error was made and what solutions there might be to the
problem .
5
® Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
MOTION
By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the application for the construction of a
garage at 120 Burns Road less than 10 feet from the property line
with the adjoining parcel of Hamilton be denied on the showing that
there has been a mistake made that was not the result of any
hardship on the part of Mr . Sweet .
Ayes - Austen , Scala , Reuning , Hines .
Nays - None .
The Motion was carried unanimously .
The final Appeal before the Board was the following .
APPEAL OF HARRY S . NEWMAN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A
DETERMINATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS THAT A GROUP OF FOUR
UNRELATED PERSONS , RESIDING AT 116 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 66 - 2 - 51 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 151 IS THE
FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY . SUCH DETERMINATION SHALL
BE MADE UPON REVIEW OF THE STANDARDS ENUMERATED IN ARTICLE I ,
SECTION 11 " DEFINITIONS " , PARAGRAPH 51 SUB - PARAGRAPH ( F ) , OF
THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Mr . Scott Newman , son of Harry Newman , appeared before the
Board . He explained to the Board that the four individuals
residing in the house jointly share expenses for preparing , storage
and consumption of food , as well as sharing the cost of utilities
and jointly own the furniture . He said they have all registered to
vote using this address and they plan to live together for at least
the next four years and possibly longer . He stated that they have
improved the property by painting the house and cleaning up years
of neglected landscaping left unattended by the previous owners .
Mr . Newman said that they are active in the Forest Home Improvement
Association .
Chairman Austen read the definition of a functional family as
so stated in the Town ' s Ordinance .
Chairman Austen read a letter into the record from Danny
Novak , 120 warren Road , dated October 1 , 1991 , expressing his
approval of Mr . Newman ' s proposal . ( Letter attached hereto as
Exhibit - # 10 . )
Extensive discussion followed on the traditional family / non -
traditional family issue .
6
® Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing .
Ms . Virginia Langhans , 111 Halcyon Hill Road , spoke to the
Board on the matter before them . She stated that she was first
alarmed about the number of cars parking at the house in question .
At the time , she spoke with Mr . Frost about the matter and he
explained to her about front yard parking . However , the house in
question has taken more than 50 % of the front yard for parking .
She said that this bothers her more than the family group , although
she thinks that to get an extra person in to make the mortgage
payments leaves a little bit to be desired . She thinks the zoning
should be looked at as far as front yard parking is concerned .
Further discussion followed on the floor .
Ms . Erin McDowell , a resident of the house in question , also
spoke to the Board about her opinion that the four people , herself
included , are functioning as a family .
Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
® Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen referred to the SEAF that was signed by George
Frantz , Assistant Planner which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 11 .
MOTION
By Mrs . Joan Reuning , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make
and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental
significance in this matter .
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows .
Ayes - Reuning , Austen , Hines , Scala .
Nays - None .
Carried unanimously .
•
7
® Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 9 , 1991
MOTION
By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn the matter
of the Appeal of Mr . Harry Newman requesting a determination
that a group of four unrelated persons , residing at 116 Warren
Road , is the functional equivalent of a family until the next
meeting on October 23 , 1991 for the Board to review the
standards enumerated in Article I , Section 1 , " Definitions " ,
Paragraph 5 , sub - paragraph ( f ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance .
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows .
Ayes - Hines , Scala , Reuning , Austen .
Nays - None .
Carried unanimously .
Connie J . Holcomb
Recording Secretary
APPROVED :
Edward Austen , Chairman
8
l
- r
_� - ,tea _ V LL�� ttll LJ � L� _ •.4
_.-.1.�-----�-€�•-- -- _ _ ___ `-jQ' OF .ITFfACA
PLANNING, ZONING, ENGINFERI - �-
'
eM.-_ . . �-
William C . and Theo H . Jenks Modification of Lot Lines
to Increase the Side Yard Depth of 655 Five Mile Drive
651 and 655 Five Mile Drive
Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , September 17 , 1991
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR
William C . and Theo H . Jenks Modification of
Lot Lines to Increase the Side Yard Depth
of 655 Five Mile Drive
651 and 655 Five Mile Drive
Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , September 17 , 1991
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . James Baker :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Modification of Lot Lines for
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 and - 25 . 2 , located at
655 and 651 Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) , respectively ,
Residence District R- 30 , to increase the side yard depth of Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 , 655 Five Mile Drive , by 30 feet by adding
approximately . 25 acres to said tax parcel .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in
environmental review .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 17 , 1991 , has
reeviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by
the applicants , and an environmental assessment of the proposed
action prepared by the Assistant Town Planner , a proposed plat
entitled " Survey Map Showing Subdivision of Lands at 651 Five
Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " , dated
April 23 , 1991 , prepared by Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , L . S . , and
other application materials .
4 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board make and hereby does make a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action as
proposed .
Aye - Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Lesser , Smith , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ir 02
' William C . and Theo H . Jenks Modification of Lot Lines - 2 -
to Increase the Side Yard Depth of 655 Five Mile Drive
651 and 655 Five Mile Drive
Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , September 17 , 1991
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : William C . and Theo H . Jenks Modification of
Lot Lines to Increase the Side Yard Depth
of 655 Five Mile Drive
651 and 655 Five Mile Drive
Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board , September 17 , 1991
MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann :
WHEREAS t
1 . This action is the Consideration of Modification of Lot Lines for
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 and - 25 . 2 , located at
655 and 651 Five Mile Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) , respectively ,
Residence District R- 30 , to increase the side yard depth of Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 , 655 Five Mile Drive , by 30 feet by adding
approximately . 25 acres to said tax parcel .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning
Board , acting as Lead Agency in environmental review , has , on
September 17 , 1991 , made a negative determination of
environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 17 , 1991 , has
reeviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form submitted by -
the applicants , and an environmental assessment of the proposed
action prepared by the Assistant Town Planner , a proposed plat
entitled " Survey Map Showing Subdivision of Lands at 651 Five
Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " , dated
April 23 , 1991 , prepared by Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , L . S . , and
other application materials .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Approval to
the proposed Modification of Lot Lines for Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcels No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 and - 25 . 2 , located at 655 and 651 Five Mile
Drive ( NYS Rte . 13A ) , respectively , Residence District R- 30 , to
increase the side yard depth of Tax Parcel No . 6 - 31 - 2 - 24 , 655
Five Mile Drive , by 30 feet by adding approximately . 25 acres to
' William C . and Theo H . Jenks Modification of Lot Lines - 3 -
to Increase the Side Yard Depth of 655 Five Mile Drive
651 and 655 Five Mile Drive
Final Subdivision Approval
® Planning Board , September 17 , 1991
said tax parcel , as shown on the plat entitled " Survey Map
Showing Subdivision of Lands at 651 Five Mile Drive , Town of
Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " , dated April 23 , 1991 ,
prepared by Howard R . Schlieder , P . E . , L . S . subject to the
following conditions :
a . Approval of any required variances by the Town ofIthaca
Zoning Board of Appeals .
b . Submission of a final site plan showing the dimensions
between the proposed new property line and each house .
c . Consolidation of the subdivided parcel ( denominated " Part of
Lands of Hazel and Earl Baker Containing 0 . 25 Acres " ) with
the lot on which the building known as 655 Five Mile Drive
is located .
Aye - Kenerson , Baker , Langhans , Lesser , Smith , Hoffmann .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY .
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board ,
September 23 , 1991 .
Terry Nicholetti Garrisom
OF
i
osG3
233 Forest Home Drive • Ithaca, N .Y. 14850 • (607) 2573341-
�X/ ,b , 4-
�s
I`
1
September 25, 1991
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
Dear Members of the Board:
I am happy to lend my support to Jennifer Greene's proposed addition of a
playroom to her house , The addition will add to the value of the house
without detracting at all from the quality of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
i ;� 44
l C /
Nancy Break l
22.8 Forest Home Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
Rev . 10 /90
Town Assigned Project ID Number
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SNORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY
PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor )
1 , Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name :
3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) :
23S 0�� 4 Mme 7b �z
.S -tln�cc � IJ y
Tax Parcel Number :
4 . Is Proposed Action : 0 NEW Z EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION
5 , Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other
relevant items) :
'rh i 5 �✓C e cY "ln U u l vCn. -h^ G��QcQ h o� �� �c 1[4r�(Dvn v r,- 4v M tin o 1 C"-1-
i VL� S G� - - 7.�d3 6k n e `j' 1r e ( cmc s
<5 on
X110 L1 CMZ D ti-, �"1nL �L �6l f Lz- • `l ttiti �7U ✓ � �sC h j S tv f r , C ve z 4�
plc C 'fik^IYIQ t 4 Jl Y SPG ( I ✓N h0kC?L
( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .)
6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres W0 yrs) Acres
is the Land Zoned Presently ?
79w
8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ?
YES]S NO F If no , describe conflict briefly
9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new :
Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO a Public Sewer ? YES [J NO
10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? ® Residential Q Commercial
F Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other
Please describe :
11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal , State , Local) ? YES F1 NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding :
12 . Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES F NO
If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification .
1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
cant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : �Q .V V1A ' �! VP CI Ye eAA C�
Signature : 1;4 _ Date : l
i/
ih � �
All PA 1T 11 - ENYIRON MENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary )
A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ?
YES NO V If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF ,
Lai
B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ?
YES NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .)
Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible)
Cl . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production
and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly :
SEE ATTACHED
I
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or
neighborhood character ? Explain briefly
SEE ATTACHED
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands ,
or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly
SEE ATTACH®
C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ? Explain briefly
SEE ATTACHED
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly
SEE ATTACHED
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly :
SEE ATTACHED
C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly :
SEE ATTACHED
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ?
YES 0 NO r'�71 If yes , explain briefly
E . Comments of staff X CAC Other El attached . (Check applicable boxes)
PART 111 — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca )
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 (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of
occurring ; (c) 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 addressed .
Check this box if you have identified 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 attach-
ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination .
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Name of Lead Agency Preparers Stgnatuurre ( kC4ifferent from Responsible Officer)
Edward ' N . Austen , Chairman
Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
AL
Date :
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
PART II - Environmental Assessment - Appeal of Jennifer Greene ,
235 Forest Home Drive .
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 4 - 11 .
A . Action is Unlisted .
B . Action will not receive coordinated review .
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the followring :
C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater guality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding problems ?
None anticipated . Proposed action is authorization from the
Zoning Board of Appeals , Under Art . XII , Sect . 54 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to extend a nonconforming building / lot
located at 235 Forest Home Drive . Said extension involves the
expansion of the existing footprint and floor area of a home
through construction of a new stairwell and room .
No significant adverse impacts with regard . to existing air
quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity , noise
levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste disposal , or
potential for erosion are expected as a result of the proposed
action .
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood
Insurance Rate Map the proposed additions occur within the 100 -
year floodplain for Fall Creek . However given the location of
the house and the small scale of the additions to it no
significant adverse impact with regard to flooding or drainage
problems is anticipated as a result of the proposed project .
C2 . Aesthetic agricultural , archeological , historic or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ? I ^�
None anticipated . No aesthetic , archeological , or other natural
or cultural resources are known to exist on the site , or are
otherwise expected to be adversely affected by the proposed
action . No significant adverse impact to community or
neighborhood character is anticipated as a result of the proposed
additions to the home .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife
species , significant habitats or threatened or endangered
species ?
None anticipated .
1
w � I
C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially
adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ?
None anticipated . The proposed modification is a limited
expansion of the floor area of an existing home within an
established residential neighborhood with a large number of
nonconforming buildings and lots of similar nature .
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
None anticipated .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not
identified in Cl - 05 ?
None anticipated .
C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either
quantity or type of energy ) ?
None anticipated .
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts ?
No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts
resulting from the proposed action is anticipated .
PART III
Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed
action , its character , location and scale , and the information
above , a negative determination of environmental significance is
recommended for this action .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner - �}~
Review Date : October 3 , 1991
2 �L
I� ffoxi t /
® September 23 , 1991
SUBJECT : REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON BUILDING SET-BACK ( 10 ' )
TO : Town of Ithaca Planning Board
FROM : Richard E . Sweet , Jr .
120 Burns Road
Ithaca , NY 14850
Due to a mistake on my part , I am requesting a variance on the required 10 '
building setback on the north side of my property bounding the Hamilton
property . When I submitted my request for a building permit I thought that
I had at least 22 feet clearance from my building to the line as evidenced
by the plot plan I submitted to the town for my permit ( see attachment 2 ) .
As my surveyor did not put any stakes in the center of the property , I tried
to guage this by eye - site from the two exterior stakes . However , after placing
the footers and erecting the walls I discovered that I had infringed on this
10 foot area by 2 $ " on one end and 17 . 2 " on the other end of my garage .
In order to fulfill the 10 ' requirement , I would have to tear down the wall ,
dig up the footers and move everything 18 " . This would be very expensive for
me and would seriously delay my financing .
As my neighbors house is set back approximately 100 ' from this common boundary
and there is a heavy wooded area at least 15 foot deep between us , I don ' t think
the 18 " variance should have an adverse impact on him .
s tirJ . HamittoF James V. HamtftM'
4ENew
Slaterville 141603 Slatervilfe Roads (J ) Z
Yc fthaca , New York 148%
PLEA AGAINST THE APPEAL OF RICHARD E . SWEET , TO BE READ TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS AT ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 9 , 1991 , at 7 : 00 P . M , at its Town Hall , 126
East Seneca St. ( i st floor , rear entrance , west side ) , Ithaca NY ,
When I first saw the clearing Mr . Sweet had made in the woods behind my house , I was surprised how
close he was coming to my property. It looked like he had actually pushed some soil over the boundary into
my yard and I was rather alarmed. I had no accurate way of telling just exactly where my property line
was , though , so i waited and hoped he' d turnout to be in compliance with our zoning laws once his building
was finished. But when he had the footings and foundations to his house put in , it really looked too close ,
and I called the building inspector ' s office to ask just what the law was concerning the legal limits to his
encroaching on my property ( Tax Map No. 503089 56 . - 4 - 1 . 3 ) . Andy Frost told mein that conversation ,
on or about September 9 , that he' d seen Mr . Sweet' s plans , and that a garage with no living unit in or over
it was allowed to approach 10 feet from my boundary and that Mr . Sweet' s plans indicated aside yard 12
feet wide, i assumed that Mr . Sweet knew what he was doing , and hoped it only looked so close because of
the piles of soil he'd put on my boundary from the excavation he' d had done. On September 19th , however ,
Mr . Sweet phoned me to say that his surveyor had found Mr . Sweet' s garage foundation to be only 8 ' 6 "
from my southern boundary , and thus in violation of Ithaca Town law ( i see from the " Notice of Public
Hearings" that I received in the mail , that this law is called: "Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca
® Zoning Ordinance ) . I was and still am very upset about this , and talked with Paul Hansen at the building
inspector 's office on the 20th to ask his advice about what course of action I might pursue to indicate my
grievance at this unreasonable encroachment on my property. He suggested that I express my displeasure
over Mr . Sweet' s mistake in writing in a letter to Mr . Frost , which I did on that day , September 20th . In
that letter , l informed Mr . Frost of some of the following facts:
Mr. Sweet told me on the phone September 19th that he had measured the lines for his foundation
footings using ( and i quote ) an "old fence " and a "wall " that he had found on my property , and which he
assumed might indicate the boundary between my property and his. These old relics have nothing to do
with the currant property lines , but date from years before the Nusbaums , who sold us our property ,
subdivided their land into two lots. I explained to Mr . Sweet my displeasure at his error and suggested he
might compensate for his illegal garage placement by paying me a certain amount of money as restitution,
He said he'd talk it over with his wife and call me back , but he never did. I don ' t want to be a bad neighbor
to Mr . Sweet , but neither do I want my legal rights to a secure and aesthetically pleasing property
infringed- upon in this manner . I would like to settle this problem in a way that would allow Mr . Sweet to
continue building his house as soon as possible , but I do not at all see any reason why he should be allowed
to break the zoning law as carelessly as he did. I ' ve talked about this matter with my neighbor , Mrs, Grace
Saatman , who agrees with me completely about this. I asked her if she thought Mr . Sweet should be granted
a variance , and she replied , " No , damnit , no ! " and gave me permission to quote her . She told me that the
Ithaca town zoning board was notorious for never enforcing its zoning laws , and that all the builders knew
this and would "just plunk down anything they wanted any old place and if it happened to break the law
they' d just get a variance. " I think it might be interesting to ask the board what percent of requested
• II
pal
James W. Hamilwn James VV.
X1603 Slatervi ; le �
X603 Slatervilie Dodd
Vmca. New Y° r ' NOW York 14,350
variances are denied , but that is not directly at issue here. What I do want to make clear is just that the
zoning law has been broken by Mr . Sweet , who has no good excuse for being permitted to do so. What good
is a zoning law if the board of appeals gives variances for no good reason ? .
I know of no hardship which forced Mr. Sweet to put his garage so close to my property , nor can I see
any other reason why he should be granted a variance to leave it where he mistakenly built it. I , as well as
my neighbors across the old Burns Road , Grace and Ray Saatman ( they' re at 1585 Slaterville Road , I ' m at
1603 ) , think Mr . Sweet should move his garage wall back where it belongs according to Ithaca's zoning
law . We see these road signs as we enter Ithaca from neighboring towns , proclaiming that "Zoning Laws
are Enforced , " and we' d like to see this as one instance where the laws will be enforced. When I bought my
house and land back in 1980 , it seemed a nice rural corner on the far outskirts of Ithaca: a place where I
might enjoy a country sort of living. Since then I ' ve lost the eastern edge of my property when the Town
took it to relocate Burns Road. The county took a chunk out of the middle northern edge of my property to
install a larger drainage culvert. I want to make it clear now that Mr .Sweet' s illegal encroachment on my
southern border feels like a hardship to me- -- my hardship , not his- - and one which he can easily remedy
by backing off a .couple of feet to the south . He complained on the phone to me , in our one conversation back
on September 19 , that to move the foundation of his garage would cost him several thousand dollars . I
suggested to him then that he pay me one thousand dollars to leave it where it is , but evidently he' s hoping
to save any such expense by getting a variance.
If , upon reflection , the zoning board of appeals finds adequate cause to grant Mr . Sweet what seems to
me and my neighbors the Saatmans such an unwarranted variance , I hope he should be required to do
something to hide his unneccesary closeness to my southern border . With a thousand dollars , I could plant
a nice hemlock hedge on my own property. I ' ve had a good rope hammock back therefor. nine years now ,
and would like to continue to be able to take naps and to read there without feeling like I was in his side
yard. With all the traffic on Slaterville Road , l need a quiet and secure place that feels like my own back
yard as far from that traffic as I can get. If the board denies my plea and grants this variance , i would
entreat that it require Mr . Sweet to build a screening fence all along the northern edge of his property.
Good fences make good neighbors , and 1 want him to be sure where his property ends and mine begins - -
something he has evidently not been too concerned about until a surveyor caught his rather reckless
mistake, forgive me , Mr . Sweet , for sounding so irate , but I ' d very much like to be a good neighbor to you ,
and I think zoning laws were established to promote a careful and orderly relation between neighboring
homeowners and their lands.
So , to sum up my plea to this board: firstly , don ' t grant this variance. And secondly , if you find you
really must grant it , require Mr . Sweet to build a fence and to pay me $ 1 , 000 to plant some trees that
might restore to that side of my property the look that so endeared me to the place when I bought it eleven
years ago. My good friend Greg Heist , who has agreed to be my agent in this matter since 1 can ' t attend , is
an expert gardener and employee of Greentree Nursery & Garden Center . He has seen what Mr . Sweet has
done to the woods that used to be behind my back yard , and should be able to answer questions you might
have about the landscaping that might be done to hide Mr . Sweet's mistake. I hope I ' ve made myself clear
and not been too long or unnecessarily upset. Thanks for your attention to my complaint.
® Dr . Dani Novak
120 Warren Rd . ,
Ithaca Ny 14850
October 1 , 1991
Town Zoning Board
Ithaca NY 14850
Dear representative
I am a neighbor of Scott Newman who lives in 116 Warren Road . My
house borders his house and we share a common fence . I know that a
Scott is a Cornell student and that a few other students also live in
his house. I find these neighbors to be very fine young people who do
not make any noisy parties . They love gardening and are very
friendly . I am very happy to have neighbors like them and hope that
they will stay in the neighborhood for a long time . I understand that
they need to apply for a certain kind of permit that will allow them
to continue to live together as a small commune . I do not see any
problem with this .
Sin rely ,
Dani No ak
l4L
Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 /90
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY
PART 1 - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor )
1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name :
3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc , or provide map) :
Ilio y
wlr02 caeA ;, � o40
Y� 4 �e iA I v f LiJ 0
Tax Parcel Number : Ip (0
4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW EXPANSION amODIFiCATION / ALTERATION
5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other
relevant items) :
uJpwA L1< Z TC 0bj0.rvN G• 1 P rooU �
App els ► gin, •� e � � �� � � � � � � � , tjtA�\Ote
CLt
( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .)
6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres
Is ow is the Land Zoned Presently ?
ReGI Jf
8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ?
YES NO if no , describe conflict briefly :
9 . Will proposed action Iead to a request for new :
Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO �--
10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ?
esidentia] Commercial
❑ Industrial Agriculture 0 Park /Forest /Open Space Other
Please describe :
11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal , State , Local) ? YES ❑ NO 2�/ If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding :
12 . Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES ❑ NO g`
If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification .
1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
�icant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : k`t H '� f S . w V 1 L�/ +nrl ftv%)
Signature : 1�, Date : cJ 12Li
PART 11 — ENV IRON' MENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca ; Use attachments as necessary )
A . Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 . 12 or Town Environmental Local Law ?
YES ❑ NO If yes , coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF .
Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617 .6 ?
YES ❑ NO ( If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any .)
C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : ( Answers may be handwritten , if legible)
C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production
and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly :
None �articipated , given character of proposed action .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or
neighborhood character ? Explain briefly
None anticiapted .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands ,
or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly
None anticipated .
C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources ? Explain briefly
None anticipated
C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly
None anticipated .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in CI - C5 ? Explain briefly
None anticipated .
C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ? Explain briefly
NOne anticipated .
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ?
YES ❑ NO If yes , explain briefly :
E . Comments of staff ® , CAC ❑ , Other ❑ attached , (Check applicable boxes)
PART I II — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ( To be completed by the Town of Ithaca )
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 (ie . urban or rural) ; (b) probability of
occurring ; (c) 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 addressed .
❑ Check this box if you have identified 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 attach-
ments as necessary , the reasons supporting this determination .
T
Name of Lead Agency Preparerals Signature ( If d ' rent from Responsible Officer)
Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
Date
Signature of Respon'si'ble Officer in Lead A enc