Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1992-01-15 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 15 , 1992 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON JANUARY 15 , 1992 BY THE BOARD . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM DECEMBER 11 , 1991 ) OF FRANK PRUDENCE , APPELLANT , DIRK GALBRAITH , ESQ . , AGENT , SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE XII , SECTION 52 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AS IT RELATES TO THE USE OF A NON — CONFORMING , COMMERCIAL— STYLE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1395 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAD BEEN USED FOR THE OPERATION OF F & T DISTRIBUTING CO . UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1988 AND THEREAFTER HA64 BEEN USED PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSES OF STORAGE . COMMERCIAL USES ARE NOT GENERALLY PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS . STORAGE AS A PRIMARY USE IS PERMITTED ONLY IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES . ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 26 , 1992 . APPEAL OF ZETTA RUFF SPROLE , APPELLANT , MARTIN A . SHAPIRO , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE GRANTED ON JANUARY 3 , 1990 PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF A " BED AND BREAKFAST " KNOWN AS THE " HOUND AND HARE " FOR FOOR LODGERS , LOCATED IN A SINGLE — FAMILY HOME AT 1031 HANSHAW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 71 - 7 - 51 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE VARIANCE GRANTED WAS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION l 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF LODGERS IN A SINGLE — FAMILY HOME TO ONE . SAID MODIFICATION IS FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF NEW LIVING SPACE AND A SUNROOM TO THE HOME . APPROVING DETERMINATION MADE WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF JEROLD WEISBURD , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 AND 16 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA, ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A BUILDING LOT WITH AN AREA OF 12 , 421 SQUARE FEET ( 15 , 000 BEING REQUIRED ) , A WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 36 FEET ( 100 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 6 FEET ( 15 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . SAID LOT IS LOCATED AT 881 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 25 - 2 - 18 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . FILED TOWN Of ITHACA Date2l a Clerk • APPEAL OF BARBARA BARTHOLOMEW , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ( ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 19 AND 201ALSO APPLY ) TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 18 FEET ( 15 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , WITH SAID BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR A CARPENTRY BUSINESS ( HOME OCCUPATION ) UTILIZING AN AREA OF 660 SQUARE FEET ( 200 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM ALLOWED ) . THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 171 CALKINS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 1 - 41 IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . APPELLANT ADDITIONALLY REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO ADVERTISE PRODUCTS IN NEWSPAPERS OR MAGAZINES , WHEREAS SECTION 19 PROHIBITS THE ADVERTISING OF GOODS OR PRODUCTS FOR SALE . GRANTED BOTH VARIANCES WITH ONE CONDITION . • FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date ,. 19 4 a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 15 , 1992 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney John Barney , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , ABSENT : Pete Scala , OTHERS aAttorney Dirk Galbraith , Burke Carson , Frank Prudence , Zetta Sprole , Attorney Martin Shapiro , Eva Hoffmann , Attorney Paul Tavelli , Dale and Barbara Bartholomew , Jerry Weisburd , Bob and Anne Shaw , Pat Dekar Gilbert , Jane Testut , Leon Edward Zaharis , John Brazo , Tony Ciccone , Brad Corbett , Lee Schafrik , Siu - Ling Chaloemtiarana . Chairman Austen 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 matter to be heard by the Board was the following , ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM DECEMBER 11 , 1991 ) OF FRANK PRUDENCE , APPELLANT , DIRK GALBRAITH , ESQ . , AGENT , SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE XII , SECTION 52 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , AS IT RELATES TO THE USE OF ANON - CONFORMING , COMMERCIAL - STYLE BUILDING LOCATED AT 1395 MECKLENBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . THE PROPOSED BUILDING HAD BEEN USED FOR THE OPERATION OF F & T DISTRIBUTING CO . UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1988 AND THEREAFTER HAS BEEN USED PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSES OF STORAGE . COMMERCIAL USES ARE NOT GENERALLY PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS , STORAGE AS A PRIMARY USE IS PERMITTED ONLY IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES , Chairman Austen stated that the public hearing on this matter was closed at the meeting on December 11 , 1991 but that the Board would re - open the hearing if there were anyone who wished to speak on the matter . Attorney Paul Tavelli , representing Mr . & Mrs . Brazo , who are unable to attend the meeting , asked that the hearing be re - opened . He stated that they were not quite sure that their position was brought to the attention of the Board because they did not feel they were articulate enough when they spoke to the Board on the matter . • Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 Attorney Tavelli stated that in the Brazo ' s deed there are restrictions for the property that require that all the owners draw and use water from the spring for household purposes only . He said that they are concerned about water to this particular property since they all share the same spring . He said that all the deed restrictions , even Mr . Prudence ' s , require water for household purposes only . Attorney Tavelli further stated that Mr . and Mrs . Brazo have told him that before the Zoning Ordinance was enacted , this was a nursery - type operation but it was never a storage or warehouse facility . He stated that the Brazos are opposed to the Board saying this is now a commercial use and they are also vehemently opposed to it being called a storage facility . He asked that the Brazo deed and the deed restrictions be filed with the paperwork on this matter . Mr . King asked that it be noted for the record that Attorney Tavelli gave the Board two documents ; the deed , Tilton to Brazo , and a 1964 agreement which was a three - party agreement , with all three parties being Tiltons . ( The referenced documents are attached hereto as Exhibits # 1 and # 2 , respectively ) . . Attorney Tavelli explained that if you look at the Brazo deed , it is subject to the water rights agreement and , as he understands it , Mr . Prudence is also subject to that water rights agreement . Attorney Dirk Galbraith , representing Mr . Prudence , stated that Mr . Prudence has not discontinued his business at this address although he has cut back the extent to which the business has been conducted and that is part of the basis for the request for the interpretation . Mr . King asked Attorney Galbraith if he had any evidence that this ever was a legal non - conforming commercial use . Attorney Galbraith responded that the testimony at the last hearing was that this was an agricultural use in combination with a small engine or tractor - type business before the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance and that successive building permits were granted during the 1960 ' s and 1970 ' s for the expansion of that use with no further variance . He believes that historically this has always been a commercial use . Mr . King stated that previous descriptions seem to call this a greenhouse that was being expanded and the building in question does not look anything like a greenhouse at this point . • Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 Attorney Galbraith stated that he thought the explanation for that was that it ceased to be a greenhouse and became a commercial and / or commercial and storage building . He stated that under the Zoning Ordinance as it existed at that time , it was perfectly permissible to convert from an agricultural use to a commercial use because the agricultural use was the least restrictive . In answer to questions from the Board , Attorney Galbraith stated that the only person they know who has the information on the type of business that was there is Mr . Tilton , who lives in Florida . He stated that if the Board is willing to grant an adjournment , he believes he can obtain an affidavit from Mr . Tilton . Attorney Tavelli stated that if that were to happen , the Brazos should be allowed to also submit affidavits at that meeting . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the matter of an interpretation of Article XII , Section 52 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , as it relates to the use of a non - conforming , commercial - style building located at 1395 Mecklenburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 28 - 1 - 11 . 2 , Residence District R - 30 , be adjourned to the Zoning Board of Appeals ' meeting of February 26 , 1992 , with the following directives . 1 . That the attorney present additional evidence on the use of the property on the date of the enactment of the ordinance , and 2 . That the Attorney present evidence on the use of the property within the last 18 months . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Reuning , King , Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . • Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 The next matter before the Board was the following . APPEAL OF ZETTA RUFF SPROLE , APPELLANT , MARTIN A . SHAPIRO , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF A VARIANCE GRANTED ON JANUARY 31 1990 PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF A " BED AND BREAKFAST " KNOWN AS THE " HOUND AND HARE " FOR FOUR LODGERS , LOCATED IN A SINGLE - FAMILY HOME AT 1031 HANSHAW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 71 - 7 - 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . THE VARIANCE GRANTED WAS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF LODGERS IN A SINGLE - FAMILY HOME TO ONE . SAID MODIFICATION IS FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF NEW LIVING SPACE AND A SUNROOM TO THE HOME . Attorney Martin Shapiro , representing Mrs . Sprole , stated to the Board that they are not before the Board asking for a modification of the variance . They are here because there is some uncertainty as to how to proceed or what might be involved , so , rather than obtain a building permit with that insecurity involved , they thought it would be best to come to the Board and explain in detail what they wish to do . Attorney Shapiro explained that the variance granted two years ago was to permit a Bed and Breakfast using two bedrooms of the existing house with no more than four lodgers and that is the way it has been used . What they are looking for now is a building permit for the addition of a second floor above the garage which would include a bedroom , a closet , and a bathroom , and conversion of a piece of the garage into an exercise room and the addition of a sunroom behind the garage , all of which the new bedroom , bathroom and closet , the exercise room conversion , and the sunroom would be for Mrs . Sprole ' s sole benefit . Attorney Shapiro further explained that there have been two changes in Mrs . Sprole ' s life and family in the last couple of years . One , Mrs . Sprole has a 32 - year - old daughter who is mentally disabled and is in need of permanent supervision . The daughter has now come to live with her mother . Secondly , Mrs . Sprole has a degenerative disc disease and a ruptured disc and is in need of exercise treatment and she thought she could get that right at home with an exercise room . Attorney Shapiro emphasized that none of the space being requested will be available to guests of the Bed and Breakfast . The purpose of the addition is to create private space for Mrs . Sprole where she can rest and exercise as required by her medical problems and it will allow Mrs . Sprole ' s daughter to have her own bedroom in the existing house . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . He read a letter from Gary and Carol Turton , 1027 Hanshaw Road in opposition to any expansion of the Bed and Breakfast facility . [ The referenced letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 ) . Ms . Anne Shaw , 313 Roat Street , expressed concern about guests being allowed to use the exercise room . She also spoke on the number of dogs that reside in the house and stated that Mrs . Sprole also has a business as a dog breeder . She feels that the traffic has increased in the neighborhood as well as the number of dogs that Mrs . Sprole now has on the premises and the whole thing has gotten out of hand . Mr . Burke Carson , with Four Seasons Greenhouses , stated that ever since he was approached with a plan to add space to this house , it has always been planned only for Mrs . Sprole ' s private use . Mr . Bob Shaw , 313 Roat Street , stated that he is concerned about the noise pollution in the neighborhood with the number of dogs that are there . He is also concerned about the size of the structure and what will be increased or added to it for whatever reasons . He feels that it will take out of context what is a very residential neighborhood . Attorney Shapiro stated that Mrs . Sprole owns four Boxers , three of which are champions , and the other dog she owns is a Pekingese - type dog . He said she does not run a dog breeding business , although there have been litters of puppies . Mrs . Eva Hoffmann spoke to the Board stating that her concern is that this could set a precedent for future cases before the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . After further discussion , Attorney Shapiro stated that Mrs . Sprole would be happy to give any assurance , in writing , in any form that the Town Attorney would require , that the additional space ( which would include the entire garage area , the addition above it and the sunroom ) would not be used by guests of the Bed and Breakfast and that they would not be permitted in those areas at any time . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Zetta Ruff Sprole , requesting a modification of a variance that was granted on January 3 , 1990 , for the addition of a bedroom and sunroom to the house , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , based upon . the findings with respect to the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated January 6 , 1992 reviewed and signed by Assistant Town Planner Frantz , make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Hines , Austen , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , in consideration of the application before it for the expansion of the Sprole residence , determines the following : 1 . That if the applicant does choose to expand the residential portions of her residence as proposed , it be with the understanding that she consents to the extension of the conditions under which the January 3 , 1990 variance for the use of two rooms as a Bed & Breakfast , not exceeding four people at any time , would be further expanded ; namely , that she understand the fact that the enlargement of the house will not in any way be asserted as a hardship in any • fashion in an effort to maintain or renew this variance at a later time . 2 . That Mrs . Sprole understand that she is undertaking this at her own risk as far as having the variance for the Bed & Breakfast . 3 . That under no circumstances will the new facilities be used by Bed & Breakfast guests ; nor will the facilities , particularly • the exercise facility in the therapy room , be extended to them or indicated to be available for guests . • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 4 . That there is an increase in the number of family members in the Sprole family from the date that the original variance was granted and evidence has been received of changed conditions in the health of the applicant which indicate a personal and health need for certain of the facilities requested , and be it further RESOLVED , that the Board bases these expansions of the conditions upon the fact that one of the primary reasons for granting the variance in the first place was the fact that the house was represented to be too large for the use of the applicant at the time , and be it further RESOLVED , that nothing in the wake of expenditures or expansion of this residence house shall be considered in evidence of any hardship in further application for this Board for the use of this property as a Bed & Breakfast , and be it finally RESOLVED , that this resolution in no way indicates how this Board may consider an application for a renewal of this variance at the end of the five year period that was granted in January 1990 , and all of the conditions that were set forth in the initial variance continue in full force and effect ; nothing by the action of this Board at this time varies those conditions . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - King , Austen , Hines , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next matter to be heard by the Board was the following . APPEAL OF JEROLD WEISBURD , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTIONS 14 AND 16 , OF ' THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A BUILDING LOT WITH AN AREA OF 12 , 421 SQUARE FEET ( 15 , 000 BEING REQUIRED ) , A WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 36 FEET ( 100 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) AND A NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 6 FEET ( 15 FEET • BEING REQUIRED ) . SAID . LOT IS LOCATED AT 881 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 25 - 2 - 18 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . • Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 Mr . Jerold Weisburd appeared before the Board and explained the variances that he is requesting from the Board . He had presented a bound packet of material that is entitled " Laketop Revised " to the Board for their consideration . The packet is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 . Mr . Weisburd explained that when they created the two fully conforming lots , they had some land that was in excess , that is , above what is needed ; over 15 , 000 square feet on each lot and they still have 5 , 000 square feet left , so , what they presented to the Planning Board and what they are presenting to this Board , is the option to take that extra land and combine it with site # 1 so that site # 1 then becomes approximately 11 , 000 or 12 , 000 square feet , which is very consistent with lots that are near it , and then they will not ask for a side yard variance . He stated that there is not enough for three conforming lots and what they did the first round was make three lots that were equal , but because that resulted in three non - conforming lots , people felt it was setting a precedent of creating non - conforming lots , so what they are doing now is saying that they will have two fully conforming lots and seek a variance for the last non - conforming lot . • Discussion followed on the sizes of the three lots in question . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Brad Corbett , 907 Taughannock Blvd . , representing the West Shore Home Owners Association , expressed concern about the plans being different from what they had heard of . They are also concerned about noise and traffic congestion in the area . Mr . Tony Ciccone , 885 Taughannock Blvd . , expressed his objection to having more congestion in the area by someone building three more houses on the Boulevard . Mr . Lee Schafrik , 1491 Trumansburg Road , a member of the West Hill Neighborhood Association , spoke in opposition to variances being granted in cases such as this dealing with non - conforming lots in the area . Ms . Patricia Dekar Gilbert , 879 Taughannock Blvd . , spoke to the Board in respect to the congestion and the density in the area . She is in agreement with the other persons who have spoken against the variance being requested . • • Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 Ms . Eva Hoffmann , 4 Sugarbush Lane , questioned the Board and Mr . Weisburd about the footage that is being requested in the variance . She stated that she is also concerned about setting a precedent by granting this requested variance . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she is very concerned about protecting the Lake and the Lake front . Further discussion followed with Ms . Gilbert addressing the sizes of the lots in question and her reasons for opposing the construction of the homes on these lots . Ms . Siu - Ling Chaloemtiarana , who is the person who hopes to be living on site # 3 , spoke to the Board about her plans for residing on the property . Ms . Jane Testut , 875 Taughannock Blvd . , spoke to the Board regarding the creeks and water supply in the area . She expressed her concern about houses being built on these lots due to the fact of Spring flooding . Chairman Austen read a letter from the Tompkins County ® Planning Department , Mr . James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner , stating that pursuant to Section 239 - 1 and - m of the New York State General Municipal Law , the proposal, as submitted , will have no significant deleterious effect or impact on intercommunity , County or State interests , therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department , and you are free to act without prejudice . [ The referenced letter is attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 ] . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the applicant , Mr . Jerold Weisburd , a variance with respect to the lot characterized or identified as Site # 1 , and be it further RESOLVED , that the Board directs and authorizes the Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer to issue a building permit for the construction of a residential building on the building lot with an area of less than 15 , 000 square feet , being approximately 12 , 000 square feet , and with a width at the maximum front yard setback less than the 100 feet required , being approximately thirty - five feet , more or less , on the following findings . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 1 . that the density of the area encompassed by the subject lot , together with lots to its immediate south , does not change from that which would be permissible under the Zoning Ordinance . 2 * that the requirements of the Ordinance with respect to construction on the existing parcel would impose an unreasonable hardship and extreme practical difficulties to the applicant and in all likelihood would produce an aesthetic result far worse than that proposed by the applicant . 3 * that there has been no showing of increase in traffic or other adverse impacts of density as a result of this proposal . 4a that the extended lot of approximately 12 , 000 square feet does not differ significantly from many of the other lots in the neighborhood . 5 * that the consequence of granting the variance will not produce a result which is out of character with other properties in the neighborhood . • 6 . that the applicant is required by the Planning Board to limit the construction on the lot to a one unit dwelling and the access for the three properties , Sites # 1 , # 2 , and # 3 , will be a single driveway from Taughannock Blvd . 7 . that this approval be subject to the conditions of the Planning Board . 8o that this approval be subject to the condition that the lot size for Site # 1 be not less than 12 , 000 square feet and the width of the front yard setback be not less than 35 feet . 90 that this approval be conditional on the preparation by a licensed surveyor of a final map showing the three lots as approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and this Board of Appeals . 10 . that any accessory structure , with respect to Site # 1 , extending across the beach and into the water , shall be approved by this Board of Appeals prior to construction . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , King , Reuning , Austen . . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 The final matter to be heard by the Board was the following . APPEAL OF BARBARA BARTHOLOMEW , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ( ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 19 AND 20 ALSO APPLY ) TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 18 FEET ( 15 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , WITH SAID BUILDING PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR A CARPENTRY BUSINESS ( HOME OCCUPATION ) UTILIZING AN AREA OF 660 SQUARE FEET ( 200 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM ALLOWED ) . THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 171 CALKINS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 1 - 4 , IN AN AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . APPELLANT ADDITIONALLY REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO ADVERTISE PRODUCTS IN NEWSPAPERS OR MAGAZINES , WHEREAS SECTION 19 PROHIBITS THE ADVERTISING OF GOODS OR PRODUCTS FOR SALE . Ms . Barbara Bartholomew appeared before the Board and explained the building that is being proposed . She stated that her husband is a builder and they would like a woodshop to be used as an adjunct of his business . She said that at some future point they may want to go into some woodcrafting and they may want to , at that time , to do some advertising in the trade papers for woodcraft products . Chairman Austen read letters from George and Tracie Sheldrake , 174 Calkins Road ; Ron and Sandra Knewstub . 179 Calkins Road , and from Jeff Coleman , 178 Calkins Road , in support of Ms . Bartholomew ' s proposed construction . [ The referenced letters are attached hereto as Exhibits # 6 , # 7 , and # 8 , respectively ] . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Barbara Bartholomew requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the construction of an accessory building with a height of 18 feet , with said building proposed to be used for a carpentry business ( home occupation ) utilizing an area of 660 square feet , said building being located at 171 Calkins Road , Town of Ithaca Tax • Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 1 - 4 , in an Agricultural District , the Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby makes a negative declaration of environmental significance based on the observation of the Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 structure that is aesthetically consistent with the rural structures in the neighborhood and that the activities engaged in by the applicant will not be obtrusive or inconsistent with the appearance of the neighborhood . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Hines , King , Reuning , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION with respect to height variance : 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 applicant , Barbara Bartholomew , a variance from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of an accessory building with the height of 18 feet , to be used as a home occupation carpentry business , said structure being approximately 600 square feet in size per the plans submitted , and located at 171 Calkins Road , with the following findings and condition . 1 * that the building be used for carpentry or any other use that is otherwise permitted for this zone under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance . 2 * that the structure , as proposed , is consistent with other structures in the neighborhood , being of a rural , farm - like character . 3 * that the structure ' s outward appearance is consistent with and the uses to be made of the structure by the applicant are not obtrusive or contrary to the activities of the neighborhood . 4 * that there is practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in requiring the carpentry be undertaken in a substantially smaller structure which would otherwise be permitted . 5o that the neighbors have all consented and agreed to the proposed structure . • • Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals January 15 , 1992 A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Austen , King . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION with respect to advertising : By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to Ms . Barbara Bartholomew , for advertising of the subject carpentry business in publications . A vote on the motion resulted as follows . Ayes - Hines , Reuning , Austen , King . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . / Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED . Edward Austen , Chairman • 1/0101 583X N. Y. DEED—WARRANTY with Lien Covens Dt60 r- , C TUTBLAN % REGISTERED V. e. PAT, oFne[ s �6 TUT LAW PRINT. PUDuevewe. n Ne. V7. 0871H Made the ��, � day of f1 �tZC j� Nineteen Hundred and Seventy - Four �tiwttrt FREDERICK W . TILTON and BLANCHE E . TILTON , husband and wife , both of 1393 Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York 14850 , individually and as tenants by the entirety , • part ies of the first part, and WILLIAM J . BRAZO , SR . , and EDNABELLE BRAZO , husband and wife , both of 602 South Albany Street , Ithaca , New York , as tenants by the entirety ; part ies of the second part, Uttntont4 that the parties of the first part , in consideration of 0 N E - - - - - - - - - - - Dollar 1 . 00 ) lawful money of the United States , & other good & valuable consideration paid by the part ies of the second part , do hereby grant and release unto the part ies of the second part., the survivor , his / her distributees and assi, sns forever, all THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF ' LAND situate in the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of New York and more particularly bounded and described as follows : BEGINNING at a point in the center line of the Mecklenburg Road at the northwest corner of premises now or formerly owned by Ralph and Hazel Baker and being the northeast corner of the Tilton Farm described by deed from Salem Twist and wife to Fred H . Tilton and Walter E . Tilton recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Book 165 of Deeds at page 417 ; thence south and passing through an iron pipe 150 feet to the north - east corner of premises conveyed by Walter and Anna Tilton to the grantors herein by deed recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 459 of Deeds at page 456 ; thence continuing southerly along the west line of said Baker premises 20 feet to an iron pipe ; thence westerly 191 feet ; thence northerly 8 feet to the southwest corner of premises conveyed by Charles Albert Tilton to the grantors herein by deed recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 459 of Deeds at page 462 ; • thence continuing northerly along the center of a hedge 162 feet to the center line of Mecklenburg Road ; thence easterly along the center 44 line of Mecklenburg Road 191 feet to the point and place of beginning . / 1 . 10" L „ 517 rnct 47 The above described premises consisting of a parcel with a frontage of 170 feet and a depth of 150 feet described by deed from Walter E . Tilton and Anna M . Tilton to the grantors herein recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 258 of Deeds at page 455 , together with an additional parcel lying adjacent to and to the south of the parcel above referred to , conveyed by Walter E . Tilton and Anna M . Tilton to the grantors herein described by deed recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 459 of Deeds at page 456 , togethLr with an additional parcel lying adjacent to and to the west of the original parcel above referred to and described be deed from Charles Albert Tilton to the grantors herein by deed recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 459 of deeds at page 462 . • Together with and subject to a water line agreement recorded in Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Book 458 of Deeds at page 923 as if set forth in full herein . Subject however to the following : 1 ) The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises within the bounds of the public highway . 2 ) An Agreement with the New York Telephone Company for an underground telephone cable described by instrument recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 428 of Deeds at page 181 as modified by a second and subsequent Agreement recorded in said Clerk ' s Office in Book 439 of Deeds at page 990 . HI, 517 i:,u 48 UTogrtktr with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the part ies of the first part in and to said premises , On haat and to 4alb the premises herein granted unto the part ies of the second part, the survivor , his / her di_ ,st- ri_hutees ¢72d assigns forever . Anti said parties of the first part covenant as follows : Ylirsi, That the part ies of the second part shall quietl7J enjoy the said premises ; Isrro4, That said parties of the first part will forever 11arrant the title to said premises . 0I trl , That, in Compliance with Sec. 13 of the Lien Law , the grantor s will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the sante for any other purpose . Jtt 19huroz+ 94errof, the part ies of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and clear first above written . � nPresenrr of Jti ��� Frederick W . Tilton �- Blanche E . Tilton Mate of Nrwu Vark es. On this � }} (Qaatttg of TOMPKINS Nineteen Hundred day of and before me the subscriber, Seventy - Four personally appeared FREDERICK W . TILTON and BLANCHE E . TILTON to me personally known and known to me to be same person s described in and who executed the within Instrument, and he y duly acknowledged to me that t hey executed the same. C � C7Mr7 Z� p )ki�S Notary Publie J3OF A" REAL ESTATE ` StATE t .� . TRANSFER TAX EfV - YX . I ,,yyam� a� * Dept. of �. . •- _ � %TOAUfi00 MAR22 74 c $ Finance Ps. innao Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 22 , 1 Mailing Address : _ THIS INDENTURE Q MADE the Jl«` day of December , 1964 , BETWEEN : WALTER E . TILTON and AN14A M . TILTON , husband and wife, both or 1,401 Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York , individually and as ' ten,� nts by the entirety , parties or the first part , and TIWODORE TILTON and FGARL_E . _ TILTON , husband and wife , both of 1397 Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York , an tenants by the entirety, parties of the second pard FREDERICK W . TILTON and BLANCH E . TILTON , husband and wife , both or 1393 Meck— i lenhurg Road , Ithaca , New York , as tenants by the entirety , parties or the third part ; and CIIARLFS ALBERT TILTON , of 1395 Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York , party of the fourth part , WITNESSETH : j . VVUEAS , the parties of the first part are the owners or premises in they Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , described in deed recorded in the i Tompkins County Clerk ' s office in Liber 188 or Deeds at page 233 ; the parties or the second part are the owners of premises in said Town described indeed so recorded in Liber 255 or Deeds at page 381 ; the parties of the third part are the owners of premises in said Town described in dned so recorded in Liber 258 or Dends at pro 455 ; and the party or the fourth part is the owner of the . promises in said Town described in deed so recorded in Liber 293 of Dends at page 215 which were enlarpnd by additional promises described in deed so record - ed in Liber 1441 or Deeds at page 113 , constituting one unit or property together and WHFRFAS , a certain spring located on said promises or the parties of the first part has been developed Cor the use of And piped to said respective i i premises or the partins of the second , third And fourth parte at the mutual q expense or said latter named parties , NOW , THEREFORE, in consideration of ONE DOLLAR and other good and val— unble consideration paid to the parties of the first Fart by the other parties , and or the mutual agreements and covenants or the other parties , the parties i of the first part do heraby GRANT AND CONVEY to the parties of the second , third and fourth parts the exclusive rights and easement , in common with the owners or the said premises of the parties of the second , third and fourth parts , to draw and use the water from said spring for reasonable household LIBE9458 FAu 923 ; I. LIBER45S mGE 924 purposes on such respective promisee of the parties of the second , third and fourth parts , together with a right of way !•)r ex±sting water wipe lines from the spring to such respective premises and for any replacements thereof , with the right to enter upon said premises of the parties of the first part for the purpose of the construction , maintenance and repair of said spring and water pipe linos and any replacements thereof , with the right to do any act reason— : ably necessary to accomplish the foregoing and preserve the water supply of the spring and the flow thereof to the respective promises of the parties of the second , third and fourth parts . The parties of the first part covenant and agree with the other parties and the other parties covenant and arree with each other that they will do no act which shall lessen or diminish the supply of water from said spring and render the same inadequate to furnish water for reasonable household purposes on any of the premise3 now owned by the parties of the second , third and • fourth parts . The parties hereto further covenant and agree that the use of the water from said spring 1s solely for the benefit .of the . above dnacribed promisee of the parties of the second , third and fourth parts , a,nd for no divisions there of and for no other premises . It is further agreed by and among the parties of the second , third and fourth parts that the owners of their said respective premises shall equally bear the cost and expense of maintaining , repairing and preserving said spring . and water pipe lines so commonly used . The covenants and agreements herein shall enure to and bind the repres entatives , hairs , distributees , devisees and assigns of the respective p, rtioe � IN WITNESS WHERFOF , the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and ' • souls on thn day of the year first above written . O!{-, 1.� SLS ) c2- �`- Q�� Q vat- Qa.c t (� Zz Grp �J ✓Vn OIL k- °- -e- �' a S 7 d C.�1tJLe-tom- l.JS Opp ", c en c�--ti-- �° or 0. 0. . `T{�-� ? 2of LAKELEGL / TTII Jerold Weisburd P . O . Box 640 Ithaca , N . Y . 14851 Tel . 277 4747 Nov . 18 , 1991 Mr . Floyd Forman Town Planner Town Hall 126 East Seneca St . Ithaca , New York 14850 Dear Mr . Forman : I am hereby submitting the following for the proposed lot line modification at 881 - 883 Taughannock Blvd . . Submission letter 26 copies Description of request 26 copies Memorandum of law 26 copies . Existing site plan 26 copies . Proposed site plan 26 copies . Proposed plat 26 copies . Short environmental assessment form 26 copies Development Review Application 26 copies ZBA appeal application 26 copies Survey Tax Parcel 25 - 2 - 20 26 copies Survey Tax Parcel 25 - 2 - 18 , 19 26 copies Check in the amount of $ 80 . This submission supersedes my submission dated May 30 , 1991 . We would greatly appreciate a place on the agenda for the next planning board meeting so that we can request preliminary and final subdivision approval . I would also request a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals as soon as possible after the planning board hearing . Thank you for your attention . Sincerely , 4 JeroldWeisburd House Craft Builders TTII - PROJDES2 ® DESCRIPTION LAKETOP REVISED GENERAL BACKGROUND This submission concerns of three parcels of land Located on tie west snore of Cayuga Lake at 881 - 883 Caughannock Blvd . . It was previously . presented before this board but the proposal has been changed to alleviate some of the problems perceived by the Town . REQUESTS REQUEST A Adjust the lot Line between Tax parcel 25 - 2 - 19 and tax parcel 25 - 2 - 20 creating two new lots known as Site 2 and Site 3 . With this line adjusted , Site 2 , currently non - conforming , will be a fully conforming lot . The result will be two Lots which conform to town zoning where now there is one which conforms and one which does not : The prospective buyers for these two Lots have expressed a desire not to be subject to other than normal zoning restrictions and feel strongly that with fully conforming lots there is no reason why they should be . REQUEST B 1 Adjust the lot line between Tax parcel 25 - 2 - 18 and tax parcel 25 - 2 - 19 by adding tine area labelled as " Extra Land " on the proposed site plan to Site 1 . This would still leave Site 2 fully conforming but would allow construction on Site 1 without necessitating additional variances or , if the town prefers ( 2 ) Provide tax parcel 25 - 2 - 18 , ( Site 1 ) , with a variance allowing construction ' of a 'souse with less than the normally required side yard clearance . For the sake of consistency , the total of the two side yards could be the same as the combined adjacent side yards of the properties immediately next to Laketop ( approximately 12 feet ) . The question has been raised of whether there exists a right to build on Site 1 . From a purely technical • standpoint Article XIII , section 57 of the town zoning ordinance states " nothing shall prohibit the use for a single family dwelling of a Lot of deed record at the time of the passage of this ordinance , as amended , of less than the required size of lot " While this gives a clear right to construct a single family house the problem is that maintaining side yard clearances of 15 feet as per the zoning ordinance leaves practically no room to build . This • of course is a very real hardship thus qualifying for a Page - 1 variance . The idea that our prior knowledge that the lot is non - conforming renders the hardship " self - imposed " and therefore of less consideration does not , we believe have legal standing . ( A detailed examination of this Legal question has been prepared by our attorneys and is attaChe d } . From a non - technical common sense standpoint we believe the proposal of Site 1 with the " Extra Land " added make good planning sense . On the following chart if we examine the ten adjacent Lots to the north and south of our three parcels we find that this proposal for Site 1 is very much consistent with the existing neighborhood . ZONING CONFORiti1ITY OF SITE 1 IN COMPARISON WITH ADJACENT LOTS as measurea From tax maps tor adjacentlots ) Type of Recquired Site 1 Adjacent lots Conformity ( immediately N . & S . of Laketop ) Nmbr . of lots Overall Non - confrmng Average xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Road Frontage 60 ft . 65 ft . 5 55 ft . ( out of 10 ) ( for 10 lots ) Size of Lot 15 , 000sq . ft . 12 , 421sq . ft . 9 10 , 000sq . ft . ( out of 10 ) ( for 10 lots ) Side Yard 15 ft . 15 ft . min . 2 5 ft . ( out of 2 ) ( for 2 lots ) Width 100 ft . 36 ft . 10 56 ft . ( `y50 ' setback ) ( out of 10 ) ( for 10 lots ) SEPARATION OF REQUESTS We are asking that the town planning board separate its decision on request A and request B because A does not require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals whereas B does . Therefore if request B is denied by the Appeals Board ( as the previous proposal was ) then we would still be able to proceed with construction on sites 2 & 3 . Page - 2 ' 3 � h (jo z . W UO Z LP . �I I •�-� ' I� �- - 'ate. � - . ./ ' '� J-r) Ll ` , `• � , - moi _ 69 rS 4. h � g 4 • • 40 r ' *Memo one IV '• 68 N f o L 0 Cl F o ' Afoi S t,l e � r • Li -- — , • F„ .,� 1 , tet Z � • I O , ,al bi 7 I s 00 H - a • a a ; I O . � •0 a 16 J � ' a I M • � r I • VICf • • ' I • V))o : » 1 , i I W d b13� b 0 • ° aL= allz , Li zQQ � �j > C7 . Q F d �j £ Lt, M M ® =- � m wi ® M M 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 I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : UEZJ0 LZ W EJ Sp LlRD t.nFc o P P >EV 15 M 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 80 ? T ,Q6W4t 01094# . SLVD . Tax Parcel Number : .oZ.S - z - / 9 4S - Z— 1 `� 25 - 2 - zG 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW 11 EXPANSION EJMOD IF IC AT ION / ALTER AT ION 5 . Describe. Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : Purpose : To develop 3 sites for three new houses . Present use : Two vacant parcels and one parcel with a decrepit garage and an old summer cottage . Construction plans : To build 3 custom houses Full description . See attached description . ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) � . 0 Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres W0 yrs) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? f2. - lS 8 . Will: proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO P . If no , describe conflict briefly : Site 1 will require a side yard variance to build or require that land be added to it avoiding additional variances . 9 . Will proposed action lead 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 ? Residential Commercial 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 F] NO I V I If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : a4fid Cir t `1E C� 'fi rfEs^ c ' de Of i ctiiC Ylc 7 t �iGC:' ?i 1 .. t; *fps M; E' 'VE' iC' i=� e0 }? :KC' c� �Ot 70 *r. ii :ii Mae M- mss, ins:: s ::iir~Y oFtr'�i Town of Ithaca ° r° g _1.26 East Seneca St . ° �II Date Received a ,b Ithaca , NY 14850 .toy (607) 273-1747 Project Number I°nl o To be completed for ALL applications : Type of Application : SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN REZONING/ZONING AMENDMENT Subdivision or Project Name (±2.n1) :: LAKj[TO P 9 L\J IS ED Street Address or Location of Subdivision / Project : 88 ) -- Q $ 3 T.40GW, 1.NN0CX f3L%JD Applicant / Agent : VJrisgLi " Address : ( 6 � _ � C�4L}v NS ftp �MACP4 N OV/4 1 q Qro Phone : 1, ;7 ;1 .7q ;Z Owner ( If different from Applicant) : 7TR171b VJc] sC', U066 411M Spla - t,jMG C }H .a[ ,01J�1 �- 1dR,C,rl ,d Address : . 167 — ) C/AL)<1N5 R44 Phone : ;19gq If application is for an additional meeting or public hearing in regard to an application previously submitted , darken this box -e 0 and STOP filling out form . See Planning Dept . for- payment of fees _ ( If application is not just for an additional meeting or hearing, complete the rest of form as .directed .) Engineer : — Phone : Architect (if any ) : Jyjt1 DL D Phone : vok77- 417y7 Planner (if any ) : Phone Attorney (if any ) : pyTrj;L WAL!54 Phone : 213 -4XOO I r, Do To be completed for all SUBDIVISION aDplications, exce t it application is only for an additional meeting : Tax Parcel (s) involved : o2. S- ,2 — 18 o2. S— Z— l 9 2S — 2 — 2G Number of new lots proposedL,7T s' Toe re new roads or public utilities proposed ? Yes a No Is this a phased subdivision ? Yes [] NOR there are phases planned over years _ Estimated Site Improvement Cost (Exclude cost of land acquisition & prof. fees ) : :-10 000 - 00o To be completed for all SITE PLAN aDplications, except if application is only for an additional meeting : Tax Parcel (s) involved : Project is Non—Residential El Lot area : sq . ft . Total Building Eloor Area sq . ft . Project is Residential Number of dwelling units Proposed : (2 dormitory bedrooms = 1 D .U .) Estimated Project Cost (Exclude cost of land acquisition $a prof. fees ) : $ , 00 @=DM 102 To be completed for all REZONING applications, except if application is only for an additional meeting : Tax -Parcel(s) affected : Existing Zoning : Proposed Zoning : Del Q� Q o To be completed and signed for ALL applications, except if application is only for an additional meeting : The information on this application form is submitted in addition to other information , plats , and plans required by the Town of Ithaca . I attest that all the information so submitted is complete and accurate , to the best of my knowledge . Also , by filing this application , I grant permission for members of the various Town of Ithaca Boards , the Planning Dept . staff, and the Engineering Dept . . s�taff to enter t property specified above to inspect in connection with review of the application . G \ UCT I y md) Ap is is (or Agent's) Signature Date Owner 's Signature ( If different from Applicant) Date :�� a • :;�HkY ;:;:;:;: ;:;:;:;:;:;: :•:•::: :•:•:;:;:;:;:• • • .• • • • • • :::•:•:•:•:•:;:;:;:;:;:; - . NON - REFUNDABLE FEE ESCROW SUBDIVISION REVIEY SCHEDULE DUE SCHEDULE DUE Initial Application : - 1 - 4 New L /U $50 5 - 10 New L /U $75 > > 10 New L /U $ 1.00 + $ 1 @ L /U Preliminary Plat : 1 - 10 New L /U_ (w /o RPU) $50�+ $ 1 .0 @ L /U A11 Others $ 100 0 .599 EIC Final Plat : 1 -- 10 New L /U (w /o RPU) $50 -+ $ 10 @ L /U A110thers . = $ 100 0 .599 EIC - Inspection : 0 .599 EIC Plats /Replats- whose sole purpose is to dedicate land for public use : No Charge Plat Reaffirmations : $50 + $5 @ L /U SITE PLAN REVIEY Initial 'Application : $70 Preliminary , Plan : Non4e'sidential __ . . $ 100 0 . 199 EPC , Excl . land Residential $ 100 $25 @ Dwelling Unit Final Plan : . -- Non-Residential _ _ . $50 O . t99 EPC ; Excl . land Residential $50 $25 @ Dwelling Unit Inspection : Non-Residential 0 .0599 EPC , Excl . land Residential . . $25 (a Dwellina Unit REZONING /ZONIN(; AMENDMENT $ 170 Plus Any Site Plan Fees ADDITIONAL MEETING FEE 0n+ the event of more than 1 meeting- or public hearing per application) Agenda Processing : __ - $30 _Public Hearing Processing : $50 MEN L /U = Lots /Units Calculated Fees : _00 Calculated Escrow : _ 00 EIC = Est: Improvement Cost EPC = Est . Project Cost w/o RPU Fee Adjustment : _00 — Escrow Balance = . Y/out Roads/ Publ . Util . 0005 % = 0 .0005Fees Paid : _ .00Escror Paid 0 .599 = 0 .005 0 . 199 ' = 0 .001 • Receipt # : Receipt # Min . Initial Escrow Dep . is $200 Separate checks if escrow > $ 1000 Check # : Check # : Estimated Cost for Calculating Escrow : .00 , as approved by : Stage of Review : INITIAL El PRELIMINARY FINAL INSPECTION Recei•: ed by : Date : PLNG ENGR Escrow Account Name : Escrow Account Number : Date of Deposit : Revised 6 /90 TOgN Or 1THMA 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca , New York 14850 _ ( 607 ) 273- 1747 CHECK • APPEAL ZONING : to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been denied permission to IBU ) Lb A me) o6r. oN S► rg 1 CrA.X PAQc.E(, as- z - ► 8L at F3 8 ) r A. Q 6 AA of N OCA<t Q "V D . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . _ a 5_ A - IA , as shown on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of : Article ( s ) 2SL , section ( s ) _ 1 6 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL FICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : . ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) Article X111 , section 57 of the town zoning ordinance clearly establish es the right to build a house on this site but observance of side yard requirements would result in a building much too narrow ( approx . 10 ft . ) to be practical . Therefore we requst a side yard variance or that extra land be allowed to be added avi. oding the necessity of a varience . Please refer to project " Description attached , for a full explanation . By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : / Q , = / 4 - 9 / Cno� w,E ist � Signature of Appellant /Agent : Date : Home Telephone Number : cZV Z O4 S3 Work Telephone Number : • on — RESURVEY FOR ESTATE OF RANE F RAN DOLPH � • TOWN OF ITHACA COUNTY OF TOMPKINS STATE OF NEIN YORK rAx •► Zs-- 2 - 20 —~ C I%z �� �rHACA ETNA C A ' '- .PErAi�l/i.✓6 1 CO e.lf a os F5dr, r 3 It O✓'e,� GA✓E o � C°rrrgE � h a Ad 1�— �r Q SETP„✓( Ge...r� ( 7 '50 N e , , . s — ,Y/�iY»�AV � , ✓✓,yf✓r nit C \h Zk - m 01 ,0 Odryo%JES � t i /VOTE DEED i ✓ez4/O ES � I.✓� L �U BETI✓EE�✓ h�CJT L/�✓E OE �,^��b ,�//c�iS�l✓Ay A ✓0 FsT�i.✓E JF OtG /P,�///L.rOAO . �/YoT .Sf+�Dyri✓ •, 1 ' O.✓ 7,vl +7.lP X30 4A.e. 'T V �Sa N I.y 1 fs1�iC n+u >1AVULarLONIPl.1WIT1I F.l nn :..., GEORGE SCHLECHT .I AIny1C1. p> _ . iF 111! Vk.N IURA > I pl ). !.t pLi Af1U� L.t\� 3440FESSIOr..I E`fG;tiEEP •ate' F ESS,QNAL Lan• c jk;PV E'•CA AWN • , P .Ec 6 /88 �• G. S. ISCILE . , = 30 ' JOBrt SE Of NEW rO l l: rn •by ccrnty JEFFREY L . U7L 07A C4P PSE C . $CN �� w EF that I and d Ilccnscli land surveyor. New York State Llcl•IISe NO 0-191941. and llwl this gra+p CurreL' lly dChl1Ca1CS dll allUal 5lIrCCy $ )It the gruund magic by me nr under my direct y , iuprryulun , that it .yds pre}'UfCll 111 dlUpflI811Ce with the currrneclpdc• of practice h)r 181111 title suR'CV.I ddoptvi h\; the New York State Association ' pt Protessiunai Land Surveyors. and that I found no vibible encrltachlllenl5 either way acrusa properly III14:5 C%cCPI as q Di shot.vn herein . aim 93876 a9 13,\K/ SIGNED : - -- —moi - . . -- - -- DATED : G a� zl Pt J�O�aI Engine 3X d7 Y9Q4 f/� -� Y � bN � r8wr1 Add � O � Nct J7!VIA OO On 77dA( y Jnr? Nr 7/1 , OS —ate 9Z u//S 37 J'�L t/M 1N�S32lc/ O In N u V � -j •� o Ok kb (� h dF 4C J '� C 11 M 44Z4 VI 1. � 141 jV \ V to \ �,.5 G� f . . v l ': ' • ? ra or r Q e N cC t Y `k N �' `ii 4j --� V n Q. 04 A;z 1/ 0 Q0- ly ZZ � I W Y v V \ v � vw � W h 0+ qe O JT W v d 9E 7 ti Ci- .0 Wj � Q W _ 7 'x . yo SN �A- M 90 - SN q q .,,.,.1 3L ,.1S �' � LJ •tel °° o °° r C c1 � o0 � 4: � G2 � Qy W C68.c N> arc �� J/90NNH�/ 916'1 _ 3 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD and TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS In re Application of Laketop Associates PETITIONER ' S For adjustment of certain lot lines MEMORANDUM And for an Area Variance for property located at 881 - 883 Taughannock Blvd . INTRODUCTION This memorandum is submitted to the Planning Board and to the Board of Zoning of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , in support of applications by petitioner Laketop Associates , a partnership , for permission to redraw ® certain lot lines and for area variances with respect to premises known as 881 - 883 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca , N . Y . The application is made upon the Development Review Application dated October 14 , 1991 by Jerold Weisburd , the Appeal to the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals , of even date , each with exhibits and attachments , and upon the affidavits of Jerold Weisburd sworn to November 14 , 1991 and Robert N . Shaw , sworn to November 13 , 1991 . Three tax parcels are affected by this application ; at present only one of the parcels fully conforms to the zoning ordinance for building lots . • Petitioner seeks to redraw existing property lines so as to create two fully -conforming building lots where only one conforming parcel now exists and to reduce the non -conformity 1 i of the remaining parcel , and asks to be granted area variances to the extent required to build upon the third lot . As redrawn , the third parcel would contravene Article IV , sections 14 and 16 of the Ithaca Town Zoning Ordinance . This matter was previously before the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals ( August , 1991 ) in different form . At that time the town ,' s Environmental Review Committee opposed the plan submitted , stating that it could not support the creation of additional nonconforming lots . The Planning Board voted to grant preliminary subdivision approval with certain conditions , subject to approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals . With two of its five members absent the Board of Zoning Appeals by a vote of two - to - one ( three affirmative votes being required ) failed to approve the grant of a variance , for the reason stated by the. Environmental Review Committee , namely , that it would create three non - conforming lots whereas at present one of the three actually conforms to the ordinance . This modified application is submitted to address the concern raised by the Environmental Review Committee and members of the Board of Zoning Appeals , STATEMENT OF FACTS Laketop Associates ( Laketop ) is a New York general partnership consisting of Jerold Weisburd and Siu - Ling Chaloemtiarana . Laketop through its members controls three tax parcels located on the western shore of Cayuga Lake , tax parcels numbered 25 - 2 - 18 , 25 - 2 - 19 , and 25 -2 - 20 . Tax parcel number 25 - 2 - 20 was acquired by Chaleomtiarana by deed 2 recorded in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk in Liber • 661 of Deeds at Page 835 . Weisburd acquired parcel numbers 25 - 2 - 19 and 25 - 2 - 18 by deed recorded in Liber 662 of Deeds at Page 414 . Parcels 25 - 2 - 19 and 25 - 2 - 18 have been separately - described parcels since at least 1933 . ( Weisburd , par . 3 ) . * Petitioner bought the three parcels with the intent of • constructing a residence on each , one to be the residence of Chaloemtiarana , the others to be sold for profit . Petitioner was aware that parcel 25 - 2 - 18 was smaller than required by the town zoning ordinance , but was also mindful of the provision of Article XIII section 57 of the Ithaca town Zoning Ordinance with respect to residential lots predating the ordinance . ( Weisburd , par . 5 ) Proof that parcels 25 - 2 - 19 and 25 - 2 - 18 were legally separate parcels , both then owned by the same family , was made an express contingency of the contract for their purchase . ( Weisburd , par . 5 ) With their present boundaries , only the southernmost of the three parcels ( 25 - 2 - 20 ) is a fully - conforming building lot . ( Weisburd , par . 6 ) By contrast , under the present proposal only the northernmost lot ( Site One as shown on Exhibit A ) would not fully conform , being left mildly deficient with respect to total area , and with respect to width at a distance of 50 feet from the road . Exhibit A shows the existing boundaries * Factual references contained in this memorandum are to the affidavits of Weisburd and Shaw , e . g . , ( Weisburd , par . ) 3 of the three lots , and as they are proposed to be redrawn . Because as redrawn under this proposal the southern and middle lots ( sites Two and Three ) would be fully-conforming , no variances would be required to construct a residence on either , and the balance of this memorandum is accordingly devoted to the application for area variances sought for Site One . ( Weisburd , par . 8 ) The present northernmost tax parcel ( 25 - 2 - 18 ) is not in conformity with the existing town zoning ordinance requirements for a building lot in that zone ( R- 15 ) in the following four respects : its road frontage is 36 feet where a 60 - foot frontage is required ; its width at the 50 - foot setback is 36 feet where 100 feet is required ; its area is ® 71100 square feet where 15 , 000 square feet are required ; and strictly observing the sideyard setback requirements would result in constructing a dwelling no more than eight feet in width . ( Weisburd , par . 9 ) The redrawn Site One would conform to the road frontage requirement with 65 feet , and would permit the construction of a dwelling which completely respected the 15 - foot sideyard setback requirement . Site One as redrawn would still be deficient with respect to total area ( 12 , 421 square feet where the ordinance requires 15 , 000 , a 17 percent deficiency ) , and width at 50 - foot setback ( 36 feet where the ordinance requires 100 feet ) . ( Weisburd , pars . 9 , 10 ) Adjoining lots in the neighborhood suffer similar or • greater deficiencies . An examination of the tax maps with respect to the five parcels north of those affected by this 4 rr �r rr ® rr rr rr r� r r ar ® r rr r® application and with respect to the five south of those affected shows as follows . - - nine out of ten are deficient in area , averaging 10 , 000 square feet for the ten lots examined ; the range of area deficiency , as a percentage of the required area , is from 72 per cent to 16 per cent . - - ten out of ten ( 100 per cent ) are deficient in width at the 50 - foot setback , with an average of 56 feet for the ten lots examined . - - only half of the 10 lots examined conform to the ordinance with respect to road frontage , having an average width of 55 feet . ( Weisburd , par . 12 ) Because the tax maps do not show the positioning of ® dwellings on their lots it is difficult to measure conformity with sideyard setback requirements , but upon a visual inspection , neither the lot next north of those affected by this application ( parcel no . 25 - 2 - 17 ) nor the one next south ( parcel no . 25 - 2 - 21 ) meets the minimum sideyard setback requirements , averaging approximately five feet where 15 feet are required . ( Weisburd , par . 13 ) Petitioner has also examined the slopes of building lots north and south of those which would be affected by this proposal , and they are not in any significant respect different from those presented by Site One as redrawn . ( Weisburd par . 14 ) Petitioner proposes to construct on Site One a dwelling which except for lot size and width at the 50 - foot setback , 5 rr rr r rr rr r rr rr r r ■r r r ® ro would fully conform with all applicable building and zoning code requirements . ( Weisburd , par . 15 ) Petitioner acquired parcels 25 - 2 - 18 and 25 - 2 - 19 in 1991 for a total purchase price of $ 175 , 000 . 00 , which was not allocated between the two parcels . If one accepts the relative values placed upon the two parcels by the Tompkins County Department of Assessment ( but not the actual assessments ! ) , they would be in the ratio of 82 per cent for parcel 25 - 2 - 19 , and 12 per cent for 25 - 2 - 18 , the northern parcel being assessed as vacant resiential land with an assessed value of $ 33 , 000 , the southern being assessed as improved residential land with an assessed value of $ 150 , 000 . ( Weisburd , par . 16 ) Applying those ratios to the price actually paid for the two parcels ( $ 1751000 . 00 ) , yields a value of $ 143 , 500 . 00 for parcel 25 - 2 - 19 , and a value of $ 31 , 500 . 00 for parcel 25 - 2 - 18 . If parcel 25 - 2 - 18 is considered legally unbuildable , it would have a fair market value estimated at between $ 8 , 000 . 00 and $ 10 , 000 . 00 , roughly 31 percent of what Petitioner paid for it . ( Shaw , par . 9 ) Strictly applying the provisions of the town ordinance to parcel number 25 - 2 - 18 would result , not merely in practical difficulties , but in rendering the lot unbuildable . ( Weisburd , par . 18 ) DISCUSSION Petitioner respectfully submits that it is entitled to • receive the area variances required to allow low it to construct a residence on Site One . 6 MM r r� or r� rr r �r r■ rs ® �r MM Unless the municipality shows that the public interest will be served by a strict application of the zoning ordinance , the landowner is entitled to an area variance upon demonstrating practical difficulties in conforming to the ordinance and significant economic injury in the absence of the grant of a variance . Fulling v . Palumbo , 21 N . Y . 2d 30 ( 1967 ) . In this case petitioner has demonstrated that the parcel at issue , 25 - 2 - 18 , cannot be developed in strict conformity with the requirements of the ordinance . As it stands , the parcel lacks the required road frontage , the required width at the 50 - foot setback , the required minimum area ( to the extent of nearly 50 percent ) , and could never conform with sideyard setback requirements . It is also clearly demonstrated that petitioner , having paid approximately $ 31 , 500 . 00 for a parcel zoned residential , would suffer a significant financial hardship , being able to sell it for only $ 8 , 000 . 00 to $ 10 , 000 . 00 . " Once proof of significant economic injury is adduced the burden of going forward with proof that the restriction is reasonably related to a legitimate exercise of the zoning power is upon the municipality [ citations omitted ] , " Matter of National Merritt . Inc v Weist , 41 N . Y . 2d 438 , at 443 ( 1977 ) . In this respect the proof is also clear .0 no legitimate municipal interest ( public health , safety , welfare , value of adjoining properties ) would be adversely affected by granting the requested variances . Adjoining properties are no more in 7 compliance with the ordinance that the subject parcel . in • fact for most neighboring properties the degree of nonconformity is substantially greater than would be the case for Site One as drawn . It is important to note that the hardship at issue on this application is not " self - created , " so as to preclude the grant of a variance . Archtypal examples of self - created hardship are , in the context of a use variance application , purchasing a property with knowlege that the applicable zoning prohibits its use for the intended purpose , or , in the context of an area variance , subdividing an existing , conforming parcel then seeking a variance for the non - conforming remainder . This case presents neither of those situations , nor anything analogous . The property was and is zoned residential , and is sought to be used for a permitted use . Petitioner has not reduced the size of parcel 25 - 2 - 18 ; to the contrary , it seeks to enlarge it . Moreover , although parcel 25 - 2 - 18 was acquired with knowlege that it has certain deficiencies measured against the current ordinance , it was also acquired with knowlege of the provision of the Article XIII , Section 57 ( General Provisions ) of the Ithaca Town Zoning Ordinance Section , which provides as follows : Existing Lots . Other provisions of this ordinance notwithstanding , nothing shall prohibit the use for a single family dwelling of a lot of deed record at the time of the passage of this ordinance , as amended , of less that the required size of lot in any district except an Industrial District , provided that all other provisions of this • ordinance are complied with . 8 The Ithaca Town Zoning Ordinance having become effective • February 26 , 1968 , and the lot at issue having been of " deed record " since at least 1933 , and the lot being deficient under the ordinance by reason of size , Petitioner should be allowed to construct a residence on it . The ordinance itself clearly articulates a public policy that pre - existing residential lots , formerly legally buildable , should continue to be buildable despite deficiencies of size . In this case the hardship to Petitioner is the same as it was to the previous owner , Petitioner has not worsed the non- conformity as by subdivision , and in fact Petitioner affirmatively seeks to lessen the extent of the non - conformity . In the circumstances it can hardly be said that this is self - created hardship . Even if this instance were to be deemed self - created hardship , it would not as a matter of law preclude the grant of a variance , and it should not be made the basis for denial here . Although self - created hardship alone may preclude the grant of a use variance , it is but one factor to be considered in an application for an area variance , and it may not constitute the determinative factor relied upon by a zoning board to deny an area variance . See , Fort Ridge Builders . Inc v Zoning Board of Appeals , 64 A . D . 2d 704 ( 2d Dep ' t 1978 ) , Courtesy Estates . Inc v Schermerhorn , 51 A . D . 2d 966 ( 2d Dep ' t 1976 ) , and Conley v . Brookhaven Zoning Board of Appeals , 40 N . Y . 2d 309 , 315 ( 1976 ) . In DeSena v . Board of Zoning Appeals , 45 N . Y . 2d 105 ( 1978 ) , the Court of Appeals put it this way : 9 That a landowner ' s difficulty is is a sense self - created is certainly a factor to be taken into account in considering an application for an area variance , although it is less significant a consideration in such cases than in those involving use variances [ citations omitted ] . It is not , moreover , the determinative factor , and we have in the past upheld the authority of a board to grant an area variance in situations involving self - created harships [ citations omitted ] . A finding of self - created hardship normally should not in and of itself justify denial of an application for an area variance [ citations omitted ] . The basic inquiry at all times is whether strict application of the ordinance in a given case will serve a valid public purpose which outweighs the injury to the property owner [ citations omitted ] . It might be noted that the state legislature , in a recent amendment of the procedures and standards for town and village zoning boards , essentially codified the standards set forth by the Court of Appeals in its numeous zoning cases , leading one to conclude that the legislature did not modify the common law standards developed by the Court over the years . Section 267 - b ( 3 ) ( b ) of Chapter 692 of the Laws of 1991 ( effective July 1 , 1992 ) , which amends the Town Law provisions governing boards of zoning appeals , provides as follows with respect to applications for area variances : In making its determination , the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted , as weighed against the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant . In making such determination the board shall also consider . ( 1 ) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance ; ( 2 ) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method , feasible for the applicant to pursue , other than an area variance ; ( 3 ) whether the requested area variance is substantial ; ( 4 ) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district ; and ( 5 ) whether the alleged difficulty was self - created , which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the 10 board of appeals , but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance . On a review of the evidence introduced on this appeal it is abundantly clear that - - the variance sought would have no negative impact upon adjoining properties or the neighborhood . - - the reason for the application - - permitting construction of a house - - cannot be achieved by any lesser remedy , indeed , that by adjusting the lines of adjoining lots Petitioner has already sought to limit the extent of the variances required to the maximum possible extent possible . - - Petitioner ' s proposal for the site , by consolidating in one what would otherwise be three driveways , achieves gradients which will permit off - street parking year - round in • an area where parking along the margin of a busy and dangerous state highway is a perenial problem . - - and that the variances now being sought , for width at 50 - foot setback and the nearly de minimus 17 percent area deficiency , are not substantial , particularly given the non - conforming state of virtually all adjoining properties . CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above Petitioner respectfully requests that the Ithaca Town Planning Board grant subdivision approval to redraw the lot lines of the three affected parcels as shown on Exhibit A , and respectfully requests that the Ithaca Town Board of Zoning Appeals grant area variances to the redrawn Site One as shown on Schedule A 11 with respect to minimum lot area and width at the 50 - foot • setback line . Respectfully submitted , TRUE , WALSH & MILLER , Attorneys for Petitioner 101 North Tioga Street Ithaca , N . Y . 14850 ( 607 ) 273 - 4200 Dated : Ithaca , N . Y . November 14 , 1991 12 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD and TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS In re Application of Laketop Associates Affidavit For adjustment of certain lot lines And for an Area Variance for property located at 881 - 883 Taughannock Blvd. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss . : JEROLD WEISBURD , being duly sworn deposes and says : i . I am an architect licensed in the State of New York , residing at 167 Calkins Road , Ithaca , New York . I make this affidavit in support of an application by Laketop Associates for subdivision approval and zoning variances . 2 . Laketop Associates ( Laketop ) is a New York general partnership consisting of me and Siu - Ling Chaloemtiarana . Laketop through its members controls three tax parcels located on the western shore of Cayuga Lake , tax parcels numbered 25 - 2 - 18 , 25 - 2 - 19 , and 25 - 2 - 20 . 3 . Tax parcel number 25 - 2 - 20 was acquired by Chaleomtiarana by deed recorded in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk in Liber 661 of Deeds at Page 835 . I acquired parcel numbers 25 - 2 - 19 and 25 - 2 - 18 by deed recorded in Liber 662 of Deeds at Page 414 . Copies are attached as exhibits C and D . 1 4 . Parcels 25 - 2 - 19 and 25 - 2 - 18 have been separately - ® described parcels since at least 1933 , as evidenced by an extract from the abstract of title to the property which is attached as Exhibit B . 5 . Laketop acquired the three parcels with the intent of constructing a residence on each , one to be the residence of Chaloemtiarana , the others to be sold for profit . We were aware that parcel 25 - 2 - 18 was smaller than required by the town zoning ordinance , but were also mindful of the provision of Article XIII section 57 of the Ithaca town Zoning Ordinance with respect to residential lots predating the ordinance . Proof that parcels 25 - 2 - 19 and 25 - 2 - 18 were legally separate parcels , both then owned by the same family , owas made an express contingency of the contract for their purchase . 6 . With their present boundaries , only the southernmost of the three parcels ( 25 - 2 - 20 ) is a fully - conforming building lot . 7 . Laketop ' s subdivision request , in short , would redraw lot lines to enlarge parcels 25 - 2 - 18 and 25 - 2 - 19 at the expense of parcel 25 - 2 - 20 , as shown on the attached Exhibit A . 8 . As a result of redrawing the lot lines among the three parcels the southernmost parcel ( 25 - 2 - 20 ) , now called Site Three , would remain a fully - conforming lot , - the middle one ( 25 - 2 - 19 ) , now called Site Two , would become a fully -conforming lot ; and 2 only the norther.nmost lot ( Site One as shown on • Exhibit A ) would not fully conform , being left mildly deficient with respect to total area , and with respect to width at a distance of 50 feet from the road . 9 . The present northernmost tax parcel ( 25 - 2 - 18 ) is not in conformity with the existing town zoning ordinance requirements for a building lot in that zone ( R- 15 ) in the following four respects : its road frontage is 36 feet where a 60 - foot frontage is required ; its width at the 50 - foot setback is 36 feet where 100 feet is required ; its area is 7 , 100 square feet where 15 , 000 square feet are required ; and strictly observing the sideyard setback requirements would result in constructing a dwelling no more than eight feet in width , the lot presently having a width averaging 38 feet , of which the sideyard requirements ( 15 feet each ) would consume 30 feet . 10 . The redrawn Site One would conform to the road frontage requirement with 65 feet , and would permit the construction of a dwelling which completely respected the 15 - foot sideyard setback requirement . 11 . Site One as redrawn would still be deficient with respect to total area ( 12 , 421 square feet where the ordinance requires 15 , 000 , a 17 percent deficiency ) , and width at 50 - foot setback ( 36 feet where the ordinance requires 100 feet ) . 12 . Adjoining lots in the neighborhood suffer similar or greater deficiencies . An examination by me of the tax maps with respect to the five parcels north of those affected by this application and with respect to the five south of those affected shows as follows : 3 (!1 V] U] I 1 10 1 I N N N N N N N N N N no He N• W- I 1 " I I Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul Ut Ul Ul U1 Iy rt rt rt 1 1 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n ro (D (D I I r0 I I N N N N N N N N N N (� 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (D H H O 1 I fA 1 I N N N N N W W W 1--A 11 O (D I l a l I P w N W J Cr p w (DD I I I I o a m Ul 00 0) Ut m 0� In .a ON W O :d(D 0 O o P Ln o N Ul o cn w J J Ln 0 D rt 0) rt Iv a w ro � � W � ►-� � N W � � N O 00 W O 0o O O t0 J O Q O h� �] W 00 W UI 00 W 00 Ut Ul 00 co J r� " 0 F'• (D ro rt a F+ W Ul O O .Avl O co rn rn 0% rn cn 13 1 w N- 0 0 0 0 o m 0 o w W o Ln o r►, rr a, (D rt ro �;r rt W W n 0 0 10 vi 00 rn cn rn o, 0, m to r� (D 0 O o 0 0 0) 0 0 w w o cn o 0 o " Fie r-h ro rt F+ N N W W W W W Ln 01 J Ul co O N J 0 (D (D N O J vi Ul O O O 0 O O O �1 rt � ro 00 Ul 01 Ul J Q1 U1 Ul 01 0) J 01 01 N• (DJ Ul O N W O N O w W O Q a n rt w � w ro ul W W N N W I✓ N N JQ .P Ul NOl F' O 00 J O N U1 ,p �O w 01 O F+ W Ul 03 00 01 W N m J O U1 t0 O O O O W O O (D (D I'i UI O O O Ul O O O O O O O W O lb X (D ro rt N ro W N ro (D O O O bP J 01 Ul (71 J 00 O N 0) O 0 O W P 0) P l0 J N N OP N 00 O F hil ro (D rt Q+ In sum then , • - - nine out of the ten existing lots are deficient in area , averaging 10 , 000 square feet for the ten lots examined ; the range of area deficiency , as a percentage of the required area , is from 72 per cent ( 25 - 2 - 14 ) to 16 per cent ( 25 - 2 - 16 ) . One of the ten ( 25 - 2 - 15 ) exceeds the required area by two percent . - - ten out of the ten ( 100 per cent ) are def icient in width at the 50 - foot setback , with an average of 56 feet for the ten lots examined . - - only half of the 10 lots examined conform to the ordinance with respect to road frontage , having an average width of 55 feet . 13 . Because the tax maps do not show the positioning of dwellings on their lots it is difficult to measure conformity with sideyard setback requirements , but upon my visual inspection , neither the lot next north of those affected by this application ( 25 - 2 - 17 ) nor the one next south ( 25 - 2 - 21 ) meets the minimum sideyard setback requirements , averaging approximately five feet where 15 feet are required . 14 . I also examined the slopes of building lots north and south of those which would be affected by this proposal , and they are not in any significant respect different from those presented by Site One as redrawn . 15 . Laketop proposes to construct on Site One a dwelling which except for lot size and width at the 50 - foot 5 setback , would fully conform with all applicable building and zoning code requirements . 16 . I acquired parcels 25 - 2 - 18 and 25 - 2 - 19 in 1991 for a total purchase price of $ 1751000 . 00 , which was not allocated between the two parcels . If one accepts the relative values placed upon the two parcels by the Tompkins County Department of Assessment ( but not the actual assessments ! ) , they would be in the ratio of 82 per cent for parcel 25 - 2 - 19 , and 18 per cent for 25 - 2 - 18 , the northern parcel being assessed as vacant residential land with an assessed value of $ 33 , 000 , the southern being assessed as improved residential land with an assessed value of $ 150 , 000 . 17 . Applying those ratios to the price actually paid for the two parcels ( $ 175 , 000 . 00 ) , yelds a value of $ 143 , 500 . 00 for parcel 25 - 2 - 19 , and a value of $ 31 , 500 . 00 for parcel 2 5 - 2 - 18 , 18 . Strictly applying the provisions of the town ordinance to parcel number 25 - 2 - 18 would result , not merely in practical difficulties , but in rendering the lot unbuildable , because no dwelling could be constructed having a width of eight feet , and still conform to the minimum requirements of the New York State Construction Code . . r JERO EISB URD Sworn to before me this day of November , 1991 N19tAry !P lice State of New York No. 4721245 alified in Tompkins County Commission Expires November 30, 19j2- 6 09 no r c a r -m{ Din 4 in w 44 89 i 33 / • � � 9 , u 70 4� woor _ �. • mom • w , r mom _ v _ .000 r t r 1 0 , N O b � q . I_♦ � �'' M p h i • � � r ;0 In NI r H � •" r ut am 74 am aw I ' IA `i 30 � • � — 40" SI— cam mammal 'm •1 r w v CAYUGA LAKE Ir am p a - rn i I ` i NO 1 233 Deeds , Py . 259 t�DIRI2NJI'Y DEED Dated Nov . 14 , 1933 drank Dean , also known a s 11CI; . Nov. 14 1933 . '• Frank ' Sigler Dean , and . Stella A . Dean , his wife I2DC . , tJov . 14 , 1933 at 3 : 40 I'fl to CON . $ 1 . 00 etc . Grace F . Williams CONVEYS . • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . :' bituate in the Town of Ithaca , County of 'Tompkir and State of New York , on the west shore of Cayuga Lake and bounded as follows : Beginning at a blazed hemlock tree on the west shore of Cayuga Lake at the southeast corner of a lot herE tofore sold by James Crager and wife to James Hutchinson and Lary Belle .liutchinson , his wifE thence running westerly on said Hutchinson ' s south line to the center of the Boulevard road ( as it now exists ) running from the City of Ithaca , to Glenwood passed the premises hereby intended to be conveyed ; thence running south along the center of said Boulevard road ( as it now exists ) fifty ( 50 ) feet : thence easterly parallel with said south line of the Hutchinson lot to low water mark on the west shore of Cayuga Lake ; thence running northerly along the west shore of Cayuga Lake at low water mark fifty ( 50 ) feet to the blazed he :alock tree , the place of beginning . ALSO ALL THAT TRACT PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of Ithaca county of Tompkins and btate of flew York , and being part of former lot No . 87 and bounded and describe. as follows : beginning at an iron stake at low water mark on the west shore of Cay uga Lake ane at the southeast corner of property heretofore conveyed to Frank Dean , and thence running in a westerly direction to an iron stake at the easterly side of the Boulevard Road ( as it now . exists ) ; thence running southerly a distance of twenty ( 20 ) feet along the easterly line of the Boulevard Road ( as it now exists ) to an iron stake ; and thence east to the place of beginning ; subject , however , to rights of the public in the Boulevard Road ( as it now exists ) and along the shores of Cayuga Lake . Being a portion of the premises described in deed of Lydia Luce and others to James Crager and recorded in Tompkins County Clerk ' s office in 8 of Ithaca Deeds at page 196 . Excepting from the above described premises that part of the premises heretofore given to Tompkins County for road purposes as shown on Map # 68 of the Boulevard State Highway as pre - pared by the State Engineer and on file with the Tompkins County Board of Supervisors and the New York State Highway Department . The above described premises being subject to a right - of - • ay - hereto 4 fore granted to the flew York Telephone Company and such other rights - of - way or ease - ments thathave been . granted to other corporations or individuals , " ideals . 4 255 De is , ng . 14 t%ARRAI :I'7 D = Dated Dec . 16 , 1939 Elsie M , Sarge ACK . Dec . 16 , 1939 to PEC . Jc-ui . 2 , 1940 at 11 : 50 N' j Grace W . Ptansey CON . $ 1 . 00 etc . . CONVEYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "situate In the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of New York , described as follows : Beginning at a point at the southeast corner of the property conveyed to the party of the first part by Myrton S . Dean and Frank S . Dean by deed dated November 1 , 1938 and recorded in Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office November 1 , 1938 in Liber 249 of Deeds at page 137 , which point is marked by a blazed hemlock tree on the west shor of Cayuga Lake ; run_, L*ng thence north along the lour crater mark of thewest shore of Cayuga Lake to a point in the centrr line of a ravine ; running thence westerly along the center line of said ravine to the Tauchannock Boulevard , so called , the center line of said ravine at this Point is the center of a culvert under the Taughannock Boulevard ; thence south to the north Property line of the property of the party of the second part ; thence east along the property • line of th,� party of the second part to the place of beginning . It is hereby intended to convey a parcel of land bounded on the east by Cayuga Lake , on the west by Taughannock Boulevard , on the north by the center line of a ravine , and on the sout ` by he property line dividing the properties of the party of the first part and the party of the second part . " • No . 9 :, 80 I ( � ? s , ? � . 3 � 3 (f� I 'I ' CLr�.L ] [jI ]: a Uatc l J �u1 . 16 , 1969 Louie J . .•.Tipple 7AC F * Jan . 1. 6 , 1969 to REC . Ma_r , 21 , 1969 at 10 : 05 mm ® Louie J . Nn o[Dle and CON . $ 1 . 00 etc . Joseph W . FfurilDlo , joint tenants , survivor to take all • ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND described in a warranty deed dated December 16 , 1939 , from ELSIE M . SARGE to GRACE W . RniSEY and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office on January 2 , 1940 in Liber 255 at page 14 , and ALSO , ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND described in a warranty deed dated November 14 , 1933 from FRANK DEAN ( also known as Frank Sigler Dean ) and STELLA A . DEAN ( his wife ) to GRACE F . WILLIAILS and recorded in Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office on November 14 , 1933 • in Liber 233 at page 259 . The descriptions contained in the aforementioned deeds are incorporated herein and made a part hereof as if set forth in full . The said GRACE F . WILLIAMS married LAWRENCE C . RUMSEY IN the City of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , in or about April 1936 and became known as GRACE W . RUMSEY . The said GRACE W . RUM.SEY died intestate on the 25th day of October , 1940 and by an order of the Surrogate ' s Court , Tompkins County , made and entered on the 23rd day of January , 1946 and recorded in • the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office on the 23rd day of January 1946 in Liber 284 at page 81 it was ad - judged and decreed that LAWRENCE C . RUMSEY was entitled to inherit the aforementioned tracts and parcels of land . The above described property is situated in the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of 'New York . " No . 10 561 Deeds . Page 83 � Jeffrey C . Uotila and oar' r . tnty Deed dater il _; , 1981 colleen S . Uot11a , husb -and and wife , ind . and as Tick . May 15 , 1991 tenants by the entirety Rer_ . Play 15 , 1991 at. 3 : 17 . PP1 to Thak Chaloemtiarana and Cons . 51 . 00 etc . Siu - Ling Chaloemtiarana , husband and wife , as tenants • by the entirety FOR DESCRIPTION SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS . Bunn Sri l' 11' Df,'FD— N'.4 XHA ,b' rY uirh Lien Cue-rnani ^ 9ll3 ruTMuN ,.- ,, c.V- .�a- u-u�. ...0 o• • •c , 4 6 to ;4Jn enture L Pt 661 Fn ..i 8345 .11ade the 15th dap of ''lay , V4nel erl Hundred and Ninety - One , dlrtiurctl JEFFREY C . UOTILA and COLLEEN S . UOTILA , husband and wife , ( both of 205 Spencer - Van Etten Road , Spencer , New York , t` individually and as tenants by the entirety , s ' ' CE �vF • L ESTATE part i e sof the first part, and i `� rii 1 5 1991 THAK CHALOEMTIARANA and SIU - LING CHALOEMTIARANA , husband and wife , both of 3 Pheasant Lane , IChdCa , New York , as Tr, ; `_ rE43TAX tenants by the entirety , : `,tpr< rt5 } i OJtvTY yyt parties of the second part , t 11101teeet• if1 that the part i e sof the first part, in consideration of - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ONE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/)rillar (31 . 00 - - - y lawful money of ( he United .States , and other good and valudbb e consideration paid by the part les a the second part , do hereby grant and release unto the parties aI the secondpart , the survivor his or hg r distriWees and assigns foreaer, all THAT TRACT O � PARCEL OF LAN DD situate in the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins , and State of New York , bounded and described as follows : Beginning at a point marked by an iron pin i ( r , set in the east bounds of New York State Highway Route 89 at the \� southwest corner of premises of Margaret M . Humble and Joseph W . Humble described by deed recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Book 579 of Deeds at page 935 , as shown on the survey map hereinafter referred to ; thence north 78 degrees - 00 minutes - 47 seconds east and passing 4 feet south of a garage on the Humble premises and at 156 . 36 feet passing through an existing iron pin for a total distance of 194 feet along the south line of said Humble premises to the westerly shore of Cayuga Lake , as shown on said map -, thence southerly along the shoreline of Cayuga Lake as it existed in July of 1980 to the north line of premises of Patricia Dekar described by deed recorded in the said Clerk ' s Office in Book 565 of Deeds at page 643 ( the distance between the north line of the said premise and the south line of the said premises can be measured on a chord running from the north line of said premises south 12 degrees - 34 minutes - 13 seconds east 123 . 09 feet to the south line of said prem - ises ) , also shown on said map ; thence south 77 degrees - 25 minutes - 47 seconds west along the north line of said Dekar premises 160 feet , • more or less , to the east bounds of the said highway ; thence north 30 degrees- 21 minutes - 05 seconds west along the east bounds of the a■� _ � � � � o !� �■ In � � r said highway 131 . 27 feet to the rr point and place of beginning , TOGETHER with any rights of the grantors in and to any lands lying between the west bounds of New York State Highway Route 89 and the east bounds of premises formerly of the Lehigh Valley Railroad Company and now reportedly owned by New York State Electric and Gas Company . ;° , ,t ALSO TOGETHER with any accretions or additions along the shores Of Cayuga Lake and together with any riparian rights , and any portions Of the premises that may lie inthe City of Ithaca . ALSO TOGETHER with all the rights of the grantors her in r and to that portion of the premises adjoining the westerly line of the above described premises , to the center line of said New York State Highway Route 89 . Being the same premises described in a deed to the grantors herein dated June 29 , 1988 , and recorded in said Clerk ' s Office In Liber 637 of Deeds at page 513 . The above described premises are as shown on a map entitled " Resurvey for the Estate of Rane F . Randolph " , made by George C . Schlecht , L , p . E . & L . S . , dated 6 / 24 / 881a copy of which map was annexed to and recorded with said deed to the grantors herein , i i k f F s ti li 662 Deeds , 1'cl . 4 .14 1 112E7J1if1'Y DL:lti aklted June 14 , 1991 Joseph h1 . 11ur1d) l (2 aiicl 1\C:K . JunL� I :1 , 1991 Margaret Pi . lluu»faLe IZLIC' . Jtu )o l4 , 1991. at 1 : 44 11hi to CU4 . $ 1 . 00 etc . Jerold ideisburd T . '11 . STJV. PS $ 400 . 00 CONVEYS , . . ' ' . . . , . . . . . . Pis I t u a t e in the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of New York being more particularly bounded and described as follows : PARCEL A BEGINNING at a point marked by an iron pipe in the east line of the State Taking Line of Taughannock Blvd . ( NY 89 ) said point marking the northwest corner of premises conveyed to Jeffrey C . and Colleen S . Votila by deed recorded in Liber 637 of Deeds at Page 513 ; THENCE N 5906 ' 4! a distance of 70 feet along the east line of the State Taking Line of Taughannock Blvd . ( NY 89 ) ; THENCE N 84035 ' 01 " E a distance of 187 . 4 feet to a point In the present water line of Cayuga Lake ; THENCE along the present water line of Cayuga Lake a tie in line having a course and distance of S 11 ' 26 ' E 50 feet to a point ; THENCE S 78024 ' 14 a distance of 194 feet to an iron pipe being the point and place of beginning . PARCEL 8 BEGINNING at a point in the east line of the State Taking Line of Taughannock Blvd . ( NY 89 ) being the northwest corner of the premises above described as Parcel A ; THENCE N 5 ' 06 ' 14 along the east line of the State Taking Line of Taughannock Blvd . ( NY 89 ) a distance of 36 feet to a point ; THENCE along a brook a chord course and distance of N 83024 ' E 183 feet more or less to a point in the present water level of Cayuga Lake ; THENCE along the present water level of Cayuga Lake a tie in line having course and distance of S 11 ' 26 ' E 40 feet to a point ; THENCE along the north line of the premises above described as Parcel A S 84 ' 35 ' 01 " k a distance of 187 . 4 feet to the point and place of beginning , SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING insofar as they may affect Parcel A and 8 described herein : 1 . An easement granted to New York Telephone dated January 10 . 1911 and recorded March 28 , 1911 in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Liber 174 of Deeds at Page 464 . 2 . The right and easements of Others to drain through or otherwise use the stream running through the premises herein BEInG ThE SAME PREMISES CONVEYED To the grantors herein by deed dated October 10 , 1980 and recorded October 10 , 1980 In the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Liber 579 of Deeds at Page 935 , REFERENCE is hereby made to a survey map prepared by Howard R . Schlieder L . S . entitled " SURVEY MAP OF LANDS AT 863 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . ( NY 89 ) , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins Co . , New York " dated May 20 , 1991 and a Copy of which is to be filed concurrently herewith . Said Map showsthe Parcel A as the south parcel and Parcel B as the north parcel . NO':')r : Tie above mentioned Map is filed in the 'Ibr�pkins County Clerk ' s Office in Flap Drawer S - 13 . TOWN OF ITHACA • PLANNING BOARD and TOWN OF ITHACA . BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A. In re Application of Laketop Associates Affidavit For adjustment of certain lot lines And for an Area Variance for property located at 881 - 883 Taughannock Blvd . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss . : ROBERT N . SHAW , being duly sworn , deposes and says : 1 . I reside at 313 Roat , Ithaca , New York . 2 . I make this affidavit in support of an application • of Laketop Associates to the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals for an area variance for property located at 881 - 883 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca , New York . 3 . I am a licensed real estate broker and maintain offices at 413 North Tioga Street . 4 . I have 15 years experience in real estate brokering , including extensive experience with residential properties situated on Cayuga Lake . 1 5 . In that capacity I have had extensive exposure to prices offered and paid for various parcels of lakefront property . 6 . My attention has been called to a parcel of property • located at 883 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca , New York , known 1 � Kv Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Biggs Building A, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive Ithaca, New York. 14850 '3. James W. Hanson, Jr. *. Telephone Commissioner of Planning (607) 2745360 N1NG , TO: George Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Town of Ithaca FROM: James W . Hanson, Jr. , Commissioner JU V DATE: January 6, 1992 RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Modification of lot lines of tax parcels 6-25-2- 18 , - 19 , and -20. — This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a pan of the record. • n aRecycled paper C5mLj 17 /6,51 00 IV2 e Ik irk fie © e iISJ U, (t� cis � � J .►� C� eti�� V\ .s �� ® Ron and Sandy Knewstub 179 Calkins Rd . Ithaca , NY 14850 1 / 13 / 92 Toning Board of Appeals Town of Ithaca Ithaca , NY 14850 91 To whom it may concern , We have been neighbors with the Bartholomews for six. years . We know them to be responsible and conscientious people . We understand that they would like to build a woodworking shop for business use . We would like to express our support for them in this endeavor and we have no objections of any kind . We urge you to grant the variance as requested . Thank you for your considera - � n . Sincerely , Ron and Sandy Knewstub r • ,ie77 I 10102MROIJEWATTORNEY 110 North Geneva Street ■ Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone: (607) 277- 1916 ■ FAX :(607) 277-7519 loaf T ICTATr' V -F Ttrcam.. .^, c'�.. C -F 7r� T i r, n Ar, r, eMl r 7Q . fit. ✓ PNl Jf T1M1 G ter, r7 RMTI-, � v. � 1.1Mv1 + 'rc � 1 vmor.7 .. + ... c... . :.. .. ✓ :.. - a .... - � . . + ... ._ y D a.. l o v,we ; r, Gvv vr' + i� G i TVY\ T r\ r. GT + cs M + + 1 '7 c 1 l is ; r. 0 .7V ^� !a 'r. McriG 1`>, vT.TT" + Y1G - Qi viti•. r, l Vrner•ry iz � Tl- c�. N T vmC :T A i- _r� (' M i i` ir. c� Lr+ o rl ir, 1 � 4F. Mrc4 v, OMT > o ® 4 +0 17A7 ? C7C tw yl� l-. e ` vVmr_, i s + o � � ` tl� + 1^, M + tv+ c � > � �r. crest a i^, lT � l 1" CSv iA" + Y1ut �a � Tfe TCG 1 < > Gar. i � G11'. + l 1', /Y f Y1C /"fl1Ml 7 + T > w + . . ♦ + � . . v Cw w v - J v + 1 r �..� v � + . . y . v � + + T Mm Ml cry c .� m er.7r a + c11TTr. T ; cera + i� � + + 1', G < s +^. eer7 + e mMl` e + i., i v o ` all civ, r+ e + i-� Gc > 1> r, .� r� �� Gn r� r� 7.>r c11Pr3 e � cirri ioT S ; . G anr ; uji jr + a - + + J + . . v 1 . ..... f .�. _ vv u A. Am M J . . on r . + + (.. r J + 4. . 0 'a TG c ; mv� l � s TGv� l Muir, r + re c � crl + b+ o + l� � rl t � i-, P 1`r. er- 1` G r•7 r•1 r•. T r+ T need or, < mG <-� lG ? r�+ c dry ^ eSitate to 1� 71c ! r ,11 TG: 7 C / MT.T F ! iNlAL . AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA TION APPEAL of Barbara "Bar- thalomew, Appellant, 're- � TOWN OF ITHACA ZON- , questing a variance from the iNG BOARD OF APPEALS I rm equireents of Article XII It 51 , of the Town 'o NOTICE OF PUBLIC ; ;Ithaca Zoning Oridinance HEARINGS , :ifArticle V,. Sections 19 and WEDNESDAY, JANUARY : ,-20, also apply) to construct, 15, 1994 "an accessory building with a 7:00 P.M. ::height of 18 feet ( 15 feet) By direction of the Chairmapn� ; being , the " maximum height THE, ITHACA JOURNAL of 'the OTI EBIS «d of AHEREBY allowed), with said . buior a GIVEN that Public Hearings". =Proposed u be used for . 9 cprpen business (home oc• will be held by the Zoning ;) cupation) utilizin on area of Board of.Appeals of, the Town ; ` : '660 square feet �200 square State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . : of Ithaca on WWednesday; lon- , .:feet maximum allowed) . The Vary 15 , 1992, in Town Hall, . i ''l;uilding is Proposed to .be 126 East Seneca Street, , locate at 171 Calkins Road Gail Sullins bein �c, dulysworn , deposes and (FIRST Floor, REAR - Entrance' .' :.Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel p WEST Side , Ithaca, N .Y. . j ., ..tNo. 6.33. 1 .4, in an Agricul- COMMENCCING AT 7 :06 t 1u'rol-District (R•30 regulations sa s , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state at0resaid and that P.M. , on the following mat. Ppy) , PP y 9 + a Appellant addition. teai: ;a ti requests a variance t6be she/ he is Clerk ADJOURNED APPEAL. from 'permitted to advertise pro- - December 11 , 19911 of _,ducts in newspapers or megg- of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in ;Frank Prudence Apelant, ( ttzines, whereas section" ; 19 {� P Dirk Galbraith, Esq. , PA gent . prohibits, the ' advertising - of . — seeking an" interpretation of +. gods and products for sale. • ' Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true Arncle x11, Section s2 of the _;,$aid Zoning Board of Ap` «.Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi- .,:;peals will at said time, 7:00 copy , was published in said paper :„nonce, as it relates sfto t eruse p.m. , and . said place, hear 9 • I b11 persons in support of such commercialstyle building Io- ,matters or objections therero.• .toted at 1345 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par- i Persons may appear by i cel No. 6-28- 1 - 11 .2, Resi- agent or in person . dente District R•30. The pro- I Andrew S. Frost ° :posed building had been Building " • Inspector/Zoning Lsed for the operation of F & Enforcement Officer ' ® : _T :.,Distributing Co. until ap 273= 1747 pproximately 1988 and Januo 10, 92 "rhereaher has been used pri• and that the first publication of said notice was on the agrilyfarrhepurpose s star- �age . Commercial uses are day of rot generally permitted in e 19 . Residential Districts. Storage :as a Primaryuse is permitted on[ in Industrial Zones . ='APPShcEAL of Zeno Ruff Sprole, i';A . ellant Martin A. Sha- � puo, Esq ., Agent requesting a modification oro variance "ranted on January 3 , 1990 -permitting the operation of o Su cribed and sworn to before lne , this day . 'Bed and Breakfast" known _ as the "Hound and Hare" for of 19 _ 60( -four lodgers, located in a 1'single-family home at 1031 , Road , Town of (; ,uJthl,tho aco Tax Parcel No . ; 6.71 .7.5 , Residence District : ' R- 15 . The variance granted was from the requirements of Notary Public . Article IV, Section 11 , of thel Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- dinace, which limits the num- ber of lodgers in a single- family home to one. Said JEAN FORD " modification is for the pro-. . :posed addition of new living Notary Public, State of New York space and a sunroom to the • • home. • No. 465111110 APPEAL of Jerold Weisburg, ; Appellant, requesting vorian- QUal111Ed in Tcr :: ; ;i5 ces from the requirements of Article IV, Sections 14 and 1C'1 evpireS %'.1a,/ 31; 1 ✓ - 16, of the Town of Ithaca : "56ning Ordinance .for "the ! ,construction of a residential :building on a building loti, with on area of 12 ,421 %s ogre feet ( 15 ,000 being required) , a width at the maximum front yard setback I of 36 feet ( 100 feet being required) and a north an south $ ide yard building set- back of 6 feet ( 15 feet being required) . Said lot is located at 881 Toughonnock Boule- , vord, Town of Ithaca Tax Pat. ' cel No . 6.25.2. 18 , Residence td i ,trict R• 15 . " IS `'