Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-09-01 TOWN OF ITHACA Date Q . TOWN OF ITHACA C1 + ( ° lal{ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 1 , 1993 The following matters were heard by the Board on September 1 , 1993 : APPEAL OF KENNETH A . POYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF CHRISTEN E . AND MAURICE HALTOM , APPELLANTS , DON CRITTENDEN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 22 . 6 + FEET ( 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) LOCATED AT 121 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 57 - 1 -8 . 116 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . GRANTED , APPEAL OF LEE W . SCHRUBEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 869 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 25- 2 - 25 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID DECK WILL BE LOCATED 9 FEET 4 INCHES + TO THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS 50 + FEET WIDE ( 100 FOOT LOT WIDTHS REQUIRED ) AND IS APPROXIMATELY 7 , 250 SQUARE FEET IN AREA ( 15 , 040 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREAS REQUIRED ) . GRANTED . 1 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Date ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ^ Clerk 1� 1C�c�° N �i�'occ� SEPTEMBER 1 , 1993 PRESENT : Edward Austen , Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Lee Schruben , Donna Schruben , Cristen Haltom , Ken Poyer , Don R . Crittenden , Esq . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings were completed and are in order . Chairman Austen also commented that the meeting was changed from September 8 to September 1 . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF KENNETH A . POYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 22- 1- 1 . 26 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Poyer to give the Board a little background on the variance because he said that this variance should have been asked for when the building permit was done . Mr . Poyer said that when one starts off to get a building permit on a house , the situation is not always seen where there may be a possibility of a walkout basement . Mr . Poyer addressed the pictures that Mr . Frost had which show a walkout basement , approximately * there 12 or 14 feet wide . Mr . Poyer said that when you excavate and then the homeowner asks if is a possibility of having a walkout basement on one end of it , the builder starts to look at the grade on it , and if it is a possibility , the builder goes ahead and does it . Mr . Poyer said that , as far as getting a permit at that point , he did not even give it any consideration as to the height on it , 36 feet . He continued that to have a walkout basement on it is a unique feature to have in any house as long as there is the right grade onto it . Chairman Austen mentioned that this particular hearing has been before the Board about a month ago , and he said he had opened the hearing and completed the public hearing part of that , and he said the Board is just coming back to the Appeal . Mr . Frost stated that the Town did re - advertise this Appeal because it would have been a later date to be heard . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Poyer if everything was now completed to which Mr . Poyer said that it was . Mr . King asked Mr . Poyer as to how long ago Mr . Poyer put the door in there to which Mr . Poyer replied that it was done probably about a month ago . He continued that it has to be done on the day that the excavation takes place because the trench footer has be put in the ground and so on . He said that it all happens very quickly because it is dug one day and the footers are poured the next . Mr . King said that Mr . Poyer must have been aware that there was a height violation . Mr . Poyer said that if he had been aware that he would have probably contacted Mr . Frost or Paul and said something to them about it . He said he was not aware of it . Mr . King asked if Mr . Poyer did much building in the Town of Ithaca to which Mr . Poyer replied that any time a builder has a two- story house with a steep roof on it and a walkout basement , you are going to exceed the 30 feet limit . Mr . Poyer said he personally feels that the 30 feet should be changed . He said that looking at the peak of the roof on the building , the peak of the roof is an 8 / 12 or a 9 / 12 pitch , and he exceeded that by 6 feet . He restated that he was not aware of it . Town of Ithaca 2 Zohing Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 Chairman Austen asked Mr . Ellsworth if he had any questions to which Mr . Ellsworth indicated that he had not . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that a negative determination on the environmental siginificance be made with respect to Kenneth Poyer at 10 Evergreen Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , based on the Environmental Assessment prepared by George Frantz on July 21 , 1993 and based on the information shown on the site plan . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen said that he had looked at the house , and he and Mr . Frost said that without the walkout , the house would probably have been within the 30 feet , with the adjustment of the grade and the walkout . Chairman Austen said that the walkout area is on the down side of house , on a lot which slopes a little bit to the east . Mr . King asked what was the approximate width of the wall of the house that would exceed the 30 feet . Mr . Poyer said that he estimates it to be between 12 and 14 feet . Mr . King asked how much of that would be beyond those doors , and Mr . Poyer said he would think it would be about 4 feet on each side . Mr . Frost said that the whole width of the house is about 38 feet , with the door approximately in the center of it . Mr . King said that the height is not exceeded in part of that wall . Mr . Frost said that that was true except for the center ridge . Mr . King asked if the center ridge is about 2 feet on either side , and Mr . Frost said that it is 16 feet . Mr . King said Mr . Poyer ' s estimate was 14 feet . Mr . King asked Mr . Poyer to look at the bottom picture and wanted to know if the finished grade will be approximately the way it appears in the photograph . Mr . Poyer said that it would be and that it is all graded now and it comes right down to the siding , with the dirt coming down to the edge of that . Mr . King commented that the building lots around this one were fairly large lots , to which Mr . Poyer answered that they are . Mr . King asked if there was any other house near this one , to which Mr . Poyer said there was not . Mr . King asked that this does not impact on any neighbor , and Mr . Poyer answered that he did not think that even from the road you could see the walkout . He said that he felt that you would have to get on the individual ' s property to see the walkout basement . He said that he thinks that from the road or the top of the cul - de - sac you could not see the walkout part on it , that it is pretty well hidden from the road . Mr . King said that the top picture indicates that . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the appellant , Kenneth Poyer , a variance on allowing the building peak of 36 feet ± in height , above the maximum height allowable by Article IV , Section 2 , Paragraph 6 of the Zoning Ordinance , located at 10 Evergreen Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , Residential District R- 15 , with the following findings and condition : 1 ) That a portion of the building along the one wall where the basement exit has been constructed . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 2 ) That the building as presently constructed is not permitted to have additional • additions to the building to be in over the normal maximum 30 feet . 3 ) That the building was constructed , although not an excuse , in ignorance of the 30 feet limitation the Town has . 4 ) That the location of the area to which the variance really applies is not very visible from the street or other surrounding properties . 5 ) That the cost of bringing the house into compliance would be quite substantial and disproportionate to the benefit to be granted to the community by doing so . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The second Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF CHRISTEN E . AND MAURICE HALTOM , APPELLANTS , DON CRITTENDEN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 22 . 6 + FEET ( 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) LOCATED AT 121 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 57- 1- 8 . 116 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . ® Don R . Crittenden introduced himself as being an attorney affiliated with the Crossmore Law office , representing Maurice and Christen Haltom who are here tonight . Mr . Crittenden said that , in preparing for a closing , the survey map revealed their house , which has been there for at least 20 years , was only 22 . 6 feet back from Eastern Height Drive right- of-way and of course , the zoning regulations are for 25 feet . He continued that , since the house has been there for so long and since it would be quite costly to move it and since the setback difference is only 2 . 4 feet , the Haltoms are asking the Board for the variance . Attorney Barney said that the survey shows 22 . 6 feet from the front yard to the building wall line . He asked what the protrusion was . Mr . Crittenden said that he believed that it was steps coming out from the front door and that from there , the Haltoms would be closer than 22 . 6 feet . Mr . Frost said that would be within 3 foot of the ground and would be exempt under the Section 65 of the Ordinance . He said that there would probably be three risers , figuring about 8 inches a riser , it would be 24 inches . Mr . Crittenden said that he believes the Board could see from the pictures that it does not make the house seem like it is out into the road , that it actually seems set back from the actual road itself . Mr . Frost asked if the front stairs came out over the overhang of the roof to which Ms . Haltom said that they are one and one - half steps . Mr . Frost said that the ordinance would easily accept protrusions such as soffits . Mr . King said that apparently the road right- of-way is considerably back from the front lawn , perhaps 4 or 5 feet back . Mr . King went on to state that with the curvature of the road , that by drawing a straight line , the right- of-way would be almost 30 feet behind . Chairman Austen said that that may have been what was done . Mr . Crittenden said that he would like to have it taken care of so that it would not come back to prevent anyone else from selling or mortgaging the house later on . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Crittenden about when the survey was done in 1985 if this showed in that point in time . Mr . Crittenden said that it does show on the old map , but he was not aware if the question was ever raised then . He said that , in fact , a certificate of occupancy had been issued for the property and it has gone through several lenders . He said that he thinks the 1985 map was the first map that showed the house . He said it was done by George Schlecht and he continued that Reagan & Manzari have Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 taken over his office , thus updating the map . Mr . Crittenden said he has a copy of the old map which is really the same thing . Attorney Barney wanted to know if it shows the dimension of the front yard , specifically , and Mr . Crittenden said it shows the 22 . 6 feet . General discussion followed relative to the cost of moving the house . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED , that the Board grant to Christen and Maurice Haltom the requested variance being in the depth from 22 . 6 feet setback as now exists and as approved by permitting to maintain an existing two family residence with a building setback from the front yard road right- of -way line of 22 . 6 + feet , for the property located at 121 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 8 . 116 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings : 1 ) That the house was constructed over 20 years ago . _ 2 ) That the house is situated on a curve in the road . 3 ) That it might possibly have some problem in determining exactly where the 25 foot should be measured . • 4 ) That , in any event , it would be prohibitively expensive for the appellants to correct the infraction by moving the house , and moving the house would not be of any particular benefit to the Town , in fact , it might be a detriment . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The third Appeal heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF LEE W . SCHRUBEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 869 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 25- 2- 25 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID DECK WILL BE LOCATED 9 FEET 4 INCHES + TO THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS 50 + FEET WIDE ( 100 FOOT IAT WIDTHS REQUIRED ) AND IS APPROXIMATELY 7 , 250 SQUARE FEET IN AREA ( 15 , 000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREAS REQUIRED ) . Chairman Austen stated that he had been to the location to look at it , and he said that it was quite an extensive deck and stairway . Mr . Schruben submitted photographs showing the " before " and " after " , explaining the photographs and the logistics of getting to the house to the Board . Chairman Austen asked if the ties were already there . Mr . Schruben indicated they Whairman ere , explaining that the prime motivation is to try to get the persons down to the house . Austen stated that the letter Mr . Schruben wrote was quite informative of the job . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Schruben as to when this was all put together , and Mr . Schruben said that the letter was written perhaps the end of July and the job was started about July 15 . TGwn of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 Mrs . Schruben said that the job was started in late April . Mr . Schruben said it was billed as a two week job , but by then it was a money pit and it took longer to get finished up . Mr . Schruben asked if the Board had a copy of the contract with Mr . Trenchard to which Mrs . Schruben said that she had not given the Board a copy . Mr . Schruben said that the contract shows that Mr . Trenchard was supposed to take care of all of the requirements and everything else . He explained that , as the job went on , they started to question about the building permit , but Mr . Trenchard explained again that he spoke to Mr . Hansen . They then had to take the initiative themselves because Mr . Trenchard had said he had done it . Mr . Frost said that he had called Mr . Trenchard 10 or 12 times , most recently two days ago . Mr . Frost said that when he actually got to come out to the Schrubens and talk to Mr . Trenchard face - to- face , Mr . Trenchard said that he would take care of it tomorrow or something . Mr . Frost stated that the Schrubens had filed a building permit application since then . Mr . Frost thought the specifications for the job seemed to be very well constructed . He said that out of 10 to 12 telephone calls , the builder returned one call early on around noontime . Mrs . Schruben said that it had been 2 - 1 / 2 months since Mr . Trenchard said he would give the information . Attorney Barney asked if the Schrubens had paid him , to which they indicated yes . Mr . Schruben said that Mr . Trenchard assured them that he would take care of it . Mr . Schruben said that they had to watch the construction , and they got to be a little nervous about him . Mr . Schruben said that , fortunately they followed up or they would have never known . He said that Mr . Frost was right there one time when Mr . Trenchard said he would do it and that was 2 - 1 / 2 months ago . Mr . Schruben said that they would do whatever they would have to do because he did not believe that Mr . Trenchard was interested in this project anymore . General discussion followed Mr . King ' s question if there was any way to make the contractor accountable . Attorney Barney said that the Board could deny the variance , thus making the Schrubens tear the deck down , thus assuming they would have a cause of action against the contractor because he did not get a permit to build it in the first place . Mr . Frost said that the contract was pretty explicit because he has seen the Schruben ' s contract which states that the contractor shall obtain all required permits and signed copies of the Town of Ithaca compliance papers , as required by the zoning rules . Mr . King wanted to know if this contractor was doing a lot of building in the Town , and Mr . Frost said that he has not dealt with him yet , in terms of giving permits . Attorney Barney said that he did not have any bright ideas as to how to go directly to the contractor because the responsibility , even though their contract delegates it to the contractor , it is really the owner ' s responsibility and that is the violation . A violation proceeding could be started , but it would be against the Schrubens . Mr . King said that if the owner were taken to court , he would have to pay a $ 250 . 00 fine , and presumably have attorney ' s fees , etc . Mr . King said that that would increase the amount of damages the Schrubens would be able to assert against the contractor for breach of contract . Attorney Barney said that the step , as you know , between assertion and collection is sometimes a large step . General discussion followed about the legal ramifications and how the contractor may be doing the same thing to other homeowners . Mr . Frost said he would be willing to draft a letter to the contractor . Chairman Austen said that he would favor a letter if this contractor would ever think about doing construction in the Town of Ithaca , it would require more attention to details . Mr . Frost said that he did have to add that the deck did seem to be pretty substantial , and Chairman Austen said that he had no objection to the way in which it was built . He said that it was well built and was a nice deck . Mr . Schruben said that the contractor had some good people working for him and they worked very hard . He continued that ® he felt that the contractor was a little cavalier about the whole thing . Chairman Austen said that it would be rather hard to give someone a recommendation with this problem , and Mr . Schruben said that he was thinking about calling the better Business Bureau about this . Mr . Frost suggested that the Chamber of Commerce would be the ones to call . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 Mr . Schruben discussed the problem he is having with the contractor when the contractor • hired Mr . Schruben ' s son to do some work . His 16 year old son has not yet been paid the $ 80 . 00 the contractor has owed him for several months and the contractor said , at least 5 times , that the payment was in the mail . Attorney Barney asked if the contractor did the construction work . Mr . Schruben said the contractor hired people to work for him . Mr . Schruben said that the contractor personally did not have a hammer . Mr . King asked where did Mr . Schruben find him , and Mr . Schruben said that the contractor called them in the early spring , looking for work . The Schrubens neighbors warned them that they would have to watch this guy because he might use inferior materials . Mr . Schruben continued as to how the Schrubens watched over him , the warnings they received about him , and the problem with the the money owed to his son . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Chairman Edward Austen , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of Town Planner I , Louise Raimando , and that the Board find that the construction warrants a negative determination of environmental significance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , King , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Schruben if the ties lining the creek were there before or if they were put in , and Mr . Schruben indicated that they were there . Chairman Austen said that it looked as if the ties had been there for a while , holding the creek in place . Chairman Austen wanted to know if they were anchored back into the bank , and Mr . Schruben said that he did not know but that he suspected so . Mr . Schruben said that , as it happens , the creek does not even run against them . He said there were rocks between the railroad ties and the creek . Chairman Austen read into the minutes a letter from Commissioner James Hanson , Commis- sioner of the Tompkins County Department of Planning . Mr . King said that according to the survey map , there is adequate access along the southern side of the property , along the south side , to which Mr . Schruben agreed . When asked if a vehicle could be driven down there , Mr . Schruben said that that could not occur . Mr . Frost said that he would not entirely agree with the Planning Commissioner ' s statement relative to fighting a fire , to the extent that the work may enhance the accessibility with the building for providing some areas of access through walks or the decking that would otherwise be nonexistent , particularly given the condition of the concrete steps that were there . Chairman Austen said that he did not see a particular problem there himself . Chairman Austen said that there is a problem because there is a steep slope anyway . Mr . Frost said that now one can get up and down there more quickly because of ® the construction . Mr . Frost said that he has been told that the flames spread on pressure treated wood less rapidly than on untreated wood . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 General discussion followed relative to the extensive work on the stairway , and Mr . King asked if Mr . Trenchard drew up the contract to which Mr . Schruben said that the Schrubens drew up the contract because Mr . Trenchard wanted to have a one- line contract saying that he will do what he wants to do when he wants to do it and tell the Schrubens what it would cost . Mr . Schruben said he insisted that they write down what kind of materials he would use and that type of thing . After further discussion , Mr . Schruben said that he could not fault the work the contractor did ; however , the contractor was lax on administrative details and the problems he had with the contractor relative to his son . It was suggested that the Schrubens call the New York State Department of Labor regarding the non-payment of his son ' s money . Chairman Austen asked for any additional questions to which there were none . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED , that the Board grant Special Approval to the appellant , Lee Schruben , a variance to construct an as-built enlargement of the outside wood deck and stairs to the north side of an existing nonconforming building / lot , located 9 feet 4 niches + to the north side lot line on a parcel of land . that is 50 + feet wide ( 100 foot lot widths required ) and is approximately 7 , 250 square feet in area ( 15 , 000 square foot lot areas required ) , located at 869 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 2 - 25 , and that such a building having been nonconforming and that as previously constructed it was only 13 feet , 7 inches from the north boundary line which is the side yard , whereas 15 feet is required in a R- 15 District and that the new construction would be further nonconforming in that it would put the north deck as close as 9 feet 4 inches to the north side yard at the narrowest location , with the following findings : 1 ) That the appellants have done everything reasonable to obtain prior approval of this construction . 2 ) That the construction with new deck and stairs makes the property much more assessable and safer . 3 ) That the construction would not be detrimental to the general amenities of the neighborhood character and is not sufficient to deny the neighboring property or to seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . 4 ) That, otherwise finding that the construction conforms to the criteria set forth in Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a- h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , King , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen brought the Town of Ithaca Memorandum before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Austen read the proposed local law relative to codes and ordinances . Attorney Barney led the discussion , answering questions about the proposed lata . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : , Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals September 1 , 1993 RESOLVED , that the Board recommend adoption of the Memorandum dated August 25 , 1993 and presented by the Town. of Ithaca and that the Memorandum be preserved in form and substance as presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals with the following changes : 1 ) 8 years instead of 5 years . 2 ) $ 201000 . 00 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes -- Austen , King , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . With no further business , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 5 : 30 Pem , ` Q Recording Secretary CP E ward Austen , Ch irman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 1 , 1393 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , September 1 , 1993 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , ( FIRST Floor , REAR Entrance , WEST Side ) , Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . , on the following matters : APPEAL OF KENNETH A . POYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF CHRISTEN Be AND MAURICE HALTOM , APPELLANTS , DON CRITTENDEN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 22 . 6 + FEET ( 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) LOCATED AT 121 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 57 - 1 - 8 . 116 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SILPPEAL OF LEE W . SCHRUBEN , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 869 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 25- 2 - 25 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID DECK WILL BE LOCATED 9 FEET 4 INCHES + TO THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS 50 ± FEET WIDE ( 100 FOOT LOT WIDTHS REQUIRED ) AND IS APPROXIMATELY 7 , 250 SQUARE FEET IN AREA ( 15 , 000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREAS REQUIRED ) . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1783 Dated ; August 23 , 1993 Publish ; August 27 , 1993 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , SEPTEPIBER 1 , 1993 7 : 00 P . M . This is notification that the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for August 25 , 1993 has been canceled . The meeting will occur on Wednesday , September 1 . 1993 at 7 9. 00 B . M . Addi - tionally the September S , 1993 meeting is also canceled ,