Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-10-13 FI NAI. FILED F-Date N OF ITHACA TTOWNOF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 13 , 1993 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON OCTOBER 13 , 1993 BY THE BOARD : APPEAL OF NANCY DICKINSON , APPELLANT , WILLIAM CADY , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE UNDER LOCAL LAW #4 - 1979 AS AMENDED APRIL 12 , 1993 TO BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN A PROPERTY WITH FIVE AUTOMOBILES NOT CURRENTLY REGISTERED FOR USE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 215 RENWICK DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 17 - 4 - 11 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . DENIED . APPEAL OF DELORES SAYET , APPELLANT , RICHARD KINNER , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING /LOT BY MODIFYING A GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AT 20 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 17 - 3- 30 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID GARAGE IS 7 + FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE , WHEREAS A 10 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED . THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS A LOT WIDTH OF 82 . 45 + FEET ( 100 FOOT WIDTH REQUIRED ) AND A LOT DEPTH OF 143 + FEET ( 150 FOOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 MAY ALSO BE REQUESTED SINCE THE PROPOSED LIVING SPACE WILL BE 7 + FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE , WHEREAS A 15 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED FROM BUILDING LIVING SPACE TO A SIDE YARD LOT LINE . • GRANTED . APPEAL OF TERRY FISK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING A PRINCIPAL DWELLING , AT 109 WOOLF LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 23- 1 - 20 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . DENIED . APPEAL OF EDWIN HALLBERG , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE ONE -YEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR THE USE OF A TEMPORARY BUILDING NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . THE SUBJECT RESIDENTIAL AREA IS KNOWN AS DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , AND THE SUBJECT BUILDING IS LOCATED ON 154 WHITETAIL DRIVE IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON THE TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 44 - 1 - 165 . APPELLANT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED SUCH AN EXTENSION WHICH EXPIRED ON JUNE 30 , 1993 . GRANTED . APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM AUGUST 13 , 1993 ) OF KEVIN HAVERLOCK , 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 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 5 CHASE LANE , TOWN OF • ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 45 - 1 - 59 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . GRANTED . 1 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date 3 • o defn OCTOBER 13 , 1993 ; PRESENT : Edward Austen , Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Assistant Town Planner Louise Raimando . OTHERS : Terry Fisk , William Cady , Kevin Haverlock , Kris and Neil Alling , Jack and Amy Little , Delores Sayet , Leslie Sayet Wyatt , Richard Kinner , and Ed Hallberg . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 12 P . M . and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings were completed and are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF NANCY DICKINSON , APPELLANT , WILLIAM CADY , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE UNDER LOCAL LAW #4 - 1979 AS AMENDED APRIL 12 , 1993 TO BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN A PROPERTY WITH FIVE AUTOMOBILES NOT CURRENTLY REGISTERED FOR USE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 215 RENWICK DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAx PARCEL NO . 17-4- 11 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , Chairman Austen asked Mr . Cady to give the Board information as to why there are so • many cars there that are not registered . Mr . Cady said that he did not know where the number " 5 " comes from . He said that there might be up to five . He said that someone might have estimated that number , that at some point there may have been that number , but , at this point , he does not know where that number comes from . Mr . Cady reviewed the photographs , pointing out to the Board which vehicles were registered to Nancy [ Dickinson ] and which vehicles were not registered . He said there were three classics : the ' 65 Volkswagen , ' 70 Maverick , and ' 62 Falcon . Mr . Scala said that there were two cars with Maine license plates to which Mr . Cady said Mr . Scala was correct . Mr . Scala asked if the Maine license plates were out-of- date , and Mr . Cady said that they were out- of- date at the present time because they have not been re - registered in Maine . Chairman Austen repeated that the registration has expired , and Mr . Cady said that was true . Chairman Austen said that he thought , from the photographs , that perhaps these were classics which someone was getting ready to restore , and Mr . Cady said that this is the case . He said that , at some point in time , that is what is going to be done . Chairman Austen said that it is his understanding that the vehicles have been setting there for several years . Mr . Cady said the vehicles have been registered , then used and then taken off the road . He said they have been on and off the road through the years . Mr . Frost informed the Board about the history of the property and the Town ' s first involvement which started around 1991 . The Town ' s Property Maintenance Law was slightly different . He said the Town has had difficulty communicating with the property owner who also has the property posted for trespassing . He said it has been difficult for the Town to actually verify current registration for any of the vehicles involved , other than taking pictures from either the roadway or from the next door neighbor ' s property . • Mr . Frost said that back in 1992 the Town did obtain copies ( which he passed around to the Board ) of what was alleged to be registered in 1992 . Mr . Frost said that he did not know exactly what month the registration was , but he said the Town had not pursued the issue . With the Town amending the local law for property maintenance , it provides the petitioner the opportunity to come before the Board to seek a variance , as Mr . Cady is Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 doing to keep the vehicles . Mr . Frost said that two years ago , the Town could not get to this point of having Mr . Cady come before the Board . Mr . Frost again stated that he was not able to tell from the registration copies as to the length of time the registration was valid for , other than they are for 1992 and from the state of Maine . Mr . Frost said that under the advice of Counsel , the Town has not trespassed on the property , basically doing what they could do for enforcement in this appeal from the road . Mr . Scala spoke to Mr . Cady in regard to the Falcon . Mr . Scala commented that the Falcon is behind the fence , and one could not get it out without tearing the fence down and cutting the bushes out , unless the Falcon was moved sideways . Mr . Cady said that the fence is bolted , and , therefore , he said that from the manner in which the fence was constructed , the locks on the side can be brought up and the posts lifted out of the posts and the Falcon brought out from that side . He sated that the post could then be put back into the frame of the fence . When asked by Mr . Scala , Mr . Cady answered that if someone intends to get it out , one could . Mr . Scala asked if he thinks it runs , and Mr . Cady said that he knows that it runs . Chairman Austen opened the, public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen read into the minutes an October 7 letter from Karen L . Smith and R . David Smith at 221 Renwick Drive , The Smiths requested this variance be denied . Mr . Cady expressed surprise that , if this was the case , that the Smiths did not approach the Renwick Heights Association rather than go to this extent or why the Smiths did not contact Nancy . Mr . Cady said the whole thing could have been cleared up . He stated that the interest in the cars has been that they are classics and that the restoration was not for sale , but for the purpose of show and that sort of thing . Mr . Cady said that everyone is busy with other things in their lives and do not get to things that one wants to do . He said that perhaps he might not get to the cars for some period of time , but he continued that the vehicles are running . He said they are potentially show pieces and that every one of them is a collector ' s item by the kinds of standards of classic auto clubs- - the ' 65 Beetle , the first year and early run of the Maverick , the Falcon is a very desirable two - door body style for that car . He said that he does not know why the Smiths are thinking that a business or a garage is being run there . Mr . Frost asked if the Volare is registered , and Mr . Cady said that it was . Mr . Frost said that the Falcon , the Volare , the Maverick and the Volkswagen ( VW ) are the vehicles that are no longer in production . Mr . Frost said that he wanted to also clarify that the zoning ordinance would permit a homeowner to maintain a customary home occupation as a mechanic in a residential zone and fix up vehicles . Mr . Frost said that he was not suggesting that there is a business there , in fact , he said that he established that , but again , the ordinance would permit in a residential zone , a customary home occupation or a mechanical trade such as an automobile repair , with some limitations that would restrict noise , dust and other objectionable components of that operation in disturbing the neighbors . Mr . Frost said that he offered this information , not to say that Mr . Cady is or is not running a business there , but it could be a permitted use in a residential zone . When asked if Mr . Cady was the owner of all of the cars , and Mr . Cady indicated that he was . Mr . Cady said that the cars that fall under question of what is going on here , are not the ones that are currently registered . Mr . Cady said that if the Board is talking about the ' 65 Volkswagen , the ' 62 Falcon and the ' 70 Maverick , he is the owner . Mr . King asked Mr . Cady about the other cars , and Mr . Cady said that the Mercury belongs to Nancy . Mr . King asked Mr . Cady who " Nancy" is , if she was the owner , and Mr . Cady said that he referred to Nancy Dickinson , the owner . Mr . Cady said there is a Pontiac which belongs to her , a Volare which belongs to Mr . Cady ( which was the last production Year of the full- bodied Plymouth with the slant six , the last year that that was built ) Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 and the Dodge Aries belongs to Nancy ' s son . Mr . King said that there was then six cars . It was discussed , ascertaining that the picture taken by Andy Frost was taken on Friday . Mr . Cady then said , in case there is an eyesore problem in someone ' s mind or perception , that he erected a fence which does shield the view considerably . Mr . Frost said to the Board members that he had a grey Mercury ( with a license plate ) , a blue VW ( with a Maine license plate ) , a blue Maverick ( with a Maine license plate ) , a Volare ( white or tan with no plates ) , a blue Pontiac LeMans ( with plates ) and a blue Ford Falcon ( which at one time had old New York plates ) . Mr . Cady said that vehicle has Maine plates on it . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Cady why there are Maine plates on the cars , and Mr . Cady informed him that it was because he lives there . Mr . Scala asked the year of the Maine plates , and Mr . Cady referred to a piece of paper , stating that " that " was registered up through December 1992 , when they expired . Mr . King stated that , having driven by , he said that it looks like Mr . Cady has a garage operation , body shop , or something . He further stated that , with all the cars out in front , it really looks terrible . He continued that one of the neighbors spent $ 400 . 00 in bushes and shrubbery , trying to screen the area . Mr . Cady said that he was surprised that she did not come across the line and speak to Nancy and / or him . He said that the whole thing could have been discussed and that he was really surprised . He said that neither he or Nancy had any idea about this . Mr . King asked Mr . Cady if he had any idea that the neighbors did not appreciate all of the cars , and Mr . Cady answered that he did not . He said he wished they would have made that clear . Mr . Frost said that the first complaint , and Mr . Cady had seen a copy of this today , came on letterhead from a member of the Renwick Heights Association . Mr . King asked if • this was October 9 , 1991 , and Mr . Frost said that that was the first complaint when the Town of Ithaca first got involved . Mr . Frost said that another one came over the telephone by an individual on June 2 . Mr . Frost said that he did not give Mr . Cady the name of the individual which is shown on the investigation sheet . Mr . Frost said that that was the most recent complaint . Mr . Cady said that he felt that if it was a neighborhood kind of thing and that was the concern about the situation , he did not understand why they felt if they had a good relationship with Nancy , that they could not have just approached her . Mr . Frost said that people will often facilitate that kind of communication through the building inspector / zoning officer . This happened back in 1991 when they unsuccessfully attempted to communicate with the property owner . Mr . King asked if any notice was sent by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and Mr . Frost said that registered letters were sent . Mr . Frost told Mr . King that the one sent on August 11 and received August 12 , 1993 was the most recent , with the earlier citations going back to October 301 1991 , November 15 , 1991 , and there was a letter from the Town Attorney in April , 1992 , Mr . Frost said the letters were available to the Board members . Mr . King asked if Nancy Hart and Nancy Dickinson were the same person to which Mr . Cady answered that she was . Mr . Cady questioned the unsigned letter in that the Town took a complaint without a signature . Mr . King said that there was an ordinance . Mr . Cady said that someone in the office said something about what the order was , and it was brought into compliance with the ordinance at that time by registering the vehicles . Mr . Frost said that he did not agree fully with that statement . Mr . King said that there certainly were many notices sent to Nancy about the situation . Mr . Cady said that she is quite upset about that , but she does not feel that she should be bothered to this extent by that kind of • a thing . Mr . King asked Mr . Cady if Nancy does not believe in zoning , and Mr . Cady said that , if it was a neighbor thing , then the neighbor might very well have approached her . Mr . Cady said that he believes that Nancy said that in one of her letters that he had Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 read the other day- that she felt that if it was a neighbor problem , that they might better have approached her on the issue , rather than trying to make a public issue out of it . He said that a tempest has been created here out of a small thing which could have been resolved a lot more simply . Mr . Scala said to Mr . Cady that Mr . Cady has been looking at them for so long , plus owning them , that Mr . Cady does not think of it as a tempest . Mr . Scala said , but , if anyone else looked at it , they would think it was a junkyard . Mr . Scala said that he goes by the site all of the time , and he said that , coming by in the car , there is no way you can notice those cars , even with that one parked in the driveway . Mr . Scala said that the ones that are tucked in side-by- side , including the VW , one can hardly see them from the road . He said that normally that is a corner that swings around , and one buzzes by . Mr . Scala said that he would guess that the average person going by would not notice . He also stated that , since they are out of commission , that it is not like six cars are coming and going out of the driveway . He added that that scenario would be a disaster on that sloping drive on that busy corner . Mr . Scala said that the only other thing he could see was that the fire department and police department would have a hard time getting in there . In fact , he continued that they could not get in there - that they would have to stay out on the street unless they would want to park on that sloping driveway . Mr . Cady said that the sloping driveway has been a problem which would have to be solved . Mr . Cady reviewed the history of the driveway when the house was originally built : the Smiths ' driveway and Nancy ' s driveway were joined until the Smiths moved into the house ; the driveway made a semi - circle between the two houses , and when the Smiths ( who wrote one letter ) moved in , they closed off that driveway ; and up until that time , both houses could move around that driveway , in either direction . Chairman Austen asked if 215 was Mr . Cady ' s residence , and Mr . Cady answered that sometimes it was . Attorney Barney and Mr . Frost oriented themselves with Mr . Cady as to the direction from which the photographs were taken and the view from the other property ( ies ) . Attorney Barney asked if there was some way in which the view could be less visible to the house to the north . Mr . Cady said that there are ways to extend the fence , and he also pointed out that he felt that the ones that were registered had every right to be parked there . Mr . Cady indicated the vehicles which are not currently registered and said that another section of the fence could be extended . He also indicated that one of the vehicles was Nancy ' s and that he could get a copy of the registration for it . Further discussion ensued relative to the vehicles . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part II - Sections C . 3 . and C . 4 . and Part III - Staff Recommendation Determination of Significance of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED , that regarding the Appeal of Nancy Dickinson requesting a variance under Local Law #4 of 1979 , requesting an allowance to maintain on the property , 215 Renwick Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 4 - 11 , five automobiles that are not currently registered for use on the public highway , that the Board accepts the ® recommendation of the Town Planning Department Reviewer , Louise Raimando , that a negative determination of environmental significance be made . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 • Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . King said that he was still puzzled as to why the cars are located at this location , and his question to Mr . Cady was if he had a shop located there . Mr . Cady indicated that he did not . Mr . King wanted to know if and when Mr . Cady worked on the cars , where does he work on them , and Mr . Cady said that he works on them where they are parked or in the driveway or whatever . He also said that , at some point in the future , the cars may be moved to another location but that that location has not yet been determined . Mr . Scala inquired if Mr . Cady has been showing them to which Mr . Cady said that he was not yet doing so . Mr . Scala inquired if the cars were an investment , and Mr . Cady said that , like anything , it is an interest ; he continued that he would not really say that it was an investment . Mr . Cady said that the vehicles were ones he owned through the years and kept because of his liking for them . Attorney Barney asked if his home is in Ithaca or in Maine , and Mr . Cady said his home was both in Ithaca and in Maine . Attorney Barney then asked where the majority of Mr . Cady ' s time was spent , and Mr . Cady answered that it differed , from time - to- time and from year- to- year . He said he also has family in other areas and sometimes he has to take care of things for them . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Cady where he votes , and Mr . Cady answered that he is not currently registered at the present time . Attorney Barney asked what kind of a driver ' s license he has , and Mr . Cady answered that it was a New York State driver ' s license . Discussion took place as to when he had Maine plates on the cars , he was notified about " this business " and since he was in the state of Maine , he registered • them up there so that they would be legal . Attorney Barney said that at present Mr . Cady has a New York State driver ' s license and Maine registrations . Mr . Frost said that the Maine registrations have expired to which Mr . Cady said that the Maine registrations expired in December 1992 , Mr . Scala said that the plates are on the vehicles but the registrations have expired , and Mr . Cady concurred . Mr . Frost offered a suggestion , that if a motion for this appeal was approved , that a condition would include that his office would be able to verify license plates by going on the property and that the stickers be on the window . Mr . Cady said that he provided him with copies of the stickers from Maine , and Mr . Frost said that it was to Mr . Cady ' s benefit to be able to verify the registrations . Mr . Cady said that he wanted to let the Board know that they have tried to cooperate , but he thinks that Nancy wants her peace and quiet and to be left alone . Mr . Scala wanted to know from Mr . Cady when was the last time he moved some of the cars , drove them , had them on the road . Mr . Cady said the Maverick was within the period of time that it had the Maine plates on it . He said that the Volkswagen had been driven around and moved and the Falcon has moved on the property . Mr . Scala said that the Falcon has not left the property in quite a while . Mr . Cady agreed , but he said that it couldn ' t- -he said it has been started and it runs . He said that it needs some work and anyone who knows what an older car is like , knows that . Mr . Cady said that he has had the Volkswagen up and down the driveway and has moved it around the property . Mr . Cady made the statement that they are not junk cars . Mr . Scala asked if Mr . Cady had something to recommend to get rid of the eyesore . Mr . Cady said that what he would say was that he supposed if it is the neighbors next door that are concerned about what it looks like , he would extend the fence up along the border there , extend it another ® section to cover the unregistered car there . Mr . King asked if Mr . Cady was speaking of along the north line , and Mr . Cady went to the photographs to show what he meant . Mr . Cady again reviewed the positions of the cars , and Ms . Raimando stated that there Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 • are actually four cars that are parked there , not three . Mr . Scala said that there were four cars side -by- side . Mr . Scala inquired as to what car Mr . Cady now drives , and Mr . Cady stated that sometimes the Volare . Mr . Scala then asked what car Mr . Cady drove to the meeting , and Mr . Cady answered that he drove Nancy ' s Mercury . Mr . King said to Mr . Cady that these cars are occupying approximately 400 of the front yard , and Mr . Cady said that he did not know because it was hard to say due to the bank . He continued that that is really the side yard due to the way the loop of the driveway used to be . Mr . King said that it was all along Renwick Drive with numerous cars in a very small space . Mr . King asked if the garage was in use as a garage , and Mr . Cady stated that it was not , that it was used as storage . Mr . King reiterated that it was storage only , no cars to which Mr . Cady agreed . Mr . King said to Mr . Cady that he had suggested several times that if the neighbors had come to Mr . Cady that there would have been a solution . Mr . King said that he was curious to hear what the solution is . Mr . Cady said that he would have talked to them about the fence which might screen the view rather than having them go and spend $ 400 . 00 on bushes and then feeling resentment over it . Mr . King said that Mr . Cady suggested that maybe the cars would be moved someplace and that that sounds like a very good idea . Mr . Cady said that it might , but there is no place for them at the present time . Mr . Scala asked if he understood correctly that last year there were a total of five cars there and now there is a total of six ? Mr . Cady said he did not know where the figures come from . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Cady how long he had six cars , and Mr . Cady said that Tom has had a car since he was in high school and he comes and goes . Mr . Scala asked if Tom ' s car was one of those six , and Nancy . . . Attorney Barney asked what kind • of a car Tom drove to which Mr . Cady said it is a Dodge Aspen which does not show up . Attorney Barney said that then makes seven cars . Mr . Frost said that several of these cars are registered . Mr . Frost and Mr . Cady reviewed the cars over the years , going over the Falcon , the Comet , the Mercury , the blue VW , the Maverick , the Volare , the Pontiac LeMans and the Ford Falcon . Mr . Frost stated that the only thing different that is there is the Volare now , as opposed to a year or two ago . Mr . Cady stated which cars are registered , and Mr . Frost said that there are no plates on them . Mr . Cady said that car has been registered but he has not reattached the plates . Attorney Barney inquired as to whether the plates are New York or Maine plates , and Mr . Cady said they were New York plates . Mr . Frost said that there are some legal vehicles . Chairman Austen said there are then three vehicles which are not registered at the present time , and Mr . Cady concurred with this statement . Attorney Barney said that there is a fourth car in question which is supposed to be registered but there is no evidence that it is registered at this point , as it sits there right now , there are no plates on it and no registration sticker on it . lair . Cady said that he could get it , but he has not had the need to use it . He further stated that , frankly because of all the things that had been going on around there and his mother ' s health that he has not had the time to do it . He said that for most of the time he has been using the Mercury which is registered to Nancy . Mr . Scala asked if the Volare was the white car , and Mr . Cady indicated that it was , and Ms . Raimando said that was the vehicle that was parked on the grass . Mr . Frost stated that one of the difficulties the Town had years ago was that the Town was unable to establish communication with the property owner to determine what was and was not registered . Mr . Frost said that the whole thing has now gotten out of hand . He said that if there was a little cooperation two years ago , and Mr . Ellsworth interrupted with a question that since the letters went out was there any effort to do ® anything . Mr . Frost explained the history of the letters and the way in which the Town was unable to ascertain the other vehicles . He continued that , with perhaps more important business to attend to in the Town , the Town basically gave up at that point for a while . When the Town received the second complaint in June , the Town reopened it . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 ® Mr . Cady reviewed the copy of the ordinance that Nancy received , and Mr . Cady said that he then took care of them . He said he sent Nancy the plates . He said he kept the stickers with the documents in a safe place in Maine , and when Nancy sent the photocopies to Mr . Frost , everyone thought the matter was concluded . Mr . Scala and Mr . Cady again went over which cars belong to Nancy ( 2 ) and which are Mr . Cady ' s . Mr . Scala asked if Mr . Cady lives at 215 Renwick Drive , Mr . Cady said that he stays there sometimes . Chairman Austen said that was not relevant because Nancy , as the property owner , is responsible for what is parked in her yard . Mr . Frost said that what the Board is asking now , in trying to bring this to a conclusion , is what is Mr . Cady proposing to do , either by screening or removal of the vehicles . Mr . Cady repeated that that is the question , and he said that he would throw it back to the Board as to what would the Board want other than removing the vehicles . Mr . Frost said that the law would state that if they were not visible , such as being put in a garage , there is no violation , and Mr . Cady indicated that he understood . Mr . Scala said that the whole area where the cars are located is a front yard and the law states specifically that storage in a front yard , as defined in the ordinance , is forbidden . Mr . Cady said that the first thing he could think of is to bring the fence further down to cover the Volare that is not registered . Mr . King said that in his own view , the screening is not the answer , that removal of the cars is the answer because a front yard in the Renwick Heights residential neighborhood is not a storage place . Mr . King said that there is no question that there is a violation of this ordinance in at least three of the vehicles . Chairman Austen closed the hearing , and asked Mr . Cady to be seated when Mr . Cady ® wanted to continue to discuss what garaging would be appropriate . Mr . King told Mr . Cady that perhaps some other place in town where there is a barn or something in a location that would not offend immediate neighbors in a residential setting . Mr . Cady continued to ask if he was then correct in assuming that if the vehicles were registered that they would be legal , and he was told by Attorney Barney and Mr . Frost that that would be so . Mr . Cady also wanted to know if they could just be garaged over . Attorney Barney said that such a garage would have to otherwise be in compliance with the zoning ordinance , and Attorney Barney said there would be some front yard and side yard requirements . Mr . Cady said that he thought the Board could table this and get back to it at a later time , after some more possibilities would be considered . Attorney Barney wanted to know what would be the chances of getting the cars out of there to some other location , and Mr . Cady said that at this point there would be no chance . He said that would place him in a situation of depriving him of the cars ; he said he would have to get rid of them in some way . Mr . Scala asked why the cars were not stored in Maine , and Mr . Cady said that he did not want to do that . There was general discussion as to where Mr . Cady is living , and Mr . Cady said that he has been living in Ithaca for the last few months . Mr . Scala said to Mr . Cady that Mr . Cady knows what is needed to be done and that Mr . Cady understands what is needed , and Chairman Austen said that there are storage places around that are available that the vehicles can be stored at . Mr . Cady said there may be , but it costs additional money . Chairman Austen said that it is costing other people additional money in their property values . Mr . Cady said that he believes he made a couple of suggestions , one being that of a garage other than in another location because Mr . Cady believes he is being deprived of the vehicles . Chairman Austen again asked Mr . Cady to take his seat in order for the Board to make a motion . MOTION By Mr , Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny the Appellant , Nancy Dickinson , the request of a variance under Local Law #4 - 1979 as amended April 12 , 1993 at the location of 215 Renwick Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 4 - 11 , to permit continued maintenance of storage of vehicles on the property which are not currently in use on the highway by the residents of the property , with the following findings : 1 ) There being at least three of those cars that we find the storage and maintaining and accumulating of the cars on the property to be prohibitive acts under Local Law #4 . 2 ) That the Board operate in the non- existing evidence or compelling reason as to why a variance should be given to permit a continued storage of vehicles in this location . 3 ) That the Board find the detriment to the neighborhood and the neighboring properties far outweighs the inconvenience to the owner of the vehicles and to the property to see that they are stored at a more appropriate location . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The variance was denied . ® Chairman Austen informed Mr . Cady that he could get with Mr . Frost if a garage was wanted to be built to see if it would be possible or permitted on the property . Chairman Austen further stated to Mr . Cady that the Board does not feel that the neighbors should have to put up with a used car lot or a storage lot . Chairman Austen said that Mr . Cady would have to remove the three vehicles that are not registered . Mr . Frost said removal would have to be done or the vehicles would have to be registered or a garage would have to be built . Mr . Frost said that he would discuss the alternatives with Mr . Cady , Attorney Barney told Mr . Cady that he could call Mr . Frost in the morning . The second Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF DELORES SAYET , APPELLANT , RICHARD KINNER , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/IAT BY MODIFYING A GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AT 20 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 17- 3-30 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID GARAGE IS 7+ FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE IAT LINE , WHEREAS A 10 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED , THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS A LOT WIDTH OF 82 . 45 + FEET ( 100 FOOT WIDTH REQUIRED ) AND A LOT DEPTH OF 143 + FEET ( 150 FOOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 MAY ALSO BE REQUESTED SINCE THE PROPOSED LIVING SPACE WILL BE 7+ FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE , WHEREAS A 15 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED FROM BUILDING LIVING SPACE TO A SIDE YARD LOT LINE . ® Chairman Austen requested Mr . Kinner explain what was proposed to be done and the reasons why . Mr . Kinner explained that in the package is an explanation about what the request is for and Ms . Sayet is requesting the removal of the existing garage on the property ( the south side of the property ) and putting up an addition in order for Ms . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 ® Sayet to allow Amelia , Ms . Sayet ' s 9 year old granddaughter with cerebral palsy , to come and visit . Mr . Kinner explained that a ramp is included in the plans because it is becoming increasingly difficult to get Amelia into the house and up the steps . He said that the general dimensions of the ramp are included on the footprint . Mr . Kinner added that , at the present time , all of the bathrooms and bedrooms are located on the second floor , necessitating Amelia to be carried upstairs . Therefore , according to Mr . Kinner , what the addition would allow is for Amelia to be able to get into the house more safely by means of the ramp and then make an immediate left into the area in which she would be able to get into the house . Mr . King said that Amelia would then be able to get into the existing front door of the house to which Mr . Kinner indicated that was the case . Mr . Kinner said the actual home , itself , would not be altered with the exception of the south facade . Mr . Kinner said that when the new piece went on , new windows and entrance would have to be changed . Chairman Austen reviewed that the corner of the garage was 7 feet from the lot line to which Mr . Kinner agreed . Discussion followed as to how close the corner of the addition would be to the lot line , and Mr . Kinner said that it might be 5 feet , or 6 feet . Mr . Kinner referred to the drawings , indicating that the purple area is where the addition will be and the red is what is existing . Mr . Kinner said that the red area will be part of the addition itself . Mr . Kinner also passed around a copy of the contractor ' s blueprint to show the Board how the finished addition would match the opposite side , the porch area . Mr . Kinner said the construction would mirror the other side , aesthetically and architecturally the same as the rest of the house . Mr . King asked Mr . Kinner if the addition was to be one story , and Mr . Kinner indicated that it was . Mr . Kinner said it will look different because it will be ® brought up to grade for the first story . Mr . Kinner indicated on the blueprint the area about which he was talking , looking at the south side of the house with the existing garage line and proposed new roof lines . Mr . Scala reviewed the way in which one would utilize the exterior changes : the ramp would bring you up to the main entrance front door , you will go from the front door into the apartment which is at the same level as the main floor of the house . Mr . Kinner indicated that was true . Mr . King asked Mr . Kinner if he prepared the drawings , and Mr . Kinner said that he did . Mr . King said that drawings were very clear and the Board appreciated their quality . Mr . Kinner said that the side of the house that will be facing the addition is owned by Richard Boyd who did provide a letter stating he was in support of the project . Mr . Kinner showed the Board the letter . Discussion followed relative to Mr . Boyd ' s living area as it relates to his garage and to the Sayet garage . Mr . Kinner explained the ramp : its grade , its length , and how it will meet the building code . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Kinner about the ramp and its relationship to the entry , the garage , and the porch . Mr . Kinner said that the porch might have to be extended slightly in order to accommodate a 4 foot wide ramp . He continued that the 4 feet is in order to make it easier if somebody has to pass by the wheelchair . Mr . Kinner said that it is more than code requires but felt it was more reasonable to do that . Mr . Kinner indicated that the porch area Attorney Barney referred to may come out slightly . Mr . King asked if it would come out towards the street , and Mr . Kinner indicated yes , and Mr . Kinner said that it is presently a deck . Mr . King asked if Mr . Kinner knew how far back from the street line it would be . Mr . Kinner said that , if it came out , he would suspect that it would be a foot or so . Therefore , Mr . Kinner said , looking down from the survey map , you would add a foot to that . Mr . Kinner said that the closest part of the sidewalk is ® approximately 18 feet , and therefore , he would guess 16 feet . Mr . Kinner , Mr . Scala and Mr . King discussed the distance to the property line and to the sidewalk . Chairman Austen asked if the ramp would be wood , not concrete . Mr . Kinner indicated that it would be wood . He said that the idea was to have all pressure treated decking , using piers to the frost line , to set it up using 4 X 4 ' s and then putting matching shingles Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 ® ( it is a shingled house ) on the side of the ramp itself in order for the ramp to blend in to the house . Mr . Scala stated that , actually , the ramp is going to come over the property line to the sidewalk . Mr . Kinner said that the other option would be to go to the property line with it and put some stone or a concrete pad ( like a sidewalk ) to where the ramp would start . Mr . King said that he did not see any detriment to having the wooden ramp come to the sidewalk . Mr . Scala asked if that would require a variance . Attorney Barney and Mr . Frost discussed this point . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Kinner if the ration would be 1 : 12 , and Mr . Kinner indicated that was true . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Kinner indicated that Ms . Sayet was in attendance with Amelia ' s mother , Leslie , in case the Board would like to direct any questions to them . Chairman Austen said that it would be fine if they would like to offer any more to the discussion . Ms . Sayet said that it would make their life a lot easier , while making Amelia more comfortable and adding dignity to her life by not having to be carried upstairs to the bathroom . Mr . Scala added that it was getting more difficult for the persons to carry Amelia as she grew older . Chairman Austen asked how often Amelia stays with Ms . Sayet , and Ms . Sayet answered that she comes three or four times a year . Chairman Austen asked where she lives , and Ms . Sayet said Amelia lives in North Carolina . Mr . King asked if Ms . Sayet ' s house is an existing one family house , and that this would not change it in any way except to add a bedroom and a bathroom . Ms . Sayet indicated that this was true . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Kinner what his role was here and who was the contractor . Mr . Kinner indicated that a contractor was hired , Ms . Sayet said that Mr . Kinner was helping her to arrange for the handicapped petition because he has had experience with it . Mr . Kinner said he specializes in that sort of work , the handicapped and disabled accessibility sort of things . Mr . King asked if that ® included designing retrofits , and Mr . Kinner indicated yes . With no one else wanting to speak on this , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation Determination of Significance of the Environmental Assessment Form which was reviewed by Louise Raimando on September 30 , 1993 . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that regarding the Appeal of Delores Sayet , by the recommendation of the Town Planning Department Reviewer , Louise Raimando , that a negative determination of environmental significance be made . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION ® By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : _Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Appellant , Delores Sayet , authorization to construct a one floor addition in place of the garage on the south side of her property at 20 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 3- 30 , with the following findings : 1 ) That the addition would be constructed as detailed in the plans submitted with the application . 2 ) That the addition would include construction of a wood and other material ramp extending from the sidewalk along Renwick Heights Road , westerly to the area in front of the existing dwelling , and then southerly to the front door , and with the possible extension of the existing front porch , up to 2 feet easterly toward the sidewalk . 3 ) That the construction of the one floor addition being to accommodate a bedroom and a bathroom facilities for a handicapped person . 4 ) That construction would extend the southeasterly corner of the new structure to within 4 or 5 feet of the southerly property line . 5 ) That the Board finds the variances currently required setbacks are appropriate in this case by the dwelling , itself , being a non- conforming lot . 6 ) That the Board is also granting a variance for the construction of a structure in what would otherwise be the required front yard space and the side yard space . ® 7 ) That the purpose of the addition being salutary to the welfare of the occupants of the dwelling and providing that facilities where the handicapped can be made comfortable and permitted to reside in their own dwellings . 8 ) That the Board finds the proposed construction is in aesthetic conformity with that of the neighborhood . 9 ) That the proposed construction meets all the criteria of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraph a- h of the Zoning Ordinance , 10 ) That , in approving this extension of the non- conforming use , the Board finds that Mr . Boyd , the neighbor most impacted by the proposal to the south , has submitted a letter to the Appellant heartily approving the proposed construc - tion , the letter being incorporated as part of this record . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : A APPEAL OF TERRY FISK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING A PRINCIPAL DWELLING , AT 109 WOOLF LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 23- 1 - 20 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 • Terry Fisk appeared on his behalf of the variance request . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Fisk why he would like to construct the apartment in the existing building . Mr . Fisk said that he presently uses the building for storage and does not need the storage now and that he will not be able to return to work because he is on full disability . Therefore , Mr . Fisk thought he could put a one bedroom apartment in there to subsidize his income . Chairman Austen said that this request was brought up in 1987 , wanting to do the same thing or something similar . Mr . Fisk said this was true . Mr . Scala said that the addition was put on in 1987 , and Mr . Fisk said yes that he used it for storage . Mr . Fisk said the dwelling was 24 X 24 , and he wanted to put in a one bedroom apartment for a single person . Mr . Frost said the picture he was circulating showed , what he thought to be , the basic framework for the second floor apartment . He continued that back in May 1987 the building permit was applied for that included the apartment on the second story . Mr . Frost said that Mr . Fisk ' s mail out indicates his appeal before the Zoning Board denied the apartment . Mr . Frost said that ultimately Mr . Fisk was given a building permit based on a letter from Mr . Fisk stating that the second story would only be used for storage . Therefore , Mr . Fisk was given a building permit to have storage in that building . Mr . Frost said the Town never got past the foundation inspection for the building permit and the file was basically closed out without any certificates of occupancy being issued . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Neil Alling introduced himself as living at 111 Woolf Lane and being Mr . Fisk ' s neighbor for 21 years . Mr . Alling stated that he was in favor of the R- 30 rules and regulations , and he stated that he did not want them changed . Mr . King asked where Mr . Alling lives in relation to the property , and Mr . Alling said that he lives 6 feet , 1 inch from the property line to the dwelling , plus or minus . Mr . Alling indicated where he lived on the map . Kris Alling aided in pointing out the correct property locations . Mr . King asked for clarification of the map . Chairman Austen asked to see the Allingsupdated map . Mr . Alling explained that Mrs . Thorsland sold the land to the Fisks , with the permission of a variance for an irregular lot . In reviewing the maps , Mr . Frost said that the original plan for Mr . Fisk ' s structure showed a proposed 20 foot setback of that building in 1987 . Mr . Frost and Mr . Fisk discussed the original 1987 building permit application . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Fisk the dimensions of the building . Mr . Fisk said that the width is 12 feet . Attorney Barney then said that what Mr . Fisk is saying is that the solid building is approximately 18 feet from the property line to which Mr . Fisk agreed . Mr . Fisk said that the carport is closer , about 6 feet . Mr . Fisk said he keeps a boat stored under the carport . Chairman Austen read into the proceedings the October 12 , 1993 letter from Timothy Ciaschi , 124 Woolf Lane which stated his opposition to this request by Terry Fisk . Discussion followed if Mr . Ciaschi ' s property bordered Mr . Fisk ' s property , and the response was that Mr . Ciaschi ' s property was further down Woolf Lane . Mr . Frost said that as an accessory building , the Town never certified the addition because the Town never got beyond the foundation inspection of the addition . Mr . Frost said that under current zoning , which also existed at that time in 1987 , Mr . Fisk could have been 3 feet from the property line with an accessory building . Mr . Frost said that should the Board consider approving Mr . Fisk ' s request , Mr . Fisk would have to come back and seek a side yard setback variance which has not been advertised for because he would then need a 15 ® foot setback . Mr . Frost asked Attorney Barney whether the 6 foot side yard setback , if the Board should so view it with the carport , would require Mr . Fisk to get a variance if this becomes a dwelling unit when the accessory structures have to be 3 foot to the property line . Attorney Barney said that he ruled that the Board would have to grant a variance because Mr . Fisk would no longer have an accessory structure . Mr . Frost told oTown of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 the Board that , if the Board does grant this variance , Mr . Fisk may have to come back with another appeal for a side yard setback . However , Mr . Frost continued that , right now , as an accessory building , there is no side yard setback violation . With no one else wanting to come forward to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part II - Sections C . 1 . C . 2 . , C . 3 . , C . 4 . and Part III - Staff Recommendation Determination of Significance of the Environmental Assessment Form . Mr . Scala asked about the dog run and on whose property is was located , and the Allings said that it was on theirs . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that regarding the Appeal of Terry Fisk at 109 Woolf Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23 - 1 - 20 . 1 , requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit within an accessory building , that the Board accepts the recommendation of the Town Planning Department Reviewer , Louise Raimando , that a negative determination of environmental significance . ® A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes -Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen informed Mr . Fisk that he should realize that it would be very unusual for the Board to grant a second residence on a single lot . Chairman Austen told Mr . Fisk that there have been very few cases where the Board had granted such a variance and those cases have been where the second residence was probably used before the existing ordinance came into existence . Chairman Austen continued that the Board realizes that the set of circumstances are different now than they were when Mr . Fisk applied five or six years ago . Chairman Austen told Mr . Fisk that he believes the Board would need some significant evidence of hardship to consider this as an unusual circumstance . Mr . King said that the hardship has to be in relation to utilizing the property , not in the fact that you make some money that way . Mr . Frost said that Mr . Fisk has submitted various documents relative to the hearing of his disability . Mr . King said that , taking that Mr . Fisk is disabled and could use some income , he is not in such a unique position in that there are many people in the same position and that this does not relate directly to this land . Mr . Frost suggested that if Mr . Fisk wants income property , Mr . Fisk would be allowed to make a second dwelling unit within the existing house , as an addition to the house . Mr . King said that that is permitted by the ordinance , whereas a second dwelling on the lot ® detached from the house is not permitted . Mr . King continued that he did not believe that the personal hardship is at all relevant to compelling events , and he asked Mr . Fisk is he believed that . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 Mr . Fisk said that within 400 or 500 feet of his lot line is cluster housing which allows 3 houses on one 1 acre lot . The Ciaschi Westwood Hill development was identified as the cluster houses to which Mr . Fisk was referring and that Mr . Fisk was correct in saying that there are 3 houses on one acre . Chairman Austen said this would not meet that criteria because there would not be enough land in the unit to provide the square footage that would be required for it . Attorney Barney said that it was an interesting conundrum because , under the Town of Ithaca ' s Zoning Ordinance , if the building was moved forward 100 feet and attached to the building , Mr . Fisk would not even be here because a variance would not be required . He continued that , on the other hand , what happened at the Ciaschi subdivision was a fairly intensive study taken place by the Planning Board . In hindsight , the Planning Board may not have began approval , but at the time , it was very attractive , and at the time by allowing the houses located as closely as they were , compensated dedicating an amount of common space . Mr . Scala asked what Attorney Barney ' s questioned , and Attorney Barney stated that the question was if there was adequate space to treat it as a cluster . Mr . Scala asked if it could be divided into two lots to which Attorney Barney said that it could not be done without a variance . Mr . Frost asked Attorney Barney if he was correct in stating that when the Town has cluster developments , the Planning Board can actually waive certain zoning requirements in the planning of the entire cluster . He continued that there could then be other considerations given by the Planning Board that will allow a cluster to develop that , in effect , would waive certain zoning requirements pending Zoning Board approval . Chairman Austen said that , if he remembered correctly , they would still need so many square feet per dwelling . Attorney Barney said the test is that they have to take conventional subdivision that would be permitted under the ordinance , count the number of units that could be built conventionally , and that limits the number of units which will come up with a cluster . Attorney Barney said they allow , say if the property could take 20 units in a conventional subdivision , instead of spreading them out all over the subdivision , the 20 units are put at one end and the rest of the space is left open . He said this is what happened in the Ciaschi subdivision . Mr . Scala asked what the variance was if this was to be divided into two lots , and discussion followed as to how the property could be subdivided in order to get the front footage as well as the required 60 , 000 square feet . Mr . Scala said that the variance would then be of having two lots too small . Attorney Barney said one lot would be too small and one lot would be fine and deficiency for the front footage in at least one of the lots . Chairman Austen stated there would also be a problem with the driveway coming through due to State requirements . Mr . Scala asked if the water and sewer was connected to the house now or is there none . Mr . Fisk said there is connection to the house and then to the road . Chairman Austen wanted to know the acreage of Mr . Fisk ' s property , and Mr . Fisk said he has approximately 1 - 1 / 3 acres . Attorney Barney asked if it was not feasible to put some sort of addition right onto the house . Mr . Fisk said that it could be done at great expense , and since he has the storage area , he would like to convert it into an apartment at a lot less expense , rather than adding onto the house . Mr . Scala commented that the building was originally built as an apartment , and Mr . Fisk said that it was built for storage and then eventually being able to put a one bedroom apartment up there . Mr . Scala asked the Board if Mr . Fisk was allowed to have plumbing . Mr . Fisk said there was no plumbing in that building right now , but that he made provisions to hook up to the plumbing . He stated that the sewer and water are to his house , not to the building in the back . The point was clarified that the hookups are to the house , ® not to the building under discussion . Mr . Frost said that public water and sewer is available to the property . Mr . Frost said that he has not been in the building beyond the foundation inspection in August 1987 . He said he has not been in the present finished structure . -Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny the Appellant , Terry Fisk , the request of a variance for permission to construct a second dwelling unit within an accessory building on a parcel of land containing a principal dwelling , at 109 Woolf Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 23- 1 - 20 . 1 , with the following findings : 1 ) That there were objections on the part of the neighbors because they want to retain the R- 30 character . 2 ) That the permission would be outside the current laws that permit only one dwelling . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The variance was denied . The fourth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : ® APPEAL OF EDWIN HALLBERG , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV, SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR THE USE OF A TEMPORARY BUILDING NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . THE SUBJECT RESIDENTIAL AREA IS KNOWN AS DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , AND THE SUBJECT BUILDING IS LOCATED ON 154 WHITETAIL DRIVE IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 44- 1 - 165 . APPELLANT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED SUCH AN EXTENSION WHICH EXPIRED ON JUNE 30 , 1993 . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hallberg about the progress of the sub- development . Mr . Hallberg answered that it is coming along very nicely with the roads now completed and they are , hopefully , on the last home stretch . Mr . King asked if homes were built this year , and Mr . Hallberg indicated that 15 homes were built . Chairman Austen stated the Board is very familiar with this matter , this being the third time . Mr . King asked if the photograph he was inspecting was a new one , and Mr . Hallberg said that it was . Discussion followed about the photograph , including the lesser amount of bushes and trees in the photograph . Attorney Barney inquired as to how many more houses are to be built to which Mr . Hallberg answered that there are 24 single family lots left with 2 building lots for town houses which have not been decided about . Attorney Barney said that 30 out of the 70 houses remain to be done , and Mr . Hallberg said that was correct : 24 houses plus 9 individual town house units have not yet been built . Mr . Frost said the Board may note that his office has not had any complaints as to the last approval to the storage building . Mr . Frost also wanted noted that the Town did not get signage up within the two week period ; he said , for the record , he is noting ® the hearing was posted , but it was not posted two weeks ago . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . 'Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part II - C . 2 . and Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that based on information on the Environmental Assessment form prepared by Louise Raimando on September 30 , 1993 , a negative determination of environmental significance for Edwin Hallberg at 154 Whitetail Drive and that the extension run until June 30 , 1995 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , Scala , King , Austen . Nays - None . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Appellant , Edwin Hallbert , Special Approval pursuant to Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 3 , an ® extension of the one -year time limitation for the use of a temporary building necessary or incidental to the development of a residential area . The subject residential area is known as Deer Run Subdivision , and the subject building is located on 154 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 165 . The fifth Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM AUGUST 13 , 1993 ) OF KEVIN HAVERLOCK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQU=ENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 61 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 ± FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 5 CHASE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 45- 1- 59 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , Chairman Austen said to Mr . Haverlock that , with the additional drawings he is bringing to the Board tonight , that it appears that Mr . Haverlock is going with the colonial style house . Mr . Haverlock said that he was going with the colonial and brought the Board the plans for the house and the topographical maps . Mr . Haverlock said the Chase Farm Architectural and Site Review Committee reviewed the plans . Mr . Haverlock said the information he gave the Board was the information he gave them , and they have the exact same things to work off of because he had to get the site plan- - the committee reviews the site plan as well as the house plan . He said the committee approved the house with a recommendation that he set the garage back an additional 2 feet , so therefore , instead of 40 feet it would be approximately 42 feet . He said most homes in Chase Farm have a 10 foot setback on the garage . He said when he was originally approved on the Cape Cod , he had asked for a 4 foot setback and the committee asked if he would be willing to compromise to a 6 foot setback . Mr . Haverlock told the Board he told the committee he would compromise , just to put an end to it . He said the letter would be forthcoming by Friday , and he would have it in his possession . When asked if that was the compromise for the height too , as far as the committee was Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 ® concerned , and Mr . Haverlock said that the committee looked at everything that he submitted to the Board . Mr . King asked what is the height , and Mr . Haverlock said the height will be 30 feet on the front , for most of the front until you come to the left elevation , whereby it actually increases . He continued that the last time he had 31 feet on the front , and there was a concern to some people that it would be violating the height restriction even on the front . Mr . Haverlock said that , subsequently , he got another excavator up there to look at it , and the excavator said he did not find a problem meeting the 30 feet height requirement in the front'. Chairman Austen said that Mr . Haverlock would meet his 30 feet requirement , and Mr . Haverlock said he would with the exception of the one corner in order to not get any excessive drainage on the one side . Mr . King inquired as to the rear elevation , and Mr . Haverlock said the height would be 34 feet on one side and 36 feet on the other side , which Mr . Haverlock believed to be the same as he was requesting the last time he was before the Board . Mr . King commented that the rear height was really due to the slope of the land . Mr . Haverlock said that looking at the topographic maps he got from the land surveyors in Dryden , Manzari and Reagan , it was . Mr . Frost then said that he wanted to bring to the Board ' s attention , that as memory serves him , the Board discussed at the first meeting that a basement apartment was discussed . He said that the apartment has now shifted to the second floor , above the garage . He said Mr . Haverlock went from a basement apartment to an above the garage apartment . He then asked Mr . Haverlock if the apartment was 26 X 28 square feet to which Mr . Haverlock answered that it was . Mr . Frost said the zoning ordinance requires that when you have essentially a side -by- side , which is what Mr . Haverlock is now creating , that the main dwelling unit be at least twice the area size of the secondary unit . Mr . Haverlock said the main dwelling unit will be 2 , 016 square feet and the secondary dwelling will be 728 square feet . Mr . Ellsworth stated that on the site plan , the 40 feet to the lot line will change due to the Architectural Review Board , and Mr . Haverlock indicated that was not so , and he again said that all the information he gave the committee , he gave to the Board . He continued that when the committee reviewed the house plans , they reviewed the site plan as well . Mr . Ellsworth said that he understood that the committee had requested for Mr . Haverlock to move it back 2 feet . Mr . Haverlock said that the only thing that would change would be a 2 foot setback on the garage , therefore it will be approximately 42 feet . Chairman Austen said that the setback does not show on the drawing , from 4 feet to 6 feet , and Mr . Haverlock indicated that it did not because he submitted it well over a month ago . Mr . Haverlock reviewed the people who sat on the committee , as he previously presented them to the Board . He continued that the problem he got into with the architectural and site review committee is , because he was the fortieth lot sold because the committee makeup changed to two homeowners and one developer of Chase Farm . He said that now the homeowners control the committee , and he was the first one to go through the process with the new committee . He explained that the process was slowed down because a committee was not able to get together . Chairman Austen stated that the environmental review is part of the record because it was reviewed and voted upon at the August meeting . Chairman Austen said that there was enough difference to re - open the public hearing , and Jack Little of 3 Chase Lane stated that he and his wife , Amy , live directly next door to Mr . Haverlock . He said that the Littles would like to go on record to support Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 ® Mr . Haverlock ' s request . He continued the Littles had gotten to know Mr . Haverlock and his wife over the summer and the Haverlocks ' struggle to build a house in their neighborhood . He stated that he was amazed that the Haverlocks would even want to live in their neighborhood . Mr . Little said that their biggest concern is the drainage issue . He said water is coming back behind the lots , onto their property and onto the model home that is on East King Road , to the point of ducks nesting in the Littles ' back yard . He said that it was an unusually wet spring , but he also said there is still a tremendous amount of water going back through there . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Appellant , Kevin Haverlock , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Sub-paragraph 6 of the Zoning Ordinance , located at 5 Chase Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 45- 1 - 59 , to be permitted to construct a two - family residence with the following findings : 1 ) The heights and setbacks will be such as shown on the site plan , dated 5 / 89 . 2 ) That lir . Haverlock has gone through extensive review by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the area architectural review committee and Mr . Haverlock has • adapted his plans as required . 4 ) That the construction and the amount of variance granted be in accordance with the front view and rear view to the dimensions shown on the plans submitted to the Board at this October 13 , 1993 meeting be the total estimated finished grade for Mr . Haverlock , Chase Farms Lot # 11 by Cayuga Country Homes . 5 ) That the performance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements with respect to height would create a difficulty in that it would be not possible to build a house of this design with the appropriately pitched roof on this particular site with the slopes without a variance . 6 ) That the variance is not going to significantly alter the character of the neighborhood . 7 ) That the house is not inconsistent with the other houses in the neighborhood . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . With no further business , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 P . M . - Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals October 13 , 1993 Roberta H . Komaromi Recording Secretary ward Austen , Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 13 , 1993 ® 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 , October 13 , 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 NANCY DICKINSON , APPELLANT , WILLIAM CADY , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE UNDER LOCAL LAW #4 - 1979 AS AMENDED APRIL 12 , 1993 TO BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN A PROPERTY WITH FIVE AUTOMOBILES NOT CURRENTLY REGISTERED FOR USE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 215 RENWICK DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 17 - 4 - 11 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF DELORES SAYET , APPELLANT , RICHARD KINNER , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING / LOT BY MODIFYING A GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTING ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AT 20 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 17 - 3- 30 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID GARAGE IS 7 + FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE , WHEREAS A 10 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED . THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS A LOT WIDTH OF 82 . 45 + FEET ( 100 FOOT WIDTH REQUIRED ) AND A LOT DEPTH OF 143 + FEET ( 150 FOOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 MAY ALSO BE REQUESTED SINCE THE PROPOSED LIVING SPACE WILL BE 7 + FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE LOT LINE , WHEREAS A 15 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED FROM BUILDING LIVING SPACE TO A SIDE YARD LOT LINE . EAL OF TERRY FISK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 AND ARTICLE MF XIII , SECTION 68 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINING A PRINCIPAL DWELLING , AT 109 WOOLF LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 23 - 1 - 20 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . APPEAL OF EDWIN HALLBERG , APPELLANT , REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE ONE -YEAR TIME LIMITATION FOR THE USE OF A TEMPORARY BUILDING NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA . THE SUBJECT RESIDENTIAL AREA IS KNOWN AS THE DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , AND THE SUBJECT BUILDING IS LOCATED ON 154 WHITETAIL DRIVE IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 44 - 1 - 165 . APPELLANT HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED SUCH AN EXTENSION WHICH EXPIRED ON JUNE 30 , 1993 . APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM AUGUST 13 , 1993 ) OF KEVIN HAVERLOCK , 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 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 5 CHASE LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 45- 1 - 59 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . 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 : October 5 , 1993 Publish : October 8 , 1993