Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-11-10 1 1 t= 1NAh FILED TOWN OF 9THACA TOWN OF ITHACA pate , y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 10 , 1993 CI THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE BEFORE THE BOARD ON NOVEMBER 10 , 1993 : APPEAL OF STEVEN MAUK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 13 , SECTION 65 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF 7 FEET 6 INCHES ± ( MAXIMUM 6 FEET HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 147 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 57 - 1 - 33 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , THE FENCE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S REAR YARD AND WILL RUN ALONG THE SIDE LOT LINES . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF RICHARD BOYD AND BARBARA KOSLOWSKI , APPELLANTS , AMY NETTLETON , 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 CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 18 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 17 - 3 - 31 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE UTILIZED AS A CHILDREN ' S PLAYHOUSE AND WILL HAVE A HEIGHT OF 20 + FEET ( 15 FEET HEIGHT LIMITATION REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCESS HEIGHT , AS WELL AS TO PERMIT THE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S SIDE YARD , WHEREAS SUCH STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ONLY , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF DANIEL TOURANCE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM. HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 221 SAND BANK ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 35 - 2 - 12 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS EXCEEDED WHEN MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE NEAR A PROPOSED WOOD DECK ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE AND MEASURED TO THE " WIDOWS WALK " LOCATED ON THE BUILDING ' S ROOF . -`' GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF GARY C . DUFFY AND DONNA HOFSTEAD DUFFY , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AN INTERPRE - TATION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE OPERATION OF THE LITTLE BROOK FARMS HORSE TRAINING FACILITY AT 340 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 65 - 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SHOULD AN INTERPRETATION BE MADE THAT FINDS THE OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF SAID ORDINANCE , THE APPELLANTS THEN REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARA- GRAPH 6 , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT A RIDING ACADEMY AND A FACILITY TO BOARD AND TRAIN HORSES , ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 12 , 1994 . --- 1 FA TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA i u ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date L.. �.,.1. NOVEMBER 10 , 1993 0 Clerk EUw-grYAusten , Harry Ellsworth , Robert J . Hines , Edward King , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Amy Nettleton , Mariette Geldenhuys , Gary and Donna Duffy , Jody Kessler , Daniel Tourance , Blythe Baldwin , Betty and Larry Fabbroni , Douglas Finch . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 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 STEVEN MAUK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 13 , SECTION 65 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF 7 FEET 6 INCHES + ( MAXIMUM 6 FEET HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 147 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 57- 1 -33 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE FENCE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S REAR YARD AND WILL RUN ALONG THE SIDE LOT LINES , Douglas Finch introduced himself to the Board as being the contractor for the Mauks and representing them at this meeting . Mr . Finch asked the Board to look at the sheet with the property plan which shows the deck in the dotted outline . He said that the deck is running approximately from the Baldwin property line , about 2 feet • inside the Mauk/ Baldwin boundary , approximately 60 feet attached to the house , all the way down and running approximately 25 feet from the Shefter property line . He said the deck is approximately 18 feet wide . He continued that there is a fence on either end of the deck . Mr . Finch said the variance is needed on the Baldwin side because the deck itself is 16 inches off the ground and at 6 feet , the fence would be pretty much useless for what it was designed for . He said the fence on the Shefter property is at a total height of 6 feet . An architectural detail has been asked to be put on that end of the fence which is in the rough sketch . According to Mr . Finch , this sketch shows both views and the top rail , a 2 X 4 laid horizontally , is the detail . Chairman Austen asked the distance to the top of the board fence , and Mr . Finch said that it was 6 feet . He said that on the Shefter side it is 6 feet and on the Baldwin side it would be approximately 7 foot , 6 inches . Chairman Austen then said then the top rail is another foot or so , and Mr . Frost indicated that it was about 10 inches . Mr . King asked if the ornamentation increased the height of the fence on the Shefter side about 10 inches , and Mr . Finch said he would guess that technically it does . Mr . Finch said that it was his opinion that it does . Mr . Frost said he does not typically count the supporting posts as the height , but he does count anything ornamental to the height . Mr . Finch said they have spoken to both of the neighbors and they seem to be in agreement with the plan as drawn in the rough sketches before the Board . Mr . Hines asked the meaning of the last paragraph of the Shefter letter , and Mr . Finch said that the yards extend from the back of the house 250 feet from the road , • probably 150 feet from the back of the house , with the grade going level out from the house for about 18- to - 20 feet and then rises 3 feet and then goes back to the rear Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 property boundary and in the sketch which says view towards Shefter you can see the fence climbing the grade . He continued that past that point there is a wire fence which keeps the two yards separate . He said that it is his belief that they did not want the board fence to continue the rest of the way up the yard from the top of the short grade , all the way to the rear boundary , thus completely blocking the yards apart . Therefore , to comply with them , the Mauks would be limiting the length of the fence , basically ending where it shows in the drawing marked " View Towards Shefter . " Mr . Finch said that he also believes that the Shefters would not like any fence to be built there in the future and that the Mauks do not have a problem with this . Mr . King wanted to know how far , on the north line , would the fence be built . He wanted to know if it would be going clear to the east line of the property on the Baldwins ' side , and Mr . Finch said that the fence ends approximately the same distance from the house as the Shefter side . Mr . Finch said the fence climbs the grade , which is approximately 20 feet from the house , which would add another 8 feet to the top of the grade . Since Mr . King had nothing that indicated the grade to him , he asked Mr . Finch the length of the fence in linear feet . Mr . Finch said that , on the Baldwin side , coming off the face of the house , the length of the fence would be approxi - mately 24 feet , ending behind the shrubbery ( roughly drawn in the sketch ) . He said that the shrubbery is approximately at the top of the short increase in grade . Discussion took place as to where the wood fence would end , as shown in the pictures . Mr . King wanted to know if there was any intent to extend the fence easterly from what he saw in the picture , and Mr . Finch said there was no such intent . Mr . King asked that , on the south side , would the fence be the same way to which Mr . Finch answered that it would because they are approximately the same length . Mr . Finch explained the approximate 3 foot grade and how it runs straight across the yard with both fences ending at the top of the grade . Chairman Austen wanted an indication as to where the fence would run which Mr . Finch clarified with the use of the photographs . Mr . Finch explained to Mr . King and Chairman Austen how the fences would join into the house . Attorney Barney stated that it appeared that the south line was a little longer , and lir . Finch said the drawing was pretty rough and not to scale . Attorney Barney said the view , however , shows three panels on the Baldwin side and four panels on the Shefter side . Mr . Finch explained the location of the house on the lot in that the east face of the house is not parallel to the rear property line . Chairman Austen read the September 3 , 1993 letter from Frank and Blythe C . Baldwin into the record . Chairman Austen then read the September 24 , 1993 letter from Martin and Susan H . Shefter into the record . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Blythe Baldwin of 149 Pine Tree Road asked to speak on this matter . Mrs . Baldwin stated that the Baldwins are perfectly happy with what is being built , with the concern that the variance be limited to what is already built . She reiterated her letter that the Baldwins want the top of the fence to remain horizontal , the way it now is . She continued that her fear is that if the variance is not carefully worded , it might give some future property owner the right to have a seven foot , six inch fence going up the hill and all around the periphery of the property . She said that , as it is now , the top part of the fence is seven feet , six inches and that as the hill climbs , the top of the fence remains horizontal , so that in the back of the yard , the fence is lower . She further stated that , as the contractor said , the fence ends 24 feet away from the house which is just fine , but if the Board does not word the variance carefully , it could give some future owner of 147 Pine Tree Road the right to build a seven foot , six inch fence Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 all around which , according to Mrs . Baldwin will make the property look like a barracks or some kind of a correctional facility . Therefore , the Baldwins do not want that , and thus the Baldwins do not want to have a loophole for the future . Chairman Austen asked if the fence on her side was completed to which Mrs . Baldwin said that it was and that the Baldwins are perfectly happy with it . With no one else wishing to address the Board , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen read the November 4 , 1993 letter from James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of the Tompkins County Planning Department into the record . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form , MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that a negative determination of environmental significance be made based on the Environmental Assessment form by Louise Raimondo on November 1 , 1993 and based on the information submitted with this application . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , King , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - None . ! The motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the appellant , Steven Mauk , a variance from the 6 feet height limitation of a fence , permitting the construction and continuance on the property at 147 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 33 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following conditions and finding : 1 ) That the fence is approximately 7 feet , 10 inches above grade on the north property line , with the 10 inches being to accommodate the trim or decoration along the top of the fence . 2 ) That the fence is to extend no more than three panels , or 24 feet , easterly from a line which would be in line with the east / easterly or back wall of the two- car garage on the property and permitting that fence to close and connect with the garage . 3 ) That , on the south line , the fence will exceed no more than 7 feet , 10 inches , with the 10 inches in each case being to accommodate the trim or decoration along the top of the fence . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 101 1993 4 ) That the variance to permit such fence on the south line , extending easterly from and in line with the east wall of the house nearest that south line , no more than four panels , or a maximum distance of 32 feet , and permitting the westerly end of that fence to connect northerly to the house . 5 ) That the fences will , at no time , be extended easterly toward the back line of the property so that the easterly portion of the yard will be kept open with fences that are open in order to permit views across the back property line . 6 ) That the maximum height of the fence is that measured at the westerly extension of the fence . 7 ) That the top grade of the fence is to be horizontal from the westerly extension so that the current height of the fence decreases as the grade increases . AYES - King , Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF RICHARD BOYD AND BARBARA KOSLOWSKI , APPELLANTS , AMY NETTLETON , 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 CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/IAT LOCATED AT 18 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 17-3-31 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE UTILIZED AS A CHILDREN ' S PLAYHOUSE AND WILL HAVE A HEIGHT OF 20 + FEET ( 15 FEET DIGHT LIMITATION REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCESS HEIGHT , AS WELL AS TO PERMIT THE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S SIDE YARD , WHEREAS SUCH STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ONLY . Agent Amy Nettleton from Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects Planners spoke in behalf of Richard Boyd and Barbara Koslowski . Ms . Nettleton stated that they want to build a playhouse for their son at their home . Ms . Nettleton oriented the Board as to location of the house on Renwick Heights Road as it relates to Lake Street , approaching from Lake Street . She further explained the diagrams as they relate to the house and the proposed playhouse . Ms . Nettleton stated that the whole area is pretty well wooded with mature evergreens and other shade trees which provide some screening amongst the properties . Ms . Nettleton said the request for the variance is because the lot is undersized , the excess height of the playhouse , and the location of the playhouse being on the side yard . Ms . Nettleton addressed the grade on the property , stating that it slopes fairly steeply from the street so that the grade , at the street , is approximately 7 feet above the grade at the back of the house . She continued that , by the time one gets to the lower part of the rear yard , the grade drops another 15 or 20 feet , continuing to drop down to the houses that front on Lake Street . Ms . Nettleton explained that the neighbor to the south is separated by a small ravine , so that from the Boyd / Koslowski property , you are looking out over a ravine wall that varies in height from 6 to 8 feet . She said that , even though the lot is small , there is a fair amount of physical separation of the property because Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 of the setting . Ms . Nettleton said this location was chosen because of the existing stone retaining walls which deal somewhat with the change of grade around the house . Ms . Nettleton stated that the appellants want the playhouse to be as close to the house as possible , rather than putting it in the rear yard where it would be harder to get to . This solution would allow easier access to the playhouse , and at the same time , the appellants want an easier way down the grade to the playhouse below . Ms . Nettleton explained the other drawings to the Board , showing how the playhouse nestles into the walls , trying to optimize that location . With the submitted plans , Ms . Nettleton feels that they allow to get the playhouse close to the house and provide a way down into the woods . Ms . Nettleton said the change in grade makes the playhouse vary in height from 13 feet to about 20 feet at the highest corner . Ms . Nettleton further stated that , depending upon where you are looking at it , the apparent height will vary . Ms . Nettleton said that it will be only looking from the woods that one will see the high corner . Mr . Scala asked Ms . Nettleton if the playhouse would be up on posts without any footings . Ms . Nettleton said the posts are the footings . Mr . Scala followed that the playhouse would just be up on " stilts " , and Ms . Nettleton agreed . Chairman Austen commented that when he was up looking at the area , he wanted to know if there was any reason why there are no steps coming down to lower the playhouse to the foundation wall . Ms . Nettleton said the playhouse bridge is already lower than the foundation . Chairman Austen had hoped that there would be some steps to get to the deck . Ms . Nettleton asked if the Chairman was asking if they lower the deck , and Chairman Austen said that the ravine is quite steep and quite high . He continued that , nor knowing the ages of the children who would be using the playhouse , perhaps • the building could be at the stone wall height . Mr . Scala stated that he was not too clear along the same lines . He asked why is the playhouse not closer to the house , and why does the playhouse have to be on that side of the retaining wall ? Ms . Nettleton answered that there is a very narrow space between the house and the retaining wall . Ms . Nettleton said the playhouse is 9 feet square , and Mr . Scala said there is then 10 or 12 feet between the house and the playhouse . Ms . Nettleton stated that the playhouse would then be jammed or pushed up tightly against the house . Mr . Scala said that the appellants wanted the playhouse close to the house . Ms . Nettleton said that the appellants also wanted passage through and circulation around the house . Mr . Frost stated that the proposed location , as an accessory structure , would not violate any side yard setbacks . Mr . Scala said that the playhouse could easily be moved over 4 feet and not have a violation . The Board said the height variance is for the height . Ms . Nettleton said she supposed the playhouse could effectively " straddle that stone wall " , but she added that , when you are out in the yard , it is clearly visible that the playhouse would just fit in better if it was fitted into the niche of the wall rather than straddle the stone wall . Mr . Scala asked why the playhouse was not located around the back , and Ms . Nettleton said that it fits more into the open and is not as screened by the vegetation around it . Mr . Scala and Ms . Nettleton discussed the vegetation , trees , and shrubs in that area . Mr . King said that the only location where there is a height violation is from the south down in the ravine and the west disappears . He continued that the house adjacent to this property , south of it , is quite a distance south . Ms . Nettleton said she had a letter from that neighbor , as well as , from the neighbor from across the street . Mr . King explained the locations of the houses relative to the lots and ® to each other , and then asked Ms . Nettleton the approximate distance from the south Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • side of the playhouse to the north side of the neighbor ' s house . Ms . Nettleton said there is about 12 feet to the property line . There was then a general consensus that there would be another 50 feet to the house . Mr . King said that , in effect , this extra height should not be a bother to anyone and that the nearest neighbors would not even notice it . Chairman Austen again stated that he did not know how old the children are and that there is a considerable drop off the back . He was informed that the child was nine . Ms . Nettleton repeated that Chairman Austen ' s concern was the drop from the playhouse to which Chairman Austen indicated that he was concerned about this . Ms . Nettleton said the appellants wanted an elevated playhouse and that was why the railing was there . She continued that , initially the appellants wanted a tree house . Attorney Barney asked what , besides a nine year old child , was going to go into this playhouse , and Ms . Nettleton said the playhouse , itself , is detailed so that it matches the house , but inside the playhouse would be left to the child ' s imagination . Ms . Nettleton said she assumes there would probably be a desk in there , or table , and maybe bunks . Attorney Barney asked if electricity or plumbing would be included to which Ms . Nettleton answered " No . " Mr . Hines inquired as to the cost of the playhouse , and Ms . Nettleton said that she believes it will cost around $ 5 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Frost stated that the property really has no flat land . He further stated that this playhouse is a means for keeping the kids somewhat in their back yard . Mr . Scala agreed with that , commenting that unless you like cliff climbing , continuing that with this playhouse access to the rear will somewhat be cut off . Mr . Frost said that the Fire Department could get to the rear from the other side ( garage side ) of the house . Ms . Nettleton said the emergency vehicles could still get back through the existing corridor . Ms . Nettleton said they are actually using the playhouse to bridge that to provide a way down . Mr . Frost said that the playhouse would actually provide something to stand on . Chairman Austen read the October 8 , 1993 letter from Mary Gigliello , 14 Renwick Heights Road and the November 10 , 1993 letter from Marie Costanzo and Tom Fox , 15 Renwick Heights Road into the record . Ms . Nettleton said the latter letter was from the people across the street whom they felt would be most affected visually by the building of the playhouse . Chairman Austen then read the November 4 , 1993 letter from James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of the Tompkins County Planning Department , into the record . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . Frost wanted to clarify that the property and the building are non- conforming because the house is too close to the road . He said that the property , on the setback on the north side , is too close to the side lot line and depth of the parcel is approximately 92 feet on the south side , 120 feet on the north side , and 150 foot depth . Therefore , he continued , that both the lot and the building are non- conform- ing which is what requires a special approval because a change is being made to a non- conforming building / lot . Mr . Frost continued that , again , there is the variance for the height and the location of the building on the side yard . Environmental Assessment • Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . Chairman Austen said that he would like to correct Part II on the Form to reflect feet ( 15 feet and 11 feet ) , not inches as written on a non- conforming lot . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that a negative determination of environmental significance be made based on the Environmental Assessment by Louise Raimondo on November 1 , 1993 and based on the information , submitted plans and presentation by the appellants ' agent . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . Scala asked that ( the property besides being non- conforming in terms of being too close to the road and being too close to the north side ) by putting up the playhouse , there will be at least a height of 20 feet , exceeding the 15 feet and will also be too close to the south side ? He inquired if the structure has to be 10 feet or 15 feet from the south property line , and Mr . Frost said that an accessory • building can be 3 feet , and as such , there is no setback problem . MOTION Motion by Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board of Zoning Appeals ( 1 ) grant special approval to the appellants , Richard Boyd and Barbara Koslowski , that construction of a playhouse structure as shown on the submitted plans on the generally southerly portion of the non- conforming building lot at 18 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 3 - 31 , Residence District R- 15 and ( 2 ) grant a variance from the strict enforcement of the zoning law , Article 13 , and permit the structure to be in excess of the height otherwise permitted which is 15 feet , as well as permit the accessory building to be permitted in the property ' s side yard , whereas such structures are permitted in the rear yard only , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That the nature of the property on Renwick Heights Drive is generally a sparsely traveled residential area and is a rather steep , sloped grading property . 2 ) That , to the west , the property is without a level outdoor playing space for children or other persons who might want to visit the outdoors for whatever recreational purposes . 3 ) That the properties in the neighborhood are sufficiently distant from this property so that no adverse visual impact is created as a result from the structure which is architecturally drawn with trees and close to the existing ® residential structure . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • 4 ) That the character of the property and the need for play space are the practical difficulties which are exhibited . 5 ) That upon review of the information , the changes contemplated do not have an adverse architectural impact on the neighborhood and conform generally to the neighborhood . 6 ) That the neighbors at 14 Renwick Heights Road and 15 Renwick Heights Road have no objections to the addition . 7 ) With the condition that the playhouse be constructed out of cement and board . 8 ) With the condition that there be no plumbing or electrical facilities placed within the playhouse . Mr . Scala questioned the justification for putting the playhouse on the side instead of the back , and he said he did not feel that there are significant reasons shown . Mr . Scala said that he did not feel the Board should grant a variance just on the basis of that . Chairman Austen stated that Mr . Scala ' s objection is so noted . Chairman Austen said he walked all around the house when he looked at it , and he stated that he thought , perhaps , that was the best place because it would not be quite as conspicuous as if it set right in the back yard and perched over it . He further stated that the ground drops off quite rapidly in the back , and he said the playhouse would show up from down below and you would be looking up right under it . Mr . King stated that he agreed with Chairman Austen . Mr . King said the homeowners • below there , to the west , are actually closer , and would be closer to this playhouse than the neighbor to the south . Mr . King stated that he felt where the playhouse was proposed to be built would probably be the least offensive place to put it . Mr . Scala stated that his technical judgement is that the playhouse could be built in the back without exceeding the 20 foot height . He further stated that , by building where it is proposed , you would also have the problem of being very much closer to the ravine , and , based on the future of the wetlands requirements , he did not feel the Board should touch it . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , King , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - Scala . The motion carried with one Nay . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF DANIEL TOURANCE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 221 SAND BANK ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35-2- 12 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS EXCEEDED WHEN MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE NEAR A PROPOSED WOOD DECK ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE AND MEASURED TO THE "WIDOWS WALK" LOCATED ON THE BUILDING ' S ROOF . ® Chairman Austen accepted additional photographs from Mr . Tourance . Chairman Austen stated that when he was at the site , he said he thought there was a fantastic view in the winter without the leaves on the trees , but that he did not know if it would be the same in the summer . Mr . Tourance said that this was probably one of the Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • attributes for getting this variance . Mr . Tourance said the structure is about 300 feet from the nearest property line and is a fairly remote area . Chairman Austen asked if the property behind Mr . Tourance was State property , and Mr . Tourance said that it was not . He continued that Buttermilk Falls State Park is on the opposite side of Sand Bank Road . Mr . Tourance said his property does extend at least 300 feet on both sides , going across the ravine . Mr . Tourance stated that the head of the house , itself , without the deck , is just under 30 feet . He said the ground slopes rather steeply under the deck , thus adding about 7 feet to the height . Chairman Austen agreed that it slopes off very rapidly there . Mr . King said that it is then the support of the deck that makes it exceed the allowable height to which Mr . Tourance agreed . Mr . Tourance said that he could , theoretically , backfill and avoid this process , but the terrain is steep enough that he did not believe the backfill would be stable and erode down the hill . When Mr . King asked if Mr . Tourance was not afraid the house would go over the embankment , Mr . Tourance replied that it was all bedrock there . Mr . Tourance said he dug down 6 inches to put the footings in for the porch . Mr . Tourance stated the deck was L- shaped , extending out from the house 12 feet to the north ( which is the steepest part ) and 8 feet to the east ( which is relatively flat ) . Chairman Austen inquired as to how far off the ground the back side of the deck will be , and Mr . Tourance said it will be approximately 8 feet , 4 inches on the northeast corner . Mr . Hines wanted to know how that added to the height of the structure , and Mr . Tourance said that was because the level of the deck was slightly above the lowest point of the house- - 16 inches above the lowest point of the house . Mr . Scala referred to a drawing and stated that the height to the peak is from the basement of the house : 29 feet , 11 inches . Mr . Tourance asked from where , and they discussed the drawing and the height in question . Mr . Tourance said the deck was 1 foot , 4 inches above the lowest grade which is on the opposite side of the house . Mr . Tourance said the reference point for the 28 feet , 11 inches is the entrance to the garage on the opposite side of the house . Mr . Hines commented that the house , itself , does not exceed the limits . He continued that the deck extends out so far , that , measured from the base of the deck down to the height of the roof , gives way to the problem . Attorney Barney said he was having trouble with hearing 8 feet and looking at the diagram with 4 feet , 9 inches . Chairman Austen said that the ground slopes away from the house , and Mr . Tourance said the ground is 1 foot , 4 inches lower there . Mr . Tourance said one figure on the diagram was incorrect and that it is a drop of 8 feet , 4 inches which puts it about 7 feet above the 30 foot height line . Mr . Frost stated that , after the notice went out to the paper , he went out to take the pictures , he and Mr . Tourance discussed that there was , perhaps , a slight error in the sketch . The hearing notice is advertised as plus or minus so that if we were not exactly within 35 foot , we are a bit higher than 35 feet . Mr . Scala said that taking the lowest point below the deck makes it 36 - 1 / 2 or something . Mr . Frost said , not to become confused , he asked Mr . Tourance how the widows walk is accessible from the house , and Mr . Tourance said it is accessible by a ladder . Mr . Frost said the ladder comes up and actually goes down the roof . Mr . Frost said that it was a nice feature , but it also adds in his mind ( though the Board may disagree ) that railing on that walk may also increase the height . Attorney Barney asked what the minus 3 feet , 5 inches actually is , to which Mr . Tourance said minus 7 . Mr . Tourance said he was ® looking for a 7 foot extension on the height due to the ground sloping . Mr . Scala Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • asked that , if the Widows Peak was included , the height is then 43 feet , and Mr . Tourance indicated that that was not correct and that he was looking for a 7 foot extension for the deck because of the slope of the ground , and apparently it is not very clear about railings . Mr . Frost said the railing on top of the Widows Walk to the lowest point of the grade on the back is a measurement . Mr . Tourance said the figure would be 7 feet for the deck , and conceivably 3 feet more for the railing , if the Board rules that the railing needs an extension . Attorney Barney said he was looking at Mr . Tourance ' s reference point at the top of the railing which is 32 feet , 11 inches . With the reference to the grade , which is minus 7 feet , if you add the two together , the total height would be 39 feet , 11 inches . Mr . Frost said that he believes that part of the miscalculation on Mr . Tourance ' s part is attributed , in part , to a fairly severe slope on the back of the house . Mr . Frost commented that other than Taughannock Boulevard , the two properties seen tonight have some of the more steeper slopes that the Board has seen for height variances . Mr . Tourance said the property was quite steep in that its grade is that it drops off 7 feet in a horizontal distance of about 12 feet . Mr . Scala inquired as to the elevation , and Mr . Tourance said it was about 800 feet above sea level . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to speak on this matter . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Mr . King stated that the Environment Assessment Form discusses soil erosion and retention and the possibility of hay bales or snow fencing . Mr . King asked Mr . Tourance if he had any discussion with the Planning Department concerning that , and Mr . Tourance indicated that he had not . Mr . Frost said that when the Planning Department was at the site , it was fairly muddy and therefore they expressed concern about the soil erosion . Mr . Frost indicated that he felt this problem was temporary , at best . Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that a negative determination of environmental significance be made based on the Environmental Assessment by Louise Raimondo on November 4 , 1993 and based on the information shown on the site plan . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Scala , Ellsworth , King , Hines , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . • Chairman Austen inquired if Mr . Tourance has any near neighbors , and Mr . Tourance stated that the nearest neighbor is a quarter of a mile away . Mr . King asked the size of the lot , and Mr . Tourance said he has two parcels , one on 18+ acres and a 3- 1 / 2 parcel . Mr . King then commented that Mr . Tourance was building on the 18 acres . Mr . Tourance said he has a 350 foot driveway . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance to the appellant , Daniel Tourance , at 221 Sand Bank Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35 - 2 - 12 , Residence District R- 30 , to permit the addition of a deck on the house under construction , creating a height from the lowest portion of the deck support to the top of the roof of approximately 40 feet ( 30 feet maximum height allowed ) , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That the house is being constructed in a generally , extremely low density residential area which does not appear to have any great possibilities of becoming much more dense that it. is now , and that the State does own land across the road . 2 ) That the grade is extremely steep . 3 ) That to construct the house with a normal amenity of a porch or deck is not an unusual or extraordinary request , and to do so and comply with the zoning ordinance , presents a practical difficulty . 4 ) That to require that the construction of the house without such an amenity presents an unnecessary hardship to the appellant . 5 ) That from the evidence presented by the photographs , diagrams , and so forth • submitted , it appears that there is no architectural discord in the neighborhood . 6 ) That the appellants formed an architecturally modest effort , not an extravagant undertaking . 7 ) That the 40 feet height includes the Widows Walk railings . 8 ) With the condition that if the Town Engineer finds it necessary to do so , Part C of the Environmental Assessment Form , as presented by the Planning Department is implemented . AYES - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , King , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF GARY C . DUFFY AND DONNA HOFSTEAD DUFFY , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE OPERATION OF THE LITTLE BROOK FARMS HORSE TRAINING FACILITY AT 340 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 68- 1- 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SHOULD AN INTERPRETATION BE MADE THAT FINDS THE OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF SAID ORDINANCE , THE APPELLANTS THEN REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT A • RIDING ACADEMY AND A FACILITY TO BOARD AND TRAIN HORSES . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • As Agent for the appellants , Mariette Geldenhuys , Esq . stated that the appellants are here tonight . Ms . Geldenhuys briefly presented some background about the property . The property is surrounded on three sides by the Country Club of Ithaca ; therefore for all practical purposes , there are no immediate neighbors to the property . She continued that the appellants conduct a horse training business on the property . She said the only contact the members of the Country Club would have with the appellants would be when they are out on the golf course , playing golf where there are some points on the course where the facility would visible . Ms . Geldenhuys said this would be the only kind of visual impact on the neighboring golf course facility . She said the club house of the Country Club is located quite a distance away . Ms . Geldenhuys said there are no residential neighbors immediately adjoining or anywhere near them in their immediate vicinity . Ms . Geldenhuys stated that the horse training operation is conducted in a barn that has been renovated and somewhat extended . She said this barn is kept in impeccable condition , and she said that she believes that the person who did the environmental assessment can attest to that . Ms . Geldenhuys stated that the barn is a very attractive facility with the barn being maintained very well . She said the barn is maintained in a way that does not create any kind of environmental hazards or , even , any kind of annoyance . Ms . Geldenhuys said the manure is collected once a day and is shipped off the premises . She continued that this is an exceedingly clean , exceeding well- run facility , and the appellants would like to extend an invitation to any members of the Board who would like to view the facility to do so , if they have not already done so . • Ms . Geldenhuys said that basically the business and training facility consists of training horses in a specially constructed riding ring that the appellants have built ( which was also submitted in the materials ) . Ms . Geldenhuys said the renovations to the barn and the riding ring and the closed paddocks were constructed at a cost of $ 96 , 000 . 00 . She said these constructions were done , pursuant to building permits issued by the Town ; and she said that , at the time , the appellants made it clear what the purpose of this was . Attorney Barney asked to clarify this because he said he was a bit puzzled . He wanted to know if a statement was made at the time that those building permits were applied for that this was going to be used for boarding rather than for horses for hire . Ms . Geldenhuys said that she felt that that is one of the issues she would like to clarify . Mr . Frost said he took exception to the statement , and that he had the building permit files with him , if Ms . Geldenhuys would like to discuss it . Ms . Geldenhuys said she would be happy to and has some questions directed to that . Mr . King asked if the $ 96 , 000 . 00 includes a trailer and some other material , not part of the real property . Ms . Geldenhuys said that was right , and there was available a statement which shows exactly how the $ 96 , 000 . 00 was arrived at . Mr . King said that , then , part of the $ 96 , 000 . 00 can drive away from the property . Ms . Geldenhuys said that was true and that not all of the improvements were immovable but that a substantial part of it is . Mr . Hines brought up the subject if this is a home occupation . Attorney Barney said that there is a discus- sion of hardship by spending the $ 96 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Hines said that was not relevant to home occupation , and Attorney Barney agreed . Ms . Geldenhuys said she would like to address the interpretation issue first , and if the Board wishes , she said she could also address the variance application at the same time . She continued that if the Board agrees with the appellants ' interpreta- tion of the ordinance , no variance will be necessary . She asked the Board to first Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • turn to the question of the interpretation of the zoning ordinance . Ms . Geldenhuys said Section 91 of the ordinance permits use in the R- 30 Residence District of space in a residence as an office for a person or a member of a profession . She continued that , as indicated in the application , Gary Duffy is a professional horse trainer . She said this is a recognized profession which is listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles at the Labor Department , which lists pretty much all professions that are recognized . Ms . Geldenhuys said that , in the application materials , she listed some of Mr . Duffy ' s accomplishments and his memberships in this field to show that he conducts this business as a professional . Ms . Geldenhuys said Mr . Duffy spends a substantial amount of time away from the property which she believes is up to three months in the winter . She said that Mr . Duffy also travels substantially in the summer . Ms . Geldenhuys said Mr . Duffy not only trains horses on his facility , but he also trains horses on other peoples ' facilities and travels in connection with horse shows . According to Ms . Geldenhuys , the activities on the premises , basically are focussed on training horses . She said up to 15 horses can be kept at this facility . And , she continued , Mr . Duffy , as a trainer , trains horses for various purposes - - for show purposes . Ms . Geldenhuys said some of the horses belong to the appellants . She said they train the horses , and they sell them as trained show horses . Ms . Geldenhuys said that there are other horses that the Duffys do not own but are at the facility to be trained . Ms . Geldenhuys stated that , first of all , the appellants are asking that their use of space in his home to conduct the paperwork and business side of the operation be considered to fall within Section 91 of the ordinance . She said other information in connection with this is set forth in the application materials . Ms . Geldenhuys said she believes the main question turns on the interpretation of Section 96 which pertains to keeping of domestic animals . She said keeping of domestic animals is permitted but prohibited under Section 96 in keeping horses for hire . The appellants ' interpretation for that provision is someone who has horses available at the premises who has customers coming in , taking the horses from the premises to go on trail rides , etc . She said there are several facilities in the area that do that , or , also someone who has horses available on the premises for people who want to learn to ride , and that is the main focus of the business . The appellants ' interpre - tation is that what the appellants were doing does not constitute having horses for hire . Ms . Geldenhuys continued that the horses are there to be trained . She said the focus is not on training riders , but on training the horses . She said the appellants do not deem that this constitutes a riding academy in any sense of the word . The horses are thoroughbred show horses , the appellants are not keeping the horses for people to bring their children in ( or whomever else wants to learn to ride ) to ride on these horses . She said that it is , of course , very important that the horses be treated very carefully and only be ridden by the appellant or by someone who is specially trained to do so . Ms . Geldenhuys concluded that that constitutes the appellants ' application for an interpretation of the ordinance that the facility , as currently run , falls within the boundary of Section 19 of the Zoning Ordinance . Ms . Geldenhuys stated that if the Board wishes , she could continue to briefly outline the basis for the application for a variance , or , otherwise , she could hold open that part of it until the Board reaches a decision on the interpretation . Chairman Austen said the Board would work on the first section to determine if this ® falls within Article V . Section 19 . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • Chairman Austen said the minutes of the December 14 , 1988 meeting were in the packet . He continued that this came before the Board on that date . Mr . King wanted to know what the application was for at that time . Chairman Austen said it was under Article V . Section 19 for a variance . Mr . Frost stated that it was for an indoor riding facility . The application stated that the applicant proposes with respect for keeping horses for hire to construct an indoor riding area and a building to exceed 15 feet in height , this building being closer than 30 foot from the lot line . He continued that said ordinance does permit the keeping of horses for hire and further requires an accessory building to be no higher than 15 feet with such a building housing horses be at least 30 feet from the lot line . He told the Board that this was basically adjourned sine die . Attorney Barney said he looked up the definition of hire which he read to all present : " To hire is the amount paid to get services of a person or a use of a thing . Hiring or being hired to get services of a person or the use of a thing in return for payment . Employed or engaged . To give the use of a thing or oneself or another in return for payment , often without . To pay for work to be done . . . . " Attorney Barney said that a home occupation is not something that is referenced . He said he believes that is a different section of the ordinance . Mr . Hines inquired as to under what section do the appellants claim this is permitted , and Attorney Barney said that it is probably under an accessory use , it is Section 19 ; where they • address the keeping of horses in Paragraph 6 , Section 19 . Attorney Barney said , as he understands it , the appellants are saying that they are claiming it is a home occupation , which is one , and they are also claiming that it is keeping of domestic animals . Attorney Barney offered the suggestion that keeping 15 horses was a little bit extreme for the keeping of domestic animals . He said that is what is permitted , that the opening phrase of what Section 19 says . Mr . King said the home occupation is Section 19 , Paragraph 1 , and Attorney Barney said it was actually Paragraph 2 of Section 19 . It was stated that the appellants claim that it is an office of a professional , and Ms . Geldenhuys agreed , stating that one of the basis for the claim could be under Subsection 1 or 2 of the home occupation or a professional office which the appellants highlighted the professional nature of the appellants ' employ- ment . Ms . Geldenhuys continued that it could be interpreted to be under a home occupation . She said that was one part of it and that the other part is the keeping of domestic animals . Ms . Geldenhuys said the appellants ' interpretation is that the horses for hire phrase there does not prohibit what the appellants are doing and are permitted to do . Attorney Barney asked Ms . Geldenhuys if she sees the distinction of having a professional office and keeping in conjunction with that profession - - 15 horses . Attorney Barney said he would put in a different context . He said a chemist is a professional , and chemists can have an office in their home - -perhaps as a professional . He continued that that does not mean that a chemist can store , in a residential neighborhood , the ingredients to make an atomic bomb . Attorney Barney said that if there is a distinction between occupying as a professional office , he is not sure there would be a problem with Mr . Duffy conducting his business as such out of his home if he wanted to maintain he is a professional and would be able to sustain it . But , Attorney Barney continued , to go the next step and say that in addition . Ms . Geldenhuys stated her response to that would be if that additional keeping of horses is permitted under another section of the ordinance as a permitted Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 use , then it would be permitted , certainly being on a whole different scale from having the materials to make an atomic bomb . Attorney Barney said the point is not made that the horses are domestic animals . He said domestic animals are like a dog or a cat or something of that nature , basically , principally for the use of the occupant of the house , and Mr . Duffy is maintaining these horses for the purposes of exercising his profession . Ms . Geldenhuys stated that the ordinance does not define domestic animals in that way . She said it certainly includes fowl which goes a bit beyond cats and dogs . Mr . Frost said that it further prohibits the keeping of horses for hire , which he thinks by definition of hire certainly is in the scope of perhaps , as this Board will conclude , being kept for hire on the property . He said you cannot keep domestic animals , and keep them for hire , and in this case , specifically horses . Ms . Geldenhuys stated that it turns on the interpretation of the phrase horses for hire . Mr . Frost then suggested that the definition of hire becomes significant . Ms . Geldenhuys said she did not believe one can look at the definition of hire on its own because then one could say anyone else who has a home occupation- -you ' re hiring their services or whatever . Mr . Frost said this was tying the word hire into the keeping of the horses , which is exactly what the Board has here . Mr . Hines stated the people are not hiring Mr . Duffy . Ms . Geldenhuys said in the training that is provided , the horses are not hired out to riders , and that , she believes , is their main contention . She said horses for hire , in their interpreta- tion , means that you are renting out the horses , somehow , and making them available to people . She continued that she reads this as talking about a riding academy or having trail horses available . Ms . Geldenhuys was asked if this was a school not a livery to which she answered that it is not a school in the sense that people are being trained to ride . She said it is a facility where horses are trained by a professional horse trainer . Mr . Frost asked what then happens to the horses once they are trained . Ms . Geldenhuys said some are sold . Mr . Frost then said they are hired because a fee is collected for them . Attorney Barney said he assumes the Duffys are paid money for training these horses , and Ms . Geldenhuys indicated that was true if the horses are not the Duffys ' own horses . She continued that some of the horses are the appellants ' own horses , and some are their own horses that they train and then subsequently sell . Attorney Barney said someone hires the Duffys to train their horse , and they keep their horse there for the purposes of accomplishing that . Attorney Barney said he believes the appellants are stretching it , and he seems to have a problem with it . Ms . Geldenhuys said that the horses are not for hire , but Mr . Duffy ' s services are for hire . She said it is not the same as saying that they have 15 horses , call us up , and come over for a trail ride , or , come over here and ride the horse . Attorney Barney said that this is not limited to a riding school ; he said it is in the context of a section which says keeping domestic animals , and you do not keep them for hire . Attorney Barney continued that it speaks of keeping kennels . Mr . Scala asked if the appellants are now conducting a riding academy . Attorney Barney said that was incorrect , and he said it is a riding facility for the horses being trained . Mr . Frost said this shows up in the yellow pages as a riding academy . Mr . Hines said , that , let ' s assume Ms . Geldenhuys ' version of the facts that it is a facility to train horses . Mr . Hines continued that the primary activity is not to keep animals for the domestication or the enjoyment of the family- -there are commercial activities going on there that transcend the concept of a domesticated animal . Mr . Hines said you can have a pet horse or a pet pig or whatever you want , but this is not really what is going on there . He said you could have two or three Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 pet horses , but this is not what is going on- - this is a commercial activity . Ms . Geldenhuys repeated that that , again , depends on the interpretation of Section 19 . 6 and it is not stated there that these animals have to be kept only as pets or only for enjoyment . Mr . Hines said that that was what you are asking the Board to interpret , and Ms . Geldenhuys indicated that was true . Ms . Geldenhuys said that that would be an aspect to be kept for the enjoyment of the family . Mr . Frost said in the yellow pages of the telephone book , it is under the section of the riding academies . Ms . Geldenhuys said her clients could not be held responsible for how the yellow pages decides how to divide things up . Elaborating on that , she said that when they get calls from people saying " I want horse lessons " or " I want to take a horse out , " they refer them on to other people and say , " No , that ' s not what we do . " Ms . Geldenhuys said that that was an inaccurate listing and that she did not think there was a listing in the yellow pages for horse trainers and continued that it just might be the organization of the yellow pages lumping us together . Ms . Geldenhuys said that is not what the appellants are in the business of doing . Mr . Frost said , that , with the appellants ' argument with regard customary home occupation , he did not know if Ms . Geldenhuys would disagree that you could not conduct this as a customary home occupation since they provide limitations that , among other things , says that above mechanical trades to be conducted in a basement of dwelling or garage not to exceed 200 square foot . Mr . Frost said that he did not believe it was practical that the appellants could even approach this then . Mr . Hines said the home occupation goes out the window when you see the facility . He said the facility is actually larger than the home . Mr . Hines said he has a lot of trouble with the keeping of domestic animals . Mr . King stated that he had no trouble with it because it means for the use of the domicile . Mr . Hines said he did not have any trouble negatively . Mr . King added that the word " hire " to him means " for pay" , whether the horse itself is hired out or the training is done . Mr . King said that is a commercial operation , which to him , is clearly not permitted under Section 19 . 6 . He said Section 19 . 6 was to permit those who have a couple of horses for their own use to have those horses and not to run a business on that property . Mr . Scala said the appellants are training horses , they are training riders . Ms . Geldenhuys said they are training the horses but not the riders . She said that Mr . Duffy rides the horses and if someone else rides the horses , it is purely incidental to training the horses . She said training the horses is the main focus . Chairman Austen asked Ms . Geldenhuys if the owner of a particular horse and could someday be riding someone else ' s horse ? Ms . Geldenhuys said that could be so , but that question might be better asked of the appellants . She said that she does know that there are people who have their horses at the facility and ride them there . Mr . Frost said that the statement of the second page of the application says some show horses are boarded there for the purpose of sale on commission or for training . He continued that also in the application is that the applicants provide riding lessons on a small scale , currently there are five students . Mr . Frost asked if that is not then a riding academy? Ms . Geldenhuys said that was a negligible part of the operation and her clients would be happy to discontinue that . Mr . Frost said that it is a riding academy , and wants to at least set the right fact . Mr . Hines addressed his attention to the yellow pages , stating that they do what they want to do . General discussion took place about the placement of an ad in the yellow pages . Mr . Scala asked Ms . Geldenhuys if the appellants were definitely training horses and she. answered that they were . He then asked her if they were being trained by the owner of the property and she answered that was correct . Mr . Scala then asked if they were Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • boarding horses to which Ms . Geldenhuys answered some . Mr . Scala said the numbers did not matter and the fact that they are doing it does . He continued to ask that some riders were being trained , trivial , but there is some training of riders going on . tis . Geldenhuys said that she guessed Mr . Scala could say that insofar as in order to train a horse , there has to be a rider on its back . She continued that this was not the focus . Mr . Scala stated , nevertheless , with all this gong on , you have a riding academy . Ms . Geldenhuys said , again , it is a matter of interpretation and the appellants do not interpret it that way because a riding academy , in our mind , the focus is on learning to ride horses , not on training the horses . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and recognized Larry Fabbroni . Mr . Fabbroni of 127 Warren Road said he is one of the closest neighbors to this facility , and he anticipates that he and his wife go by the facility at least 5 or 6 times a day . He said he has known the Duffys since they moved in , and they are the best neighbors in the neighborhood . He said he is saying that from the standpoint as themselves , as individuals , and the operation that they run there . Mr . Fabbroni said that was his opinion but any time you are looking at this ordinance , it is a difficult thing as some of the Board knows that all too well after over 20 years . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the ordinance was written in 1954 , and he said what horses for hire meant in 1954 can mean a lot of different things today and cannot mean a lot of different things today . He continued to address the Board by stating he has some comments to say that might bear on the Board ' s decision , whether the Board interprets it to be allowable under the ordinance or something the Board would entertain as a use in the neighborhood and might apply to both . Mr . Fabbroni went over the history of the area . He said as his time as both a town engineer and building inspector for the Town of Ithaca for 12 years , from 1974 to 1986 , he said he came to know this area pretty well , he moved up to the area , and he has surveyed land in the area since . He said this is one of four farms that were in the area before anything else ever came to the area . Mr . Fabbroni said that this should bear somewhat on the Board ' s decision . Mr . Fabbroni said regarding the use of horses in the area , the equine dispatcha- tory facility at Cornell University , the equine barn facilities for horses outside and inside that way exceed , in any shape or form , what is what is going on the property , and influence in a like manner the properties that are on the south side of Hanshaw Road in terms of how they might affect those properties as compared to how the golf course or neighbors of this facility might be influenced . Mr . Fabbroni continued that the Duffys have been no nuisance to the neighborhood whatsoever . Mr . Fabbroni stated that , as an owner of a 5- story barn and a 3 - story barn , that if the barns on this particular property are not put to some gainful use , they will reach the ground because if there is not some way to justify keeping those facilities up , in what is the character of the neighborhood , you will soon see them go away as an asset to the neighborhood . He believes that , being one of the four original farms in the neighborhood , it is an asset . He continued to say that when the Duffys moved in , they did spend a greater share of that $ 96 , 000 . 00 ( from his removed point-of -view because he did not know the Duffys then ) when they said they spent $ 50 , 000 . 00 on that property , Mr . Fabbroni was surprised that it was only $ 50 , 000 . 00 that went in to upgrading the two barns and the house because it had been in an elderly man ' s hands and it had been in an estate for some time and it needed repairs . • Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 ® Mr . Fabbroni said that in terms of the nuisance that the horses might offer to the golf course or to the neighbors , he said he believes the reverse is really true . He said the nuisance of the lawn mowers mowing the greens at 5 : 50 in the morning are a lot more of a nuisance to anybody in the neighborhood than horses would ever be to the late-night activities that go on at the Country Club or the golfers that pass on either side of this property to go across Warren Road . He continued that , if you really wanted to look at nuisance , he said he experiences the same thing at the Cornell Golf Course . He said he has the best alarm clock in the world at 5 : 30 , 50 feet away from his bedroom window . He said he is sure the same thing goes on at the Duffys ' , whether it is the tee that you drive off from just north of their property or across the road . Mr . Fabbroni said that this is a recreational business , if you are going to consider it a business of sorts , and the Board has to come to grips with that decision in time , it is a recreational business - - there is recreation going on around it in terms of the golf course and , as he said he mentioned , the equine farm . Mr . Fabbroni said it is very compatible with what district its in , what ' s been shown in the Comprehensive Plan that this property is a recreation . Mr . Fabbroni said that it is certainly not out of the realm of what the Town has in mind for the next 20 years . Mr . Fabbroni said that he would submit to the Board ( stating that the staff is certainly entitled to its own interpretation of the ordinance , and that is one of the reasons why you come to these hearings ) , that in his 12 years with the Town that really what people were concerned about when they said horses for hire was the nuisance or the smell or something that could result from an activity like pig farms and the like . Mr . Fabbroni said that , from where some of the Board members live , a pig farm could also be a well - kept operation . Mr . Fabbroni said that this operation , by his observation , is the most best kept facility you will ever go to . He said the ® manure , and he knows this for a fact , is removed on a daily basis . He said there is no manure pile there in the back yard that is going to be offensive to anyone who is playing golf or in any other shape or form . Mr . Fabbroni said , to repeat , in 1954 , horses for hire meant one thing ; he said it is the same phraseology in the ordinance and it has not been addressed , although it should be addressed and that is why you have to have these kinds of deliberations . Mr . King asked Mr . Fabbroni how far is Mr . Fabbroni ' s house from this operation , and Mr . Fabbroni said it was about . 6 of a mile . Mr . King said Mr . Fabbroni said this was a farm , and he said to Mr . Fabbroni that this is only what is left of the original farm , 1 . 7 acres . Mr . Fabbroni said that his home is one of the original properties- -the Warren Farm and the adjacent farm . He said this is one of the other buildings that was a farm at one time . Mr . Fabbroni said that the other farmhouse the board sees , about halfway between his and the DuffysI , is the third farmhouse , with a fourth one on Hanshaw Road . Mr . King identified this property as having been owned by the Sharpes ' . Mr . Fabbroni agreed and said that it was on the adjacent farm which ironically the Country Club bought the rest of the farm . Mr . Fabbroni stated that his point was that it was a farm at one time , and it was not in continuous use by virtue of the Sharpes , but it does pertain somewhat to the uses the Board is deliberating over . He said he was trying to tell the Board that everyone else moved into the neighborhood . Mr . Hines stated that this amplifies the need for a legislative action , not the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals action . Discussion followed relative to the what the legislature should be reviewing as opposed to an administrative board . Mr . Hines said that if one wants to preserve this kind of activity and the concerns of the neighborhood , he believes they are legislative concerns , rather than interpretive considerations . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • Mr . Scala asked if he understood that Little Brook Farms is the name of the facility to which Ms . Geldenhuys indicated that it was . Mr . Scala asked if it was a continuation of a farm? Mr . King answered that most of the rest of the farm is the Country Club . Mr . Scala said that this was a continuation of a farm , and Mr . King said that according to the Town ' s ordinances , it is not a farm . He said it takes a minimum of 3 acres to be a farm , under the definition of Section 1 of the ordinance . Betty Fabbroni said that she lives at 127 Warren Road and she wanted to compliment what Larry Fabbroni said . She said she passes the Duffy house at least 10 times a day . She went on to say that , as far as the effect this house and / or barn has had on the neighborhood , it is very minimal . Mrs . Fabbroni said you would not consider it a business from the road . She said there is no traffic , and within her knowledge , every time she passed the four horse trailers sitting out there , she has not seen children dropped off there . She drops her child off to visit and she has seen adults go in with children , and she thinks these may be the ones who take the riding lessons , possibly with a couple of others . Mrs . Fabbroni said she asked Mrs . Duffy if they gave lessons and Mrs . Duffy said that they did not , that that was not the purpose of the facility . She said she guesses that the Duffys allow the people who board there to have lessons , but Mrs . Fabbroni ' s children do not take lessons , but they do let her daughter ride on one of the horses . Mrs . Fabbroni said that she has never been in barn where there is not a smell , and this is certainly a very professional establishment in that it is not a place where one goes and thinks of horses for hire or riding lessons . Mrs . Fabbroni thinks that if the Board has " academy " in there , it is entirely wrong . Mrs . Fabbroni told the Board that you actually see only a couple of horses outside grazing and it is very well maintained . • She said that she knows that Forest Home is a very small community and women meet on a regular basis , particularly discussing the history of the community . She said that that particular farm boarded horses , just as the Fabbroni barn did . She said she knows there is a history of boarding horses in that barn . Mrs . Fabbroni said it certainly fits into the community with the Cornell horse trailers . Mr . King asked Mrs . Fabbroni to elaborate on her statement that she had never been in a barn where there was not a smell . Mrs . Fabbroni said that you can walk in this barn and it is immaculate . Mr . King asked if Mrs . Fabbroni said that there is no smell in this barn . She answered that there is no offensive smell . She suggested that he walk through this barn because it is immaculate . She said she has never seen anyone work so hard in their life as do the Duffys . Mrs . Fabbroni said it is an exceptional place and an addition to the neighborhood . Mr . Scala said , not realizing the limitation of 3 acres , that when you go there , it looks like a farm , it acts like a farm , it smells like a farm- - it is a farm . He said if you look at the barns , and they are all classic , even to the extent of having a Burgess clothing sign on there ( which is as much character for farmland in this area as you can possibly get ) and that ' s tradition . Chairman Austen said that was certainly a farm at one time . Mr . Scala said that he did not understand what the argument is because this area was created into an R- 30 , but it never changed . Mr . Scala said it grandfathers , but Attorney Barney said that it does not because , for a non- conforming use , it would have to be used continuously . Mr . Scala asked that it was not listed on the tax rolls as a farm , and Attorney Barney said that he is telling Mr . Scala that it has not been operated as a horse training facility . Mr . Scala stated that he bets that it is still on the tax book as a farm and are still paying for it as a farm . Mr . King said that , in 1957 , most of the farm , the land was conveyed to the Country Club , Mr . Scala said that he could bet that they traded it Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • for a much less desirable group- golfers . Mr . Frost said that it seems to him that some of the statements the Board is hearing would lend themselves to an argument to consider granting the variance , but he thinks the Board will have to decide whether the Town has an issue to say there is no problem or there is an issue that requires a variance . Mr . Frost said there have been good points made , but he asked if they were relevant to what the Board has to decide at this meeting ; he said they are relevant if the Board is entertaining the granting of the variance . Chairman Austen suggested the Board go back to Article V . He said the Board should see if there is a home occupation , an office , and the Board can go one step at a time . Chairman Austen said the public hearing is still open , and he asked for any more comments . Mr . Fabbroni said that he would like to verify that Mr . Duffy is a world- class trainer . He continued that , from his observations , Mr . Duffy is absent from the home numerous times of the year- -as far south as Florida and as far west as Oklahoma . Mr . Fabbroni said these were facts , not contentions , in the interaction of their two children . Chairman Austen said the Board could assume that Mr . Duffy is a professional trainer . Mr . Frost wanted to clarify the statement that the Town somehow was aware of what the Duffys were doing by the building permit the office issued . He said that attached in the packets for mailing is a copy of the first permit issued . He continued to say that , the first permit was to essentially reconnect the barns , as apparently , according to the building permit , was an existing connection which was torn down in 1990 because it was unsound structurally . Mr . Frost said the permit that was issued at that time was to basically reconnect the two barns . He said the • Certificate of Occupancy that was issued upon completion of that particular project only , and nothing more than that , certified that the building permit was to connect the two barns . Mr . Frost said the second permit was issued and the Town held up the Certificate of Occupancy pending the resolve of this issue as to whether the property is or is not in violation , was for the addition of a bathroom into the existing barn . Mr . Frost said there has been a lot of dialogue , both in writing and verbal , telephone , and personal conversations with the Duffys with regard with what has been somewhat of a persistent complaint from the Country Club in that there was something more commercial going on . Mr . Frost said he is not making judgment as to whether there is or not , but there has been this constant dialogue , trying to make it clear as to what is going on . Mr . Frost said that his office has been led to believe there were no riding lessons , no boarding of horses , et cetera , other than for their own personal use . Mr . King asked if an office was maintained in the house or in the barn . Mr . Duffy said the office was in the house . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen asked the Board to look at Article 19 , Paragraph 1 which recognizes the office of a professional and the profession or quasi -profession . Mr . Scala asked if he understood that the property was acquired in 1986 and operated in the same way since 1986 . Ms . Geldenhuys said it has been owned for seven years and further stated that the operation has been in its current form for the past three years , since 1990 . Mr . Frost said that he believes the change was initiated when Asbury Hill closed . Mrs . Duffy agreed with that statement . Mr . Frost said that , at one point , some of the information the Town had was that Mr . Duffy was providing his Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 services at Asbury Hill Faun in Lansing which has since closed . Mr . Duffy said that I s why the yellow pages are the same in the telephone book . Mr . Duffy said they had no control over the telephone company , and Chairman Austen said you may not have any control where the telephone company puts it , but the Duffys would have control in what it says . Mr . Duffy spoke about his advertising with Asbury Hill Farms at which he had 45 stalls and a ring which abruptly closed on him . Chairman Austen asked if the ad was just carried over from that , and Mr . Duffy said it was . Mr . Duffy talked about his ads in the Ithaca Journal and the telephone book which were a quarter of a page and some were half of a page . Mr . Frost said that as a Zoning Officer he is not taking that much issue as to where it is listed in the telephone book , but during some of the conversations he had with Mr . Duffy , the situation changed from having riding lessons to not having riding lessons , to having riding lessons , and now , there is a written statement from Mr . Duffy and his attorney that there are five students having riding lessons . Mr . Frost said that if this Board wants to define it as a riding academy or otherwise , there are lessons being conducted . Mrs . Duffy said that changed when Asbury Hill closed . Mrs . Duffy said that when they talked with Mr . Frost ' s office , the Duffys were using Asbury Hill Farms , and so there wasn ' t anything . Ms . Duffy said they still maintain it as a private facility . Mrs . Duffy said they still maintain that 90 percent of the horses are not theirs and she said they own way too many for their own family enjoyment . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . • RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a determination that the use of the property at 340 Warren Road , as described in the application and as articulated by Ms . Geldenhuys and others before the Board , is not the customary home occupation as described in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Section 1 , Subdivision 2 and also not in use under Section 1 , Subdivision 1 is with the following findings : 1 ) That the activity occurs almost exclusively outside of , but not entirely outside of the residential building . 2 ) That the occupation occurs outside the home in structures larger than otherwise required in the home . 3 ) That , by itself , without further finding is excluded as a home occupation , regardless of the professional character of Mr . Duffy which is not an issue . Mr . King asked if Mr . Hines ' reference is to Section 19 , Subdivision 2 . Mr . Hines said that or Subdivision 1 . Mr . Hines agreed with that or he said with Subdivision 1 . Attorney Barney , Mr . King and Mr . Frost all expressed some views on the matter . Mr . Frost said he feels Paragraph 1 is involved with professional offices and Paragraph 2 deals with the home occupation . He further said that Paragraph 1 limits it to the home and Paragraph 2 would allow it to be in the basement of the home or in the garage , not exceeding 200 square feet . Mr . Hines said he had Paragraph 1 in mind , but he would be willing to stipulate Paragraph 2 . Mr . King explained that it would better to keep it at Section 19 . 2 because of Mr . Duffy having an office for his business in the house , absent from his going outside to train horses . Therefore , Mr . King said the operation of training the horses , et cetera is not a customary home ® operation . Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • Mrs . Duffy stated that she was not sure as to what was being said , but that she wanted to say that if the Board was- saying that the operation could stand without the house , it is not true . Mr . Hines told her that there is nothing wrong with maintain- ing a professional office in the house to do the paperwork . He said the Board is talking about the horses . Mr . Scala said he was abstaining on the motion because he did not understand what the Board was doing . Chairman Austen explained to Mr . Scala that the motion states that it is not a customary home occupation under Article 19 , Section 1 or 2 . Mr . Scala asked if the Board was going to surround the appeal and wanted to know why this is being brought up . Attorney Barney said that this was the question of interpretation , and therefore , the Board was making a determination . Mr . Frost said that a professional office will be permitted under Paragraph 1 but that is not to suggest that the entire operation is allowed under Paragraph 1 , Section 19 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , King , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - None . ABSTENTION - Scala . The motion carried that it does not meet Article 19 , Section 2 . Mr . Scala asked if this now says that Mr . Duffy does not have a profession or is exercising it . Mr . Frost explained that this goes beyond what would be permitted • under Paragraph 1 . Mr . King said that the question is what is a permitted accessory use in a R- 30 Residential Zone . He said the operation that has been described to the Board ( boarding 15 horses and training some of them ) is not such an operation that Section 19 . 1 alludes to as office of a professional . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the operation of the appellants , Gary and Donna Duffy , on this 1 . 75 acre parcel at 340 Warren Road , Tax Parcel No . 68- 1 - 2 , as described in the application and the supporting documents and the testimony that has been heard , does not constitute a permitted accessory use in Residence District R- 30 within the meaning of Section 19 , Subdivision 6 of the ordinance in that the domestic animals kept there are mainly for the purpose of training these horses for profit or for payment and that the intensity of that use where the evidence indicates that there are as many as 15 horses maintained there , far exceeds the intent or the parameters of Subdivision 6 in permitting the keeping of domestic animals . Mr . Scala asked if Green Heron Farms was not a R- 30 District . Mr . Frost said Green Heron Farms said there were some legal non- conforming rights , including the barn . Mr . Frost said that his recollection was that it was used for horse riding lessons for many , many years , under Frank Page . Mr . Frost said there was a little different angle on that property . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Town of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals November 101 1993 • AYES - Hines , King , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - Scala . The motion carried that it does not meet Article 19 , Section 6 . Mr . Hines asked that before the Board goes any father regarding the variance that he would like to reiterate what he had said before - - in that the Town Board has a lot of things on their minds . He said this Zoning Board of Appeals constantly runs across zoning problems and is asked to address legislative matters . He continued that , relative to the Duffy appeal , whether this is an attractive , useful activity within the Warren Road area , he said it is something Hoard members consider when the Board is dealing with a variance . Mr . Hines said it is something the legislature can consider when amending the zoning ordinance , sport zoning problems . He asked if the appellant wants to talk to the Town Board . Mr . King asked if Mr . Hines meant the appellant wants to talk to the Town Board about re - zoning on 1 . 75 acres , and Mr . Hines discussed the involvement of this Board getting involved in spot zoning character situations . He continued that he is not articulating or arguing for the appellants , but he said a strong argument could be made relative to this is a case for spot zoning . Attorney Barney asked if he meant this spot zoning to be within the context of a recreational area , and Mr . Hines said that that was what he meant because of the golf course . Even though Mr . Hines said he knows the negative arguments , he suggested that the appellants think about re - zoning . He said he was very sympathetic to the problem . Mr . King said the facility was very beautiful , and he has no problem with that ; however , he said he did find there is a lot of runoff from the yard onto the golf course . Mrs . Duffy asked if that finding was on the report , and she was told that it was stated that the potential was there . She said the pond from which the stream comes from is on the Equine Research Park which has 40 horses turned out in that paddock with the pond site . She said that Cornell pointed this out to her because Cornell asked that the appellants do not use any of the water because the water is runoff from 40 horses that are turned out there . Mr . Hines suggested the appellants might want to confer with the Town Attorney regarding a different approach . Attorney Barney stated that , with the election results , he said that he could not comfortably suggest what the Town Board would choose to do . He said the Town Board has had a fairly consistent position against re - zoning generally , until the Comprehensive Plan was completed . Attorney Barney said the Board is now embarking on the process of reviewing the zoning ordinance . He said he did not feel that it was something that was going to happen tomorrow or next week because the Town Board is envisioning a fairly extensive review which will take some time . He said that , in his opinion , any major re- zoning would not happen for a year or two . Mr . Hines agreed that that was probably true , and he did not have that in mind , but he was thinking what was consistent with the segment of zoning now , the negative aspects of a finding that the variance is not warranted . Mr . King asked if there has not been any such finding by this Board , and Mr . Hines answered that that was true and that he was thinking aloud to the applicants and that it would be less burdensome for them to proceed with a clean slate . Attorney Barney said there has been some isolated rezonings such as Hospicare , and the Town Board is looking very seriously at rezoning for Ithacare . Mrs . Duffy asked if re - zoning was being looked at for Walter Wiggins , and Attorney Barney answered that that had been a Special Lane Use district for quite a while and all they did was to alter the requirements that Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • related to that , so they did rezone any additional land at the time . Attorney Barney said that there might have been one for Cornell , but he does not recall off- hand , since the inception of the Comprehensive Plan , there has not been any re - zoning for a private appellant . Attorney Barney stated that , although he does not know what the Board ' s ultimate decision will be , he assumes the appellants are aware that it was recommended that a positive declaration of environmental significance be found . Mrs . Duffy said they were not aware of this . Board members agreed that the appellants should get one and review it because , if the Board makes a positive finding , it would pose an additional burden on them . Attorney Barney explained that , if the Board follows the recommenda- tion that it would require the preparation of an environmental impact statement which is , or can be , sometimes a fairly expensive proposition . Attorney Barney said that he feels it is important for the appellants to know what the recommendation was ahead of time even though the Board may choose not to follow the recommendation found by planning . Mrs . Duffy asked if this would be more elaborate than what the woman did who came out to see the area . Attorney Barney explained that this would be basically spending some time and money , first off of what ought to be covered by the statement , and once that ' s determined , hire the appropriate expertise to review it . Mr . Hines said he agreed with Attorney Barney that Attorney Geldenhuys should have the Short Environmental Assessment Form available . Attorney Geldenhuys asked if they could have an adjournment to review this . Attorney Barney said it is interesting that in the case from 1988 was adjourned indefinitely for the very same thing . Attorney Barney said it was adjourned in 1988 for the purpose that the Duffys come before the Board with a completed long EAF form . Discussion followed as to the differences between the long form and the short form . It was ascertained that a long form was required only if the action is classified as a Type I action . Attorney Geldenhuys said that she would like the opportunity to study the SEQR statement and prepare a response to that . Discussion followed relative to a date to which the Board should adjourn the matter to . Attorney Barney said that since the golf course has , for years , pestered him about this matter , he would like to see this resolved . Mr . King suggested that the Board not make a positive declaration , but require the submission of a long form environmental assessment . Attorney Barney said that since the Board has the recommendation , the Board can override it . He said that he was not that sure that the recommendation of Ms . Raimondo would change that much in the long form . He said that he did not think that anything that would be disclosed in the long form would be anything to change her recommendations . Attorney Barney continued that he felt Ms . Raimondo went out , looked and studied . By giving a copy of the form to the applicants , Mr . Hines said that it would be fair to the applicant to have them see it . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that the Board move to adjourn the Duffy matter until January 12 , 1994 . AYES - King , Hines , Ellsworth , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . • Town of Ithaca 25 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 • The meeting adjourned at 9 : 40 P . M . ILk An !AC4 Roberta H . Komaromi Recording Secretary iIc Edward Austen , C ai an • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 10 , 1993 7 . 00 P . H . 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 , November 10 , 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 STEVEN MAUK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 13 , SECTION 65 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF 7 FEET 6 INCHES + ( MAXIMUM 6 FEET HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 147 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 57 - 1 - 33 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE FENCE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S REAR YARD AND WILL RUN ALONG THE SIDE LOT LINES . APPEAL OF RICHARD BOYD AND BARBARA KOSLOWSKI , APPELLANTS , AMY NETTLETON , 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 CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A NON- CONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 18 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 17 - 3- 31 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE UTILIZED AS A CHILDREN ' S PLAYHOUSE AND WILL HAVE A HEIGHT OF 20 + FEET ( 15 FEET HEIGHT LIMITATION • REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCESS HEIGHT , AS WELL AS TO PERMIT THE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S SIDE YARD , WHEREAS SUCH STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ONLY . APPEAL OF DANIEL TOURANCE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 221 SAND BANK ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35 - 2 - 12 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS EXCEEDED WHEN MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE NEAR A PROPOSED WOOD DECK ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE AND MEASURED TO THE " WIDOWS WALK " LOCATED ON THE BUILDING ' S ROOF . APPEAL OF GARY C . DUFFY AND DONNA HOFSTEAD DUFFY , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE OPERATION OF THE LITTLE BROOK FARMS HORSE TRAINING FACILITY AT 340 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 68- 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SHOULD AN INTERPRETATION BE MADE THAT FINDS THE OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF SAID ORDINANCE , THE APPELLANTS THEN REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT A RIDING ACADEMY AND A FACILITY TO BOARD AND TRAIN HORSES . 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 : November 2 , 1993 Publish : November 5 , 1993