HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1994-05-25 FIUD
TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (� V
WEDNESDAY , MAY 25 , 1994 Date
• ClerkL
4
NAL
The followingappeals were heard b the Board on May 25 1994 :
PP Y Y
APPEAL of Bartholomew and Bernadette Corsaro , Appellants , Edward Mazza , Esquire ,
Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing residential building with a 9 foot
west side yard building setback ( 10 foot side yard setbacks required ) at 216 East
King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 4 . 42 ', Residence District R - 15 .
GRANTED .
APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer , Appellant , Peter Newell , Agent , requesting a variance from
Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
construct a single family residence with a building height of 39 ± feet ( 30 foot
maximum height allowed ) at 130 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
43 - 1 - 3 . 11 , Residence District R - 15 .
• GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS .
1
AAD
70" OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA (;
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date, a�S I yr
• WEDNESDAY , MAY 251 1994 Clerk�n% NO` r)CX
PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Edward King , Town Attorney John
C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost .
OTHERS : Edward A . Mazza ( Attorney for Bartholomew and Bernadette Corsaro ) , Peter
Newell ( Architect for Evan Monkemeyer ) , J . Thomas Brenna .
Chairman Edward Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 15 PM and stated that
all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed
and the same were in order .
The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows :
APPEAL of Bartholomew and Bernadette Corsaro , Appellants , Edward Mazza ,
Esquire , Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing residential
building with a 9 foot west side yard building setback ( 10 foot side yard
setbacks required ) at 216 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
44 - 1 - 4 . 42 , Residence District R- 15 .
Chairman Austen asked Edward Mazza to give a short rundown of the appeal . Mr .
Mazza said he is representing the Corsaro ' s , and it has come to their attention that
• there is a side yard setback deficiency of 1 foot . The Corsaro ' s purchased this
property a couple of years ago ; and , at that time , they had obtained and reviewed the
Certificate of Compliance from the Town of Ithaca . Since they didn ' t look any fur -
ther as to whether there were any variances granted for this setback or not , they
assumed that all was well with it . What happened is , evidently , when the house was
built by a fellow by the name of Driscoll , they intended a setback of about 12 feet
and there was a mistake made and they built it at 9 feet . It was built in 1988 ,
finished , and got a certificate on January 20 , 1989 .
Mr . Mazza said , oddly enough , there was a survey map done at that time which
was originally dated January 3 , 1989 and then amended January 20 , 1989 . Mr . Mazza
said , as he understands it , the amendment was to show the location of the 10 ' sani -
tary sewer easement in the back . The 9 ' designation was there at that time , and the
pins were obviously there . Mr . Mazza said this was obviously an honest mistake and
the Corsaro ' s are not intending to create a larger deficiency than exists now and
they want to leave it as is . The property has existed for five or six years , and Mr .
Mazza thought that Mr . Frost has a photograph of the property ( the photo was then
passed around to members of the board ) . There is no building on the lot next door ,
and it is Mr . Mazza ' s belief that there will not be any damage done to the neighbor
to the west where this encroaches for the simple reason that it is only a 1 foot
deficiency and they could locate their structure adequately enough that there won ' t
be a problem .
Mr . King asked what the width of the lot to the west was and Mr . Mazza said
probably 100 ' , and he believed they were all approximately 100 ' feet in that area .
Mr . King said it looks like 90 something feet ( he couldn ' t tell ) , and Mr . Mazza said
is the Corsaro ' s lot is 100 ' and he thinks they ' re all approximately 100 ' in the front .
Mr . Ellsworth said , and the back is 94 ' and asked what the W 100 was . Mr . Mazza said
that ' s 100 ' in the front at the highway right - of -way . Mr . Mazza said , obviously , the
cost for them to remove this deficiency would be extensive ; they ' d have to take down
one foot of the garage , and he believes that would be a serious hardship to them .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 25 , 1994
• Mr . Mazza said requiring them to remove the deficiency by tearing down one foot of
the garage would be too much to ask of them , especially since they relied in good
faith on a Certificate of Compliance that they had viewed at the time they purchased
the property . Mr . Mazza said he ' s requesting that the board grant them a variance .
Mr . King asked how long Mr . Mazza ' s clients had owned the property , and Mr .
Mazza replied since December 9 , 1992 . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the side setback was in
effect at that time . Mr . Frost said what they had was a plot plan , and Mr . Ellsworth
asked if the required side setback was a new thing since that time . Mr . Frost said
the 10 ' side setback has been in effect since the 1960 ' s . Chairman Austen said ,
obviously , the town never did get the survey map before the certificate was issued
and , if they had , that would have been another issue . Mr . Mazza said that ' s true and
the pins were obviously there because the survey was done January 9 . Chairman Austen
said it would be hard to judge 1 ' and Mr . Mazza said that was his point exactly and
he believes this was an honest mistake . Chairman Austen said unless it was the
telephone pole , there was no marking there or at least it wasn ' t a marked , identified
stake that is normally used today and you certainly wouldn ' t expect someone to site
down and be able to see 1 ' deficiency .
Mr . Mazza said he wasn ' t putting any blame on anybody but was just trying to
indicate that the Corsaro ' s made a good faith reliance ; he wasn ' t trying to blame
anyone for the mistake and honestly believes that the town should make it a require -
ment for any new construction ( where it ' s within 5 ' of the intended setback ) to have
a surveyor to locate it on the lot . Chairman Austen said that the board had talked
• about that . Mr . Ellsworth asked if there was a survey of the property before it
changed hands , and Mr . Mazza said yes . Mr . Ellsworth asked if there was a lawyer
involved , and Mr . Mazza said yes . Mr . Ellsworth stated then that something had
gotten overlooked , that he didn ' t know exactly what lawyers do at closings but had
some idea of what he thought they ' re supposed to do and Mr . Mazza could educate him
on that . Mr . Mazza said that everyone involved relied on the certificate and asked
to read a small portion of what the certificate says . Mr . Ellsworth said he had read
the certificate .
Mr . Mazza said that the certificate states that this building conforms to the
requirements for the location and use provided by the zoning ordinance . Mr .
Ellsworth asked , according to what ? Mr . Mazza continued , . . . and to the approved
plans and specifications and to the requirements of the building code and all other
laws and ordinances , rules and regulations applicable to a building of its class and
kind at the time the permit was issued . Mr . Ellsworth wanted to make sure he under -
stood that correctly and said , so the town looks at what somebody gives them and sees
that what they see on paper meets their requirements , is that right ? Mr . Frost said
that was correct . Mr . Mazza said there were several inspections that were done along
the way , as well . Mr . Frost said right and , in fact , they did a stakes inspection
which is something they require . The policy has been modified within the last sev-
eral years so that they now require a stakes inspection when the building is within
3 ' of the minimum setback required . In this particular case , Mr . Frost said they did
a stakes inspection on April 22 , 1988 ,
Mr . Frost said they had a case ( and this was before Mr . Ellsworth was on the
Zoning Board of Appeals ) where they did a stakes inspection , measured from the
stakes , and the next thing they found out , at the end of the project , that the
building was too close . The developer , who was also the property owner at the time ,
argued that someone moved the stakes on him . Mr . Frost said he thought then , in
these cases , sometimes you don ' t get anywhere fast . He said his only comment was
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 25 , 1994
• that , somewhere about 1989 ( actually several months after they issued the
certificate ) , they changed the certificate to call it a Certificate of Compliance .
Mr . Frost said he wasn ' t trying to point a finger of blame on anyone either , but he
always urges people when buying a house to get a current Certificate of Compliance
because it then requires them to go back and see something fairly immediately when
that certificate is being issued rather than to rely on something that was issued 3
to 4 years ago . Mr . Ellsworth said now you can ' t find the stakes , and Mr . Frost said
not only can ' t you find the stakes , but things change .
Mr . King .asked who knows where the lot line is and if Mr . Mazza ' s clients mow
right up to the lot line . Mr . Mazza said he had no idea where they mow to in rela -
tion to the lot line . Mr . Frost said he thought , judging from the pictures , about
91 . Mr . Ellsworth said , how will they know where my lot line is because the stakes
in the front of my property are probably under sod somewhere and the ones in the
back , after a stream goes along a little bit , you can ' t find them . Mr . Frost said
probably with the drainage system for your house and the roof gutters , it would prob -
ably vary to 15 ' .
Mr . King asked , if the Certificate of Compliance or Occupancy had been based
upon a variance for that 9 ' instead of 10 ' , would the certificate indicate that ? Mr .
Frost said , would it indicate that there was a variance granted ? Mr . King said yes ,
and Mr . Frost said he would say that it does but couldn ' t guarantee that always
happens . Usually , they will note when they issue a certificate if there was a vari -
ance given or whether the property is nonconforming , or otherwise . They try to high -
light that on a certificate when it ' s issued . Mr . King said but that ' s not always
• done , and Mr . Frost said he would say 99 % of the time it ' s done and it ' s generally
something they try to do and have done since he came to work there . Mr . King said ,
on reading that certificate , you might think that ' s one of the 1 % and Mr . Frost
asked , for which there was a variance ? Mr . King said , if you look at the certificate
in the survey , you might think that was the 1 % where it was approved because of the
variance .
Mr . Ellsworth said when you look at the stakes , there ' s no line between them - -
there ' s a stake in the front , a stake in the back , and you can only tell down by the
house . Mr . Frost said they also put the rope between the lines , but not always . Mr .
Frost said , again , we record and you don ' t always see this if we ' ve done a stakes
inspection because we did have a close setback . We go out , and we require that
stakes inspection . If someone is showing a 50 ' setback and 15 ' is required , then
they wouldn ' t spend the time but this , apparently , was done on April 22nd . So ,
whether something moved or whether they erred , Mr . Frost said he couldn ' t answer
that .
Mr . King said this being an R - 15 district , the usual requirement is 15 ' on each
side except where you have a garage , you can go down to 10 ' . He asked if that ' s an
attached garage , and Mr . Frost said attached or detached . Mr . King said if a total
of 30 ' is required and you have a 100 ' lot next door , that leaves 70 ' for the housing
and you would still have 15 ' side yards , correct ? Mr . Frost said that was correct
and this house , in fact , was shown on the plan to be 40 ' wide and the garage was
shown to be 16 ' . Chairman Austen said that was roughly 24 ' to 28 ' on the east side .
Mr . King said yes , there was more room on the east side . Mr . King said it would seem
that the lot to the west can be improved without substantial hardship or loss .
Chairman Austen said if it is a loss , it would be 1 ' . Mr . King said it isn ' t really
a loss because he would still have to build from his lot lines 15 ' in . He ' d just
have this garage 1 ' closer to his house which doesn ' t seem like a great hardship as
long as he can see it ' s there .
4
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 25 , 1994
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to
speak on this matter . With no comments , he then closed the public hearing .
Mr . Frost asked Mr . Ellsworth if surveys were typically done to the building
wall or to the roof , and would the roof overhang be part of the surveys on the side
of the building . Mr . Ellsworth said to ask the lawyers but it would be to the edge
of the building and not the roof overhang . Mr . Frost said rather than the overhang ,
it was better to measure from the building foundation and Mr . Ellsworth said , yes ,
because that ' s down at the ground and that ' s where you can measure . Mr . King said
surveyors will show those when they seem to hang over the property line and they note
the inclusion . Mr . Frost said we do allow a 2 ' and 3 ' overhang and some houses have
that much but , typically , they survey from the foundation .
Mr . Ellsworth asked how far the house next door was from the lot line and if it
was quite a ways . Mr . Mazza said there is no house next door and that ' s what he was
saying , they could locate it in a way that ' s not going to hurt them . Chairman Austen
said they shouldn ' t have to locate that house any different than the ordinance calls
for . Mr . Mazza said that ' s true but they were not asking to create this , it ' s an
accident that happened .
For the record , Chairman Austen read the Tompkins County Department of Planning
letter dated May 23 , 1994 and signed by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning .
Mr . Frost said there is no Environmental Assessment Form on this because this
is a setback variance which does not require it . However , because it is on a county
road , they send the form up to county planning .
Chairman Austen said , if there were no other questions , he would ask for a
motion on the variance .
MOTION
By Mr , Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicants , Bartholomew and Bernadette
Corsaro ( Edward Mazza , Esquire , Agent ) a variance from Article IV , Section 14
of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to maintain an existing
residential building with a one foot deficiency in the west side yard ( with a 9
foot west side yard building setback instead of the 10 foot side yard setbacks
required ) at 216 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 4 . 42 ,
Residence District R - 15 , with the following findings :
1 . The applicants might have been misled by the fact that a Certificate of
Compliance had been issued January 20 , 1989 for the property as built
( prior to their purchase of the property on December 9 , 1992 ) .
2 . Upon noting that the property most affected by this would be the vacant
building lot adjacent on the west side which appears to have a width of
® approximately 100 ' . The fact that this building is one foot closer to
that common lot line than it should ordinarily be under the ordinance
does not deprive any owner of the property to the west the opportunity of
building a substantial house on his lot and does not take one foot away
from this lot .
5
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
3 . It would be an undue hardship and burden on the owners to try to correct
these deficiencies ( they would have to saw off one foot of their garage ) .
4 . The owners are presently in the process of selling the home in order to
move to Rochester , New York .
5 . Having dealt with the considerations set forth in Section 267 - B of the
Town law .
Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The second appeal to be heard by the Board was the following :
APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer , Appellant , Peter Newell , Agent , requesting a
variance from Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance , to
be permitted to construct a single family residence with a building height of
• 39 ± feet ( 30 foot maximum height allowed ) at 130 East King Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 - 3 . 11 , Residence District R- 15 .
Mr . Newell stated that Mr . Monkemeyer is building on a lot at 130 East King
Road and wanted to note that it ' s an R - 15 zone , but he ' s building on the lot as if it
were an R - 30 zone giving 30 , 000 square foot at 150 versus 100 ' with the frontage ,
etc . The issue why they ' re here today is the definition of where they would take the
building height from . Ninety percent of the perimeter and grade level of this build -
ing is 29 ' and , most likely , going to be closer to 28 ' in reality around the
property . There is approximately 10 ' or 12 ' of basement wall that has glass and a
sliding door that would be exposed to what they are now , he guessed , forced to call a
lower level .
Mr . Newell said architecturally , by putting a set of Bilco doors in , they could
solve this and it would be easily categorized as a 28 ' or 29 ' building though the
client , for a few reasons , would prefer to be able to have a walk - out on grade to the
back yard for things such as : 1 ) Storage of lawn mowers and equipment and such ; 2 )
To allow some more light into the basement ( if you notice , there are not alot of win -
dows into the basement ) ; 3 ) The difficulty of the site - There ' s a gentle slope ,
probably from one end to the other of about 7 feet give or take . It could be more ,
actually , but Mr . Newell just wanted to give a safe figure ; and , 4 ) They ' re putting a
considerable amount of fill on the rear of the building to allow it to be considered
a 29 ' building height .
Mr . Newell felt the issue was whether the Board would permit them to carve out
a small slot in the back to allow an on - grade basement door essentially versus a
® Bilco door with a set of steps . Mr . Newell then asked if the Board had any questions
and thought that might be a better way to approach this .
6
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 25 , 1994
Mr . King asked what the door was Mr . Newell had referred to , a Bilco door ? Mr .
Newell said a Bilco was double doors opening up to a set of steps or even ,
potentially , a set of steps down to a small landing - - you could still consider that
a basement . Mr . Newell said ( understanding the definition of the local ordinance ) if
he has any on - grade exit from a basement , then that becomes a lower level and ergo it
becomes a 39 ' instead of a 29 ' building . To solve this , he said they could wrap it
with dirt and put a set of steps beelined to a basement door but , for several
reasons , they would not like to : 1 ) The cost to fill ; 2 ) It ' s desirable to have
access to the basement for such things as lawn mowers and storage and accessibility .
Mr . Newell said he didn ' t want to repeat everything that had already been stated .
Mr . King asked if he had said cost to fill and Mr . Newell replied yes ,
partially , because they need the fill if there is any cutting to be involved .
Basically , there ' s a gentle slope and they ' re going to cut and fill ; they ' re taking
the dirt from where the foundation is and piling it in the back yard . But , by rough
calculations , they ' ve got what they need as it is . If they were not to cut this area
out , they would either have to fill it or they would have to lift the house because
they don ' t have as much fill this way . They ' ve got enough on site to do just what
you see and they would have to go through first of all , recalculations ; and ,
secondly , they would have to move alot more dirt to accommodate this . It ' s a gently
sloping site so it ' s ideal for a back walkout , but they ' re filling the back yard any-
way to remain within the 29 ' . Mr . Newell said he was not asking to expose the whole
back of the house , just one 12 foot section ; and , if you look on the second page , you
• can see the plan but actually , maybe the fourth page would be better .
Mr . Ellsworth said , you don ' t have a rear elevation that shows that ? Mr .
Newell said yes , he did have all four elevations . If you go to Page 6 , that ' s the
front at the street and it would never exceed 29 ' . If you go to the back which is
Page 7 , you can see that there ' s nothing exposed . You can see the retaining wall
but , on that elevation ( the north ) , there is no cut - out exposed to the basement . If
you go to the next elevation on Page 8 , that ' s where you get the 12 ' of basement
exposed . Then , if you go to the other side , it ' s back up again . So , literally , 90 %
of the perimeter of this basement is wrapped a full 10 ' in dirt - - or , rather 9 - 1 / 2 '
in dirt - - and it ' s only one 12 ' section held in by retaining walls .
Attorney Barney asked if the 12 ' section was going to be facing to the east and
Mr . Newell said to the northwest . Attorney Barney said he had never understood that
- - for instance , if the elevation is facing west , it ' s because you ' re looking from
the west ? Mr . Newell said it ' s the western elevation , the one on the west side of
the .site but is looking east towards the building . Attorney Barney said , so it ' s a
12 ' section ? Mr . Newell said , that 12 ' section on the other side . Attorney Barney
asked , and that ' s the only thing that ' s going to be exposed ? Mr . Newell said yes ,
that ' s the only thing that ' s going to be exposed .
Mr . Frost said there ' s a retaining wall , and Mr . Newell said there are two
retaining walls to allow the dirt to be held back so it ' s full foundation except for
that slice . Attorney Barney said he was having a little trouble understanding and
asked if the retaining wall sets off that 12 ' stretch and Mr . Newell said , right .
Attorney Barney then said , and is there going to be a retaining wall which would be
• basically a continuation of the basement wall out ? Mr . Newell said right , towards
the north . Mr . Frost said , perpendicular to the foundation . Mr . Newell said right ,
and it would gently slope along with the site to get back down to grade zero . Mr .
Frost asked how they proposed to positively drain that area and said , that ' s going
uphill at some point towards that direction ( northeast ) , right ? Mr . Newell said no ,
they would set zero / zero higher than the lowest point on the site and Mr .
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
Monkemeyer holds all the property behind , so he ' s still able to work on the other
lots . The property to the side would not be touched , obviously . Mr . Newell said
there ' s a gorge back there that they ' ve cleared out and said he didn ' t know if Mr .
Frost had been up there recently , but they ' ve taken backhoes and made a huge drainage
ditch so they can definitely clear it away .
Mr . Frost asked what the roof pitch was and Mr . Newell said he thought it was 6
to 12 and that it should be labeled . Mr . Newell then stated that it was not labeled ,
but it should be 6 to 12 . Mr . Ellsworth said he was on Sheet 1 on the little three -
dimensional sketch and wanted to know if the pitch on what he was looking at as the
front and back were different or the same . Mr . Newell said they were supposed to be
the same and that it was just a sketch .
Mr . King asked where the basement entrance was that they were proposing in
relation to the first floor plan . Mr . Newell said it ' s under the bedroom ; it ' s
marked " Bedroom " in the Northwest corner and would be under that . That shows the
retaining walls and how the grades gently slope around it . Mr . Ellsworth said he was
still on Page 1 and the best exposed retaining wall was on the east side , he guessed .
Mr . Newell said it was the west side , then showed the board on the sketch the east
side and the north side which have two retaining walls and also pointed out on the
sketch where it was down and exposed to the basement . Mr . Ellsworth asked if you
could see it from the road and Mr . Newell said no , you do not see it from the road .
Mr . Ellsworth asked , you see it from the lot to the west but not from the lot to the
• east ? Mr . Newell said the lot to the west , potentially from the rear yard , can see
( way back in the yard ) . Mr . Newell said Tom Brenna and he had just discussed it and
they would like possibly written in to the board ' s decision ( if it is favorable ) that
if this room is ever to be converted to a family room , some kind of provisions should
be written in whether it be a low fence , a set of hedges , a mound of dirt , or some -
thing to block the site . Mr . Newell said he thought they ' d be amenable to any type
of provision written in and they ' ve come to pretty much an agreement that would sat -
isfy the neighborhood .
Mr . Ellsworth said what should be done is the board could write in something in
case they changed the use of that basement . Attorney Barney said he thought that , if
the board saw fit to grant the variance , you could condition it upon the space that ' s
accessed by that door being limited to the unfinished basement . Mr . Ellsworth said
the unfinished basement and no facilities . Mr . Newell asked if they could leave the
option open and simply tie in some kind of hedge row block or mound of dirt or garden
to block the site because he didn ' t know if the intention was to become a family room
eventually , but Mr . Monkemeyer might want to finish it and he would like to take care
of whatever issues are involved tonight .
Mr . Frost said interestingly , during a . past zoning board meeting , they had a
similar kind of case where - - if you want to maintain some habitable space in an area
that is otherwise considered a cellar ( which is what this is ) - - we all generically
prefer to think of them as basements , but the basement normally would not have its
floor deeper than 4 ' into the ground . The average depth of the floor in this build -
ing is clearly deeper than 4 ' which makes this a cellar . Any use of the cellar space
• for habitable space would not be permitted unless you have some section of the wall
at grade , so this design ( Mr . Frost said he was not trying to suggest that the Board
grant the variance ) allows for the potential to use that downstairs as a habitable
space or the room that has a wall is at least as wide as the area that ' s at finished
grade .
8
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
May 25 , 1994
Attorney Barney said he was sorry but was not following what Mr . Frost was
saying . Mr . Ellsworth said Mr . Frost was saying that it ' s " a natural " to turn into
something else . Mr . Frost stated what he was saying was that having the grade for
some portion of that cellar wall at the floor level of that cellar enables you to
utilize some habitable space in the cellar which otherwise prohibits habitable space .
Mr . Newell said some but , because of light and ventilation , you ' d be required to keep
that pretty close to the doors - you couldn ' t break that up . Mr . Frost then said
with that huge window , you ' d still be permitted to have a space that was four times
the depth . For that section of the 12 ' exposed , you could have a room that ' s 12 '
wide as a bedroom perhaps . Mr . Frost said they ' re also limited by light and ventila -
tion requirements so you would need an awfully big window . The light is going to be
80 % of the floor area , so that ' s going to start to control the floor area that you
could utilize for that space as a bedroom .
Attorney Barney asked what was wrong with the conditions as they are , and Mr .
Frost said this is one of those cases where it enables someone to have the option of
utilizing the cellar space to have some habitable space down there and that puts out
the option . Attorney Barney said if they cut the option out , that option is one that
needs to be exercised such that - at that point in time - if this Board takes a look
at it and if there are some mitigating measures that need to be taken to mitigate the
effect and find out about the surrounding neighborhood , then look at what you ' re
going to be doing with it and mitigate it further . Mr . Ellsworth said , in other
words , reappear before the Board when the use changes .
• Mr . Newell said he knew , personally , that Mr . Monkemeyer does not plan to fin -
ish the basement now . But perhaps they ' d like to change it in a year or two , or what
if they were to want to make it into a family room tomorrow? Mr . Frost said you can
have a family recreation room as nonhabitable space as long as there ' s a second means
of egress so there would be no problem with that . Mr . Frost said it would sound fair
to him , if the Board was going to condition the variance , that you restrict a
dwelling unit but at least give the person the option to have something inside . Mr .
Newell said they might want to sheet rock the ceiling and put a couch and TV down
there .
Mr . Ellsworth said there ' s another issue the Board discussed last meeting in
someone else ' s case where , if they start sleeping down there , then there are safety
and other issues . Mr . Frost said the safety issue is there in part if you have a
cellar , but this would mitigate that by having a walkway . Attorney Barney said the
representation and the presentation is saying that we want this space to store
equipment in and so we can have access to get it in and out . That ' s a use that
perhaps might ( and it ' s up to the Board ) justify a deviation from what otherwise is a
normal height requirement . If the use is to go beyond that , Attorney Barney thought
it should come back to this Board and the Board then could say that use maybe doesn ' t
justify the deviation ; or , maybe it does ; or , maybe it does but we want to do A . B ,
C , D , and E to make sure that it isn ' t going to impact the other neighbors in some
fashion . But , until you know what that use is going to be . . .
Mr . Newell then said he could say it would never be a dwelling unit . Attorney
Barney said they had alot of history with Mr . Monkemeyer , and Mr . Monkemeyer has a
way of interpreting things in his way and they ' re not always the way that the town
would necessarily agree with that interpretation . Attorney Barney said he had a lit -
tle reluctance about leaving too many fuzzy issues out there and he thinks it
4 .
9
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
should be perfectly understood : " Don ' t finish without coming back to this Board " - -
very clean , very clear , very easily comprehended , and not subject to much interpre -
tation . If we start saying no dwelling but we have a couch and a sofa and other
things down there , all of a sudden the interpretation issue becomes something that
puts Attorney Barney in an awkward position with the town . Mr . Newell said , then
could I ask you right now to put on what you feel would be limits that if you would
allow a family room with a finished ceiling . Attorney Barney said Mr . Newell was
representing that Mr . Monkemeyer needs a variance to get equipment in and out of
there and said that smacks to him as unfinished basement . He said Mr . Newell is say-
ing you need this at level and don ' t want to go up steps with lawn mowers , and Mr .
Newell said that was right . Attorney Barney said that ' s the use he understood Mr .
Newell was coming in here for and now he thinks , if Mr . Newell is saying they want to
do something else , they might have a little bit of a problem and perhaps a little
different question as to whether there is enough of a hardship there to warrant the
granting of a variance at all .
Mr . Newell said it had other issues to do with the grade and the natural grade
of the slope . Mr . Ellsworth said , but alot of people put fill into a site and he
didn ' t think they were talking about unbearable hardship here . In fact , Mr .
Ellsworth said there ' s another item on there that he thinks is misrepresented which
is about the time to redesign . He said certainly you have time in preparing this
stuff , preparing to come here , being here , and so on and so forth so he wasn ' t sure
how those washed . Mr . Ellsworth said to Mr . Newell that it may be more expensive for
• him to go through what he ' s going through than to redesign . Mr . Frost asked Mr .
Ellsworth where he saw that , and Mr . Ellsworth said it was Item ( 4 ) " Changing the
plans would be unfortunate and costly ; to fill this area would also be unfortunate
and very costly " . Mr . Ellsworth said alot of people put signs out that say we need
fill ; other people try to get rid of fill , it may not be topsoil but there are a cou -
ple of sides to alot of these issues .
Chairman Austen said when he read the application under Section ( 3 ) where it
says to store lawn equipment , he doesn ' t think he would be storing gasoline lawn mow -
ers in his basement . Mr . Ellsworth asked how that fit as a safety level and Mr .
Frost said he believed NFDA Standards , as well as the uniform code , allows you to
store up to 5 or 10 gallons of gasoline inside a building and it scared him , but you
would be able to go up to 5 ( if not 10 ) gallons . Mr . Ellsworth said it meets those
codes then , which is part of the building code , and Mr . Frost said for a single fam-
ily or two - family residence , NFDA as well as building codes will allow that much
gasoline to be stored flammable . Chairman Austen said he could see it in a garage
and Mr . Frost said that makes him nervous , but that ' s what the code allows .
Chairman Austen said they have a 10 ' basement and asked Mr . Newell if it was
really 10 ' that they need for something like that . Mr . Newell said 10 ' floor to
ceiling and , actually , it would probably go 8 ' 8 " and one extra brick , of course ; so ,
if there is a potential future , you could still run all your piping and your chases
underneath the joist so you don ' t have to do all the drilling . It ' s easier to run
pipes under and then hang ceiling if there is an intention to have ceilings . Mr .
Ellsworth said there might be a problem with a stiff beam and you might have to take
• care of that and Mr . Newell said right , you could box around it but by putting one
extra brick on it , you ' re sure to be able to potentially use the space . Chairman
Austen said this normally comes to about 9 ' , doesn ' t it , and Mr . Newell said right ,
818 " plus the foot of structure is 9 ' 8 " rounded to 101
.
10
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Tom Brenna , residing at 130 East
King Road ( which he said was the same lot number , but there was something strange
about the numbers and Chairman Austen said he had discovered that , too ) , wished to
make comments to the Board . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Brenna if he was to the west of
the property they were discussing and Mr . Brenna said yes , that was correct and he
was a lot to the west . Mr . Brenna stated his concern over this was a minor one and
that Mr . Newell and he had discussed this just prior to the meeting . He said his
view of this house was best represented on Sheet # 8 ( he has a copy of the plans here
with him ) . Mr . Brenna said his wife had spoken to Mr . Monkemeyer but he had not
personally , and it was his understanding when he came here that Mr . Monkemeyer was
intending to make a family room ( but that was second hand information , so perhaps
that ' s not the intention ) .
Mr . Brenna said his basic concern , to be quite honest , is what he understands
to be a three bay sliding glass door that he thinks has a very nice and complete view
of his back yard . Mr . Brenna said he and Mr . Newell had just discussed this before ,
as Mr . Newell had said ; and , looking at the grade on Page 1 , it ' s not exactly clear
where his house is situated . There are dotted lines penciled in there , that is not
his house but just simply a generic house ( the one next door , or soon to be next
door ) . Mr . Brenna said he was not convinced , from the drawing and from the grades
drawn in there , that there won ' t be a straight view right into his back yard . So
what Mr . Newell and he had discussed and ( at least from his perspective ) what Mr .
Brenna was interested in , was some sort of privacy barrier . It could be a privacy
• fence , but he preferred something like a giant bush or something . The way the prop -
erty line runs ( you can see the diagonals compared to the street , they don ' t go
straight back ) and , at least when he stands out in the yard now , if he were to have
to do this on his property , he would be way over into a flat area between the two
houses . It would be very difficult for him to put that in there or at least he
didn ' t think it would be very satisfactory . So , if they were able to come to an
agreement about some sort of barrier there on what is represented as the grade , seen
on Page 1 , Mr . Brenna would be happy .
Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Brenna if he was two lots to the west and Mr . Brenna
said no , one lot , and he was right next door . Mr . Frost said his house was probably
shown in the picture , and Mr . Brenna said his house was in the picture that he just
saw being passed around and then confirmed to the Board which was his house by point -
ing it out in the photo . Mr . Brenna said unfortunately , in this shot , you can ' t see
where the property line runs . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Brenna how high above his
ridge was , and Mr . Brenna asked what ridge . Mr . Ellsworth said the peak of your
house , and Mr . Brenna said he didn ' t know the answer to that question and that he
didn ' t build the house and didn ' t know for sure . Mr . Ellsworth said it looks like
it ' s up there pretty good , it was hard to tell from this photo . Mr . Brenna said he
certainly didn ' t think it was near 30 ' , and Mr . Frost said it may approach 30 ' and
that 30 ' is remarkably tall . Mr . Brenna said it ' s a single level house but it has
vaulted ceilings ; it ' s a ranch , and there ' s no second floor .
Mr . Frost asked if his building was the one that had sprinklers in there and
Mr . Brenna said yes , as a matter of fact . Mr . Frost said Mr . Brenna had the only
residential building in the town ( single family residence ) that put sprinklers in
when they first made the law in July , 1987 and then , subsequently , amended the law to
exclude those . Mr . Brenna said they never actually put the heads in . Mr . Frost said
that was a nice house , and Mr . Brenna thanked him .
While the public hearing was still open , Chairman Austen read the memo dated
May 23 , 1994 from Candace E . Cornell , Town of Ithaca Conversation Board , Chair .
11
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 251 1994
Chairman Austen then asked if anyone had any questions for Mr . Brenna . Mr .
King said he would like to ask the architect ( Mr . Newell ) why he was going out the
west side rather than the north side to the rear where it ' s secluded . Mr . Newell
said because that ' s the lowest point on the site at the moment . The northeast corner
is the lowest and , right behind the property , you can see there ' s a swell drawn in .
It may be deceptive ( it ' s a guess ) but there ' s a big ditch down there and it is slop -
ing in both directions towards the northeast corner so that , naturally , is the lowest
point on this site . Mr . Newell said if you went from the tip at the street on the
southeast to the northwest , there might be 10 or 12 feet . These are somewhat generic
lines to show intent but , from the front to the back , there ' s probably 6 ' or 7 ' .
From the southwest to the northwest , there ' s probably a 6 ' or 7 ' drop . It ' s more if
you were to go diagonally , but we ' re basically talking from the front of the street
here to the back .
Mr . King asked what type of a planting buffer they would use , and Mr . Newell
said he would propose a short fence or a hedge row and he would prefer to see a
planting - - some kind of a plant matter whether it be hedges , bushes , flower gardens ,
a mound of dirt that has ivy and a tree on it , keeping it to more natural . Mr .
Newell said he didn ' t think either party would like to see fences and cut -up back
yards . He said it had a beautiful view and it has a view of the lake and valley when
the trees are clear , so he didn ' t think either party involved here would like to see
any strong definitions . He said Mr . Brenna was telling him that the kids play
together , and Evan Monkemeyer lives across the street right now so it ' s not like he
• lives very far away . Chairman Austen asked if this was going to be Mr . Monkemeyer ' s
personal residence and if that was the intent and Mr . Newell said yes , it is . Mr .
Newell didn ' t know for how long , but he would say maybe years and that it ' s going to
be residence and model because he plans to build somewhere around one or two build -
ings per year or so and plans to use this as a model , show it to people , and continue
to build one lot at a time . . . a slow , twenty-year approach .
Chairman Austen then closed the public hearing .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen read Parts II and III of the Environmental Assessment Form done
by Louise Raimondo , Planner 1 , and asked if there was any discussion . Mr . King said
he thought it would be helpful if the architect addressed that question about the 39 '
as it does seem rather extreme . Mr . King asked if it wouldn ' t be possible for them
to construct or design it and Mr . Newell said yes , they could put a Bilco door ,
enclose it all with soil , and then it conforms . Mr . Ellsworth said you would have to
change your roof slant . Mr . Newell said from his end , he could change a few grades
and elevations , draw in a retaining wall , put in a Bilco door and steps and it was
solved but , personally , he thinks that ' s undesirable and he knows the client feels
that it ' s undesirable .
Mr . Ellsworth said and you could change the roof pitch , right ? Mr . Newell said
that would be more difficult and they could simply enclose the basement and it solves
the code issues . That would change nothing from the street , it would change from his
® back yard . In other words , the building wouldn ' t change ; they would just fill in the
dirt and put a set of steps under doors and have a traditional access to a basement
as Mr . Newell is sure we are all familiar with . Mr . King asked , are you saying that
such a traditional access would unduly impact the neighbor ? Mr . Newell said no , he
was saying if he were to not want to appear before the board , he would simply enclose
the basement steps and put a set of Bilco doors and then it ' s a cellar and
12
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
there ' s no question and they would go forward with the building . But it ' s unfortu -
nate because of access to the basement , the gentle slope of the site , and the desir -
ability of having a walkout on the lowest basement level .
Mr . King said , then you ' re saying a 33 ' height would not do you any good ; or ,
rather , a 35 ' height ? Mr . Newell said they could trim a few feet with no problem but
he didn ' t think the Board would want to see them go to a 4 to 12 pitch ; then , it
would be a two - story ranch . He thought , proportionally , people want to see 8 to 12
pitches or 12 to 12 pitches . It ' s much more charming and in character with the 19th
century . To go to a 4 to 12 pitch resembling a ranch , though at least part of the
building is a two story , Mr . Newell did not think was desirable . It may solve some
of the height problems but he thought , from the standpoint of the neighbors and from
viewing this property , it would be less desirable aesthetically .
Mr . Ellsworth said if they fill it in and put a Bilco door and you can ' t store
equipment in there , an accessory building could be put up also and there are other
alternatives . Chairman Austen said you ' re right , but this probably has less effect
on the area than putting another building up and Mr . Ellsworth said it depends on
what you put up and where you put it . Mr . Newell said it ' s a matter of interpreta -
tion on how to determine what the height of the building is . If you were to take 90 %
of the perimeter , the height is 29 ' . It ' s only at one small slot that it ' s higher .
Mr . Ellsworth said , presently , that has been clearly stated in the town documents .
People here that advise the board were involved in that , and that ' s the way it is at
• the moment . Mr . Ellsworth said down the road , there may be something else ; he didn ' t
know .
Attorney Barney said if they revise the ordinance , they would just have people
coming in with more reasons to go another three or four feet above what the ordinance
provides for . He said he thinks Mr . Newell has a design reason for why you want to
do what you want to do ( or Evan Monkemeyer does ) , but he ' s fairly convinced that
wherever the line is drawn , there ' s always going to be people who have reasons archi -
tecturally and physically why they want to go over that line .
Mr . Newell said he wasn ' t trying to increase the height but was just trying to
allow a split in the dirt . He said he almost pictures it like the Johnson Art Museum
where you ' ve got the retaining wall slots going down in . This is a level spot from
the back corner of the site coming in between two retaining walls . The rest of the
house is all up on grade .
Mr . Ellsworth said he had a question , being a semi new member on the board . He
said they went through this about a month ago when they met just themselves with a
height list they have . Mr . Ellsworth asked if most of those were on steep lots ( on
the list which was put together by Mr . Frost ) more than 7 ' delta difference across
the lot or across the house and if the majority of those had been passed . Mr . King
said really , they ' re in the rear or on the back of the house and not on the side .
Mr . Ellsworth said ok , they ' re in the rear or they ' re on steep sloping lots and much
steeper than this one . Attorney Barney said there have been some , and he thought one
of them which might have been the Chase farm was a flat farm . Mr . Ellsworth said his
® question was the majority of them . . . Attorney Barney said , and the answer is ( by his
recollection ) yes , you ' re right and the majority of them were on much steeper lots
than this one .
+ Y
13
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
Chairman Austen said he thought it was awfully handy to have a walk - out base -
ment and that he had one and would hate to give it up , to be truthful , because
there ' s nothing like being able to walk on grade carrying something and then taking
something out . Otherwise , you ' d have to drag it up a set of stairs ( that ' s where
it ' s reasonable to do it ) .
Mr . Frost asked if there were any cathedral ceilings up there which would pro -
hibit just even being able to drop the roof 1 ' or 2 ' . Mr . Newell said he was drop -
ping the roof a foot or two , as he had said already . The second floor wall is at
618 " and then the cathedral ceiling happens in some portions and it ' s an attic space
or trusses in other portions . He said the main height part of the building is going
to lower maybe 2 ' from what you see drawn and , like the board had pointed out ,
there ' s a few inches in the dimensions of the basement - - these are a preliminary
set , at the moment . Mr . Frost said his question was , knowing the way they measure
the height of the building , what would be your maximum height once you go through the
working drawings ? Mr . Ellsworth said these drawings are going to be changed , is that
what you ' re saying and Mr . Newell said yes , slightly . Mr . Frost said he intended to
advertise 6 " to 1 ' higher to allow for some error and Mr . Newell said yes , that he
had done the same .
Mr . Newell was looking through the drawings and said he would figure probably
36 ' or 37 ' - - if they _go 8 ' 8 " basement , 1 ' floor to floor , and then 8 ' ceilings and
maybe 9 ' attic space , they could bring it in 36 ' or 381 , somewhere in there . Mr .
• Frost pointed out that Mr . Newell had said 36 ' or 37 ' - - Mr . Newell said he . did not
have a scale ruler in front of him , but somewhere within that region . Mr . Ellsworth
said they could take care of that in the next part and could lock the dimension in .
Chairman Austen said , if there were no other questions , they could go ahead and
do the Environmental Assessment Form at this time and then asked for a motion .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of Louise Raimondo , Planner
I dated May 24 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental signif -
icance for the appeal by Evan Monkemeyer ( Peter Newell , Agent ) for the property
at 130 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 - 3 . 11 , Residence
District R - 15 .
With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion
which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
With no additional discussion required , Chairman Austen then asked for a motion
on the appeal .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King .
14
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals
• May 25 , 1994
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Evan Monkemeyer ( Peter Newell ,
Agent ) , a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the construction of a single family residence
at 130 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 - 3 . 11 , Residence
District R - 15 , with a building height of no more than 38 ± feet from the lowest
point on grade east elevation , subject to the following conditions :
Correction to Resolution : Building height of no more than 38 + feet was
amended to no more than 37 ± feet ( dimension was modified by Harry Ellsworth ,
and modification was accepted by Edward King ) .
1 . a . A berm hedge ( or natural plantings ) or fence must be constructed in
such a fashion as to provide a visual barrier between the area that
will be below the rest of the normal grade and the next lot west ,
or
b . The area in the basement accessed by this door to grade be left in
an unfinished state and used basically for storage of tools .
2 . The berm or natural plantings must be in keeping with the character of
the neighborhood for this residential district .
3 . The fence , berm , or other visual barrier is to be approved by the Town
• Building Code Enforcement Officer after consultation with the neighbor to
the west .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 8 : 30 PM .
Y Janda M . McLaughlin �—
Recording Secretary
Edward Austen , Chairman
FINAL
• TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , MAY 25 , 1994
7 . 00 P . M .
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
on Wednesday , May 25 , 1994 , 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 Bartholomew and Bernadette Corsaro , Appellants , Edward Mazza , Esquire , Agent ,
requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing residential building with a 9 foot
west side yard building setback ( 10 foot side yard setbacks required ) at 216 East King
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 4 . 42 , Residence District R- 15 .
Appeal of Evan Monkemeyer , Appellant , Peter Newell , Agent , requesting a variance from
Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
construct a single family residence with a building height of 39 + feet ( 30 foot maximum
height allowed ) at 130 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 - 3 . 11 ,
Residence District R- 15 .
• Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all
persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent
or in person .
Andrew S . Frost
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer
273- 1783
Dated : May 17 , 1994
Publish : May 20 , 1994