Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1994-07-13 FMAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF CANCELS.ATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JULY 13 , 1994 THE JULY 13 , 1994 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED . THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL MEET ON JULY 27 , 1994 AT 7 : 00 P . M . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : July 5 , 1994 Publish : July 8 , 1994 FILED FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA n y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date `t • WEDNESDAY , JULY 27y 1994 Clerk Q.Q The following Appeals were heard by the Board on July 27 , 19942 APPEAL of Ken Ritter and Linda Holzbaur , Appellants , % requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non- conforming building with a 14 foot x 30 foot addition at 249 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 7 -40 , Residence District R- 9 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 + feet within the required front yard building setback . The proposed building addition will be 6 + feet within the required front yard building setback . GRANTED . APPEAL of T-S -T BOCES , Appellant , Robert L . Manvell , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 59A of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to install a 12 foot diameter satellite dish with an overall height of 30 + feet . The satellite dish will be attached to the north side of BOCES building " A " , located at 555 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73- 1 - 1 . 31 , Residence District R- 15 . The Zoning Ordinance only allows for 15 feet high freestanding satellite dishes , located in rear yards only . .. GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL of David Gersh /Quality Rentals , Appellant , Jerry Dietz , Agent , requesting • authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enclose an existing porch and convert it to a bedroom and to construct a 6 foot x 12 foot room addition on the east side of a non- conforming building / lot located at 1046 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 - 9 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it has a 2 . 5 + foot south side yard building setback ( 15 foot setback required ) and said lot is non- conforming since it contains three residential buildings ( one residential building on a parcel of land permitted ) . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL of Willis and James Hilker , Appellants , requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two family residence on a building lot 60 + feet wide and 120 + feet in depth at 128 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 5 - 16 , Residence District R- 9 . Said Ordinance limits the use of undersized building lots to single family residences . Authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct the residential building , under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . • FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY , JULY 27 , 1994 ClerkZ� n+ • PRESENT : Temporary Chairman Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Ken Ritter , Linda Holzbaur , Robert L . Manvell , David Gersh , Nancy Gersh , Jerry Dietz , Lorren Hammond , Willis Hilker , James Hilker . Attorney Barney recommended that the first item on the meeting agenda should be to elect a temporary chairman for this meeting ( in the absence of Chairman Edward Austen ) and asked that a motion be made . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board elect Mr . Edward King as temporary Chairman for this meeting . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . • Temporary Chairman King called the meeting to order at ' 7 : 10 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 Ken Ritter and Linda Holzbaur , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building with a 14 foot x 30 foot addition at 249 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54-7 - 40 , Residence District R-9 . Said building is non-conforming since it is located 7 ± feet within the required front yard building setback . The proposed building addition will be 6 + feet within the required front yard building setback . Chairman King said but for the non- conformity of the setback , the appellants would not have to appear before this Board and Mr . Frost agreed that is correct . Chairman King said , in other words , the resulting side yard would still be sufficient to comply with the ordinance , as would the rear yard . Mr . Frost agreed and said , in an R- 9 zone , you are required to have a 10 ' setback and they have a 149 ' width at the street end . This property is nonconforming and is one of a number of similar homes along this road which do not meet the minimum lot setback requirements . Chairman King then invited Mr . Ritter to tell the Board why the addition is required . Mr . Ritter stated the extension is needed because they have a large family ( four ® children ) and need the proper amount of bedrooms for their family . They really like the land they live on and wish to stay there ; they also like the area a lot . Their budget is such that the addition would be most easily placed as described in their appeal and Mr . Ritter said he thought ( architecturally ) , if you look at the proposed plans , the house would look pretty good . It makes the house appear symmetrical . If you can see Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 • the front of the house where you have a peak on one side and then goes off , it would have another peak so it will look fairly pleasing . Mr . Ritter said they feel a need for this and he doesn ' t really know what to say to the Board members . He knows the house has been there since approximately 1915 . He doesn ' t know how close it was to the road then . Mr . Ritter also said he included with the appeal the setbacks for the immediate neighbors in the other houses along the road ; but , further down as the addresses get lower , the houses are actually closer to the road than theirs by quite a bit . Mr . Ritter stated he feels the addition wouldn ' t change the visual character of the road . Chairman King asked if Mr . Ritter ' s house was set considerably lower than the road and Mr . Ritter responded yes , the road is a bit higher up . Mr . Ritter said he didn ' t think they checked the elevation of the road but would say the house is 2 ' or so below the road ( as are most of the houses on that stretch ) . Chairman King asked if the proposed addition is a two- story at the south end , and Mr . Ritter said yes . Chairman King then asked how many existing bedrooms there are and how many would be added . Mr . Ritter said there are presently three and they would be adding two more . Linda Holzbaur ( Ken Ritter ' s wife ) then stated , when they had the house inspected before they bought it , they were told it was not considered a three bedroom house because one of the rooms is open to the stairwell . It is considered a den so they have only two bedrooms with doors at this point . Chairman King asked how long they had owned the house to which . Ms . Holzbaur replied , three years in August , 1994 , Mr . Frost said he would like to add that , if you look on the sketch at the second floor addition , you ' ll see the existing rooms and the room in the top left-hand corner of the page which says " existing " . You have to enter the other room that says • " existing " to get to the stairwell -which would make it illegal to maintain that one room as an existing bedroom . Mr . Frost believes it is correct to say that it ' s really two bedrooms . Mr . Ritter said their plans are to knock that wall down eventually and Chairman King asked if the intention was to make one large bedroom there , to which Mr . Ritter replied yes . Chairman King asked if the members of the Board had any additional questions . Mr . Frost said he would comment that Mr . Ritter is correct ; as you go further down towards the rear entrance of Ithaca College , there are properties for which action has also come before this Board where the houses are a bit closer to the road than Mr . Ritter ' s . Mr . Ellsworth asked how many lots away those properties were from Mr . Ritter ' s house and Mr . Frost said four or five lots away . Ms . Holzbaur noted that there is a small house next to theirs , then apartment houses , then houses start getting closer to the road . Attorney Barney asked if they had explored the possibility of moving to another house with more bedrooms and Ms . Holzbaur said they have a very restrictive owner- financed mortgage at the present time . In order to sell their house , they would have to add extra money onto the price that they paid for it . They don ' t feel that they could get that money back right now and they ' re not supposed to sell for ten years . In other words , they would need the money they ' ve put into it to buy a new and larger house and they don ' t believe they can do that . Ms . Holzbaur said they also do like the neighborhood they ' re in , there ' s a South Hill recreation trail which their children use a lot , they ' re close to downtown but a little bit out , and they ' d prefer to stay where they are . Attorney Barney asked if she was saying there are some economic difficulties in order for them to try to sell the house and move into another house which would give • them more space , and both Ms . Holzbaur and Mr . Ritter said yes . Mr . Ellsworth asked if there was a reason why the addition has to be 1 ' closer to the road than the rest of the house and Mr . Ritter said that works out because of the way the house is situated towards the road , and they ' re not actually parallel to each other but off by a slight degree . Mr . Ritter stated he had a bigger map and asked Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 • permission to show the Board what he meant on his map . Pointing this out on the map , Mr . Ritter said - - for all intents and purposes , the road looks like it runs in a plane and then the house is situated so that it follows that plane . However , it ' s really a few inches off so that , when you extend out the addition along the same plane the house is now , that ' s how you end up with a couple of inches closer to the road . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the addition was represented by the clear , unshaded portion on the map and Mr . Ritter said yes . Mr . King asked Mr . Ritter if he was saying that the front of the house is not exactly parallel to the road , and Mr . Ritter said that ' s correct . Mr . King said when you extend the house along the same line , you ' re going to get a few inches closer to the road ( Mr . Ritter again agreed ) . Mr . Frost said , when he advertises , he tends to be a little bit generous with inches , just to be sure . Mr . Ellsworth asked which way north was on the map . Mr . Ritter showed him , then Mr . Ellsworth stated then the north end of the front of the house is 6 ' from the road ; it ' s skewed from the road and is not parallel . Mr . Ellsworth said what he was getting at : that he is asking if that portion of the house is already 6 ' from the road and added that the shape of the front of the house on the road side , as shown on Mr . Ritter ' s map , is not the same as what is shown on the plan that the Board has . Mr . Ritter said there ' s a slight setback here ( and pointed it out on his map ) that is approximately 1 ' at the front of the house . Mr . Ritter stated he wanted to be more exact in the dimensions , and so had done the larger map in more detail , and had wanted to provide it to the Board tonight because it had more exact details . Mr . Ellsworth then asked if the north end of the house is 7 ' from the road . Mr . Ritter said no , it ' s 43 ' from the road right-of-way . Mr . Frost then clarified that Mr . Ritter is referring to the paved portion of the road which is going to be inside where the right- of -way line is and , with a 55 ' wide road , approximately what we ' re measuring is 25 ' from the center line . Mr . Frost continued that the house has to be 25 ' back from the right- of-way line to meet the required front yard setback . Mr . Ritter said , just for the record , the north end of the house is 43 ' 10 " from the center line of the road and the proposed addition will end up , at its extreme corner , 42 ' 8 " . Attorney Barney asked if the 42 ' 8 " dimension was the southwest corner and Mr . Ritter said yes , it is the extreme south corner of the addition . Mr . Frost said , he would have to be 50 ' from the center line which would put him back of the front yard setback , so he lacks about 8 ' . Chairman King said the driveway is actually elevated above the house and there doesn ' t seem to be any line of sight problem : that as you drive along the road , the house does not interfere with your line of sight for traffic . Chairman King stated he does not see that it poses any problem in that respect . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman King read Parts II , III , and IV of the Environmental Assessment Form completed by Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz on July 21 , 1994 . For the record , Chairman King read the Tompkins County Department of Planning letter dated July 21 , 1994 and signed by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning . With no further discussion required , Chairman King asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of Assistant Town Planner , George . Frantz , on July 21 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal by Ken Ritter and Linda Holzbaur for the property at 249 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 54 - 7 - 40 , Residence District R- 9 . Chairman King then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman King opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak on this matter . With no comments , he then closed the public hearing . With no additional discussion , Chairman King then asked for a motion on the variance . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicants , Ken Ritter and Linda Holzbaur , authorization to be permitted to enlarge their non- conforming house at 249 Coddington Road with a 14 foot x 30 foot addition to the south end on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 7 - 40 , Residence District R- 9 . The proposed building addition will • then be 8 + feet within the required front yard building setback . We make the following findings : 1 . There is no significant impact on , or change in character of the neighborhood . 2 . The economic circumstances of the applicants indicate that the benefit to the applicants outweighs any detriment to the balance of the community . Chairman King then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Scala asked if the Zoning Board was going to need a recommendation from the Planning Board from now on . Attorney Barney said , if the County Planning Board disapproves a proposal , it takes a majority vote plus one by the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant the proposal which the County has disapproved . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the County Planning Board comments on just certain cases , and Attorney Barney said they comment on anything within 500 ' of the town line , anything within 500 ' of a county highway , and there are several additional criteria . Attorney Barney also commented that this Board notifies the County Planning Department of all appeals to assure that there is no conflict with anything which may be under their jurisdiction . ® The second case to be heard by the Board was the following : Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 • APPEAL of T-S-T BOLES , Appellant , Robert L . Manvell , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article %III , Section 59A of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to install a 12 foot diameter satellite dish with an overall height of 30 ± feet . The satellite dish will be attached to the north side of BOCES building "A" , located at 555 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73- 1- 1 . 31 , Residence District R- 15 . The Zoning Ordinance only allows for 15 feet high freestanding satellite dishes , located in rear yards only . Mr . Ellsworth stated that he had to make a comment regarding this case : that he currently has two projects with T - S -T BOCES and asked Attorney Barney to make a ruling as to whether there is a possible conflict . Chairman King asked Mr . Ellsworth if the projects he ' s doing concern the proposed satellite dish or electronic equipment in any way and Mr . Ellsworth said no . Chairman King stated that , if there is any conflict , this hearing would have to be postponed . Mr . Ellsworth stated that he had been talking earlier to the BOCES people , and they didn ' t think there would be any problem , but Mr . Ellsworth said he wanted to bring it up before the Board anyway . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Ellsworth if he was affected financially in any way , whether this project is approved or not approved , and Mr . Ellsworth said no . Attorney Barney then said he saw no problem with any ethics and advised that they proceed with the appeal . Chairman King then invited Mr . Manvell to speak . Mr . Manvell stated that he is Director of Instructional Support Services for T-S -T BOCES . He said the request they are making for the satellite dish is because they need to have an elevation higher than regulations allow because they are mounting it above the roof line of a building . Mr . • Manvell said they presently have a dish , and the proposed dish would be only a few feet higher than the present dish . Mr . Ellsworth asked if they couldn ' t utilize what they now have , and Mr . Manvell stated that the proposed dish is actually being paid for by ACC and it ' s being purchased to serve the community as an educational access dish so they would be able to bring down community programming such as teleconferences , mental health association , etc . Mr . Ellsworth said they couldn ' t multiplex that to their present dish , and Mr . Manvell confirmed that was correct . Mr . Frost passed a photo to the members of the Board and commented that the dish is going to be installed adjacent to the dish that is already on this property . He said one of the ironies in this picture is that you can ' t see the dish ; he focused in on it in the picture , but you can ' t clearly see it . Mr . Ellsworth said he had been at BOCES the day before and asked if the new dish would be any higher than the mechanical equipment for the present dish . Mr . Manvell said he didn ' t know the measurements of that roof but would say that it ' s close and would probably top the present equipment by just a bit . Mr . Ellsworth asked what he meant by a bit and Mr . Manvell again said he doesn ' t have a measurement on that unit but , for instance , if the present unit is 10 ' , then the proposed dish would be about 2higher . Mr . Ellsworth said he just wanted to know if it was going to stick up or stick out in an extreme manner and Mr . Manvell said , frankly , that ' s the reason why they ' re asking for that location . . . because , aesthetically , it ' s the place to put it . They wouldn ' t be asking for a variance if they were going to stick it in the middle of a lawn on a pad , which is the preferred way of installing a dish . Mr . Manvell said , if you ' ve sat on top of a flagpole and if you ' ve sat on the ground , you know the difference and that comes out when you put a satellite dish on . You will have movement , even with a pipe that ' s bolted to the wall . Mr . Manvell said that is a concession they want to make because , aesthetically , that ' s the least obtrusive place to put that satellite dish . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 • Mr . Scala asked if the proposed dish would be behind the trees ( he noted that the present dish was in the photograph , but you just don ' t see it because it ' s behind the trees ) . Mr . Manvell stated he could see the present dish in the photograph because he knows right where it is and that it ' s white in color but , from this angle , you would not be able to see the proposed new dish at all . Chairman King asked if they were then going to wind up with two dishes and Mr . Manvell said that ' s correct , they would have two dishes . Chairman King then asked what the different functions of the two dishes were to which Mr . Manvell replied that they can only pull in one program at one time on a dish ; so , if they have a program they ' re bringing in and , for instance , the Fire Department ( or some other group ) wants to see a program at that time , they cannot bring in both programs at the same time . Mr . Manvell said they also sometimes have that same problem - - they have a Staff Development Conference with teachers and then there will be a program on computers , for example , and they then have to make a choice as to which program they ' re going to do . Because they can presently only do one program at one time , that ' s why the request for variance was made . Mr . Manvell said they will get benefit in a secondary sense ; when it ' s not being used for anything else and BOCES happens to need two dishes , then they ' ll be able to use it for two different programs during the same time period . Mr . Scala said his question was whether that means the proposed dish would also be screened from the road by the trees . Mr . Manvell replied that , actually , it would be screened from the road by the building itself due to the angle and his feeling ( although he did not do measurements ) , is that it couldn ' t ever be seen , even if the trees were not there . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Manvell if , as far as he could tell , this would be the • maximum number of satellite dishes they planned to have and Mr . Manvell said , as far as he can tell , that ' s correct . Mr . Scala said he takes it that the proposed dish is for receiving and not transmitting and Mr . Manvell said that ' s correct , it ' s a down link and not an up link . Chairman King asked if cable doesn ' t satisfy their needs in this regard and Mr . Manvell replied that the program isn ' t delivered over cable , it ' s only delivered over satellite and that ' s how they receive it . They have cable access and full access to whatever you can get on the cable , but that doesn ' t bring in these particular programs . All these programs are for training purposes , you may pay a licensing fee to get the program down and so it ' s controlled and some of it is public training and you just pull it down . Chairman King noted that the diameter of the proposed dish is 12 ' and Mr . Manvell agreed that is correct . Mr . Frost stated that the ordinance for residential zones limits it to a 15 ' diameter satellite dish , freestanding and no higher than 15 ' . Therefore , the variance is to : ( 1 ) add a dish that ' s over 15 ' high and , secondly , Mr . Frost said he supposed you couldn ' t call the proposed dish freestanding because it will be attached to the building - - the zoning ordinance treats the dish as an accessory to a building . Chairman King noted that the proposed dish actually extends 13 ' above the top wall of the building ( Mr . Manvell said that was correct ) and so it ' s still smaller than the 15 ' permitted under the ordinance , but the 15 ' would ordinarily be put on the ground . Chairman King asked if they had considered putting the dish on the ground and Mr . ® Manvell stated he did not think they would install the proposed dish if they had to put it on the ground because it would be an unattractive nuisance ; they have kids on campus and people on weekends who would either be climbing on the dish or trying to get in there just because it ' s there . It would also be very unattractive aesthetically , so Mr . Manvell said he didn ' t think that they would even put the dish up if they had to put it on the ground . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 • Chairman King asked if the campus was not fenced in then , and Mr . Manvell said that ' s correct and they also have some problems wherein they have to put the dish significantly far away from the building and run extra wire and so on in order to get the clearances you need to point at the satellite ; you can ' t just put it anywhere ; you have to have a free shot . Normally , it ' s trees that are a problem but , in their case , it would be the buildings so Mr . Manvell said they would have to put the dish out away from the building to have a clear track and there would be additional costs involved for them to do that . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman King read Parts II and III of the Environmental Assessment Form dated July 21 , 1994 and completed by Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner . With reference to Part II - C1 . , Chairman King said the 30 ± overall height of the satellite dish sounds obstructing and Mr . Manvell said he thought ( visually ) , if you think of it as 30 ' on top just sticking out of the parking lot , it would be threatening ( it would look like an antenna ) but it ' s against a building and will blend into the building and you won ' t know that it ' s behind . With no other discussion , Chairman King asked for a motion on the Environmental Assessment . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal by T-S -T BOCES to add an additional satellite dish to the BOCES building at 555 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73- 1 - 1 . 31 , Residence District R- 15 . With no other discussion , Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Attorney Barney then said he had a question and asked if this was the only plan that was going to be prepared with respect to this application or will there be an engineered , stamped drawing . Mr . Manvell said he didn ' t believe that an engineered , stamped drawing was needed for what they are proposing to do and said he didn ' t know what ACC has plans to do . Mr . Frost then stated that a building permit will be required and Mr . Manvell said he understood that . Mr . Frost said it wasn ' t clear to him whether this would be considered roof-mounted and asked Mr . Manvell if he considered this roof - mounted . Mr . Manvell said he wouldn ' t because the mounting extends into the ground and its support structure is clearly on the ground . Mr . Ellsworth said the sketch shows concrete and Mr . Manvell agreed , it ' s in the ground so many feet on a pad . Mr . Frost said they only mentioned it because the zoning ordinance makes specific mention that roof-mounted dishes must have an engineering stamp . Mr . Frost also said , as part of the ® building permit process ( whether it ' s engineer stamped or not ) , they would want to know , through some professional , that the mounting of this dish is going to be safe . Mr . Frost said that does not need to be reviewed by members of the Zoning Board but , in his mind , would be addressed through the permit process . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 Chairman King stated his impression was that the ordinance is talking about how much is actually resting on the roof and , therefore , would pose other hazards . Attorney Barney said the ordinance also talks about a maximum height of 15 ' and now you ' ve got a wind vane ; you have a 12 ' disk at the top of a 20 ' pole . Mr . Manvell said that ' s not exactly correct because that pole will not be free for the first 17 ' , it will be bolted to the wall . Attorney Barney said he understood that , but it ' s not quite the same thing as they typically see which is a dish mounted right on the ground so the wind is not considered as much of a factor ; therefore , these are some of the concerns that one might have . Mr . Ellsworth said the wall is certainly going to take some structural stress because the mounting pole and dish are supported by it . Mr . Manvell then said , from what he understands from what he has just heard , the differences are going to be in the stress on the roof membrane because of the weight of a dish on a roof , and that would be more of a reason for an engineering study- as opposed to the question of whether it ' s good structurally or not . Mr . Frost said he would agree but , through the normal process of any kind of wind blowing where it topples down , whether you have four bolts that are a certain size or three bolts of a certain size , he would like to suggest that would be part of the permit process and information needs to be provided by someone who convinces him that they know what they ' re talking about regarding mounting of such a dish . Attorney Barney said he understood that BOCES is in the middle or beginning of a building project up there anyway and he would assume some engineers will be doing some testing anyway . Mr . Ellsworth stated they have a separate fund for that and this isn ' t part of that , and Attorney Barney said he understood that . Mr . Ellsworth confirmed that the same engineers could be used to do the testing , he was sure , and Attorney Barney • said the thing to do would be to have them do testing and certify that it is adequate . Chairman King said , especially in view of the fact that the roof mount is not supposed to be bigger than 6 ' in diameter . Mr . Frost said a roof mount and the blows that one would anticipate on a roof is not going to be experienced with this kind of dish arrangement . Mr . Frost asked if ACC was doing the installation , and Mr . Manvell replied that they are responsible for the installation but he wasn ' t sure if they were doing it themselves or were going to bring someone in to install it . Mr . Ellsworth said , then ACC can get the certification . Mr . Frost then said that would be the concern he would have as the Building Inspector as far as what kind of wind blow this is capable of taking . Chairman King said it ' s under Section 59A , Subparagraph f which reads , " the installation of all roof mounted - dish antennae must be certified by registered architect or professional engineer " . Mr . Manvell asked if he had said " roof -mounted " and Mr . Frost said yes , but he ' s agreeing that he would not view it as a roof -mount but - - through the normal building process - - that is the guideline . Attorney Barney said here we ' ve got a request for variance for something that really isn ' t permitted anyway , so the question of whether it should be engineered or professionally certified ( that ' s not to say , for one that is permitted , which you ' ve got to have engineer- certified ) . But here we ' ve got something that ' s not permitted and that ' s the reason he questioned whether an engineer certified drawing should be required : but they might better leave that in the hands of the building inspector . Chairman King opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak on this matter . With no one present to speak , Chairman King closed the public hearing . ® With no other discussion , Chairman King then asked for a motion on the variance . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , T-S -T BOCES , a variance from the re - 0 quirements of Article XIII , Section 59A of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to install a 12 foot diameter satellite dish with an overall height of 30 + feet on a BOCES building , located at 555 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73- 1 - 1 - 31 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings and condition : 1 . Given the location of this particular antennae , the value and character of the surrounding neighborhood will not be changed . 2 . Upon noting that the character of the neighborhood is more scholastic than residential . 3 . That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the surrounding neighborhood . 4 . The applicant will encounter financial hardship if the variance is not granted to allow for the satellite dish to be installed as described in the application . 5 . Conditioned on the applicant getting a building permit for the construction and installation of the satellite dish . Chairman King then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - King , Ellsworth , Scala . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL of David Gersh/Quality Rentals , Appellant , Jerry Dietz , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enclose an existing porch and convert it to a bedroom and to construct a 6 foot x 12 foot room addition on the east side of a non-conforming building/ lot located at 1046 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19-2-9 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it has a 2 . 5 + foot south side yard building setback ( 15 foot setback required ) and said lot is non-conforming since it contains three residential buildings ( one residential building on a parcel of land permitted ) . David Gersh introduced his wife . Nancy , and stated that , since the original proposal went out for bid , the bids came back essentially beyond their financial means , therefore , they have totally scaled back the project so that they are not now requesting permission for and do not intend to enlarge the square footage of the building at all . The plan before the Board simply shows a rearrangement of the existing floor space . What they ' re doing is using part of the kitchen to enlarge the bathroom . They ' re also requesting permission to enclose the three open sides of an existing roofed porch . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the front of the porch was the side toward the lake and Mr . Gersh said that was correct . Mr . Gersh said he had passed around some photos to the members of the Board showing the porch and Mr . Ellsworth stated they showed a two- level ® porch , both facing the lake , and asked if Mr . Gersh intended to enclose both levels . Mr . Gersh replied that it is really only one level , and Mrs . Gersh inquired if Mr . Ellsworth was talking about the blue house shown in the photo . Mr . Ellsworth said yes , and Mr . Gersh then pointed out the correct house in the photographs . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 Chairman King said the drawing provided with the appeal ( entitled Addition To Gersh . Cottage , East Shore Drive , Ithaca , New York and prepared by Michael R . Schwartz , Architect ) shows this as one unified lot whereas the tax map shows two . Mr . Gersh said that both lots are available for use by the tenants and they have a percentage of lot coverage of approximately 4% in that configuration so that , even though there are three buildings on one lot because they own the adjacent lot also , they actually have more than 48 , 000 square feet of space . Chairman King asked if he meant land area and Mr . Gersh replied yes . Chairman King said , when you figure that , is that gross area including the railroad up to the highway? Mr . Gersh said yes , it includes the railroad right- of -way . Chairman King then asked , if you take out the area of the railroad right- of -way ( which is hardly useable by anyone but the railroad ) , then how much area have you got? Mr . Gersh stated that the railroad right- of -way is 50 ' wide and runs the full width of the lots . Mr . Frost asked if they hadn ' t submitted a survey map as part of the application and Mr . Gersh said yes . Mr . Frost then said this survey map shows there being an old Lot # 1 which had two buildings on it to the south side of the property ( the parcel being 19 - 2 - 9 ) and now currently shows it as being 19 - 2 - 9 . 1 and 9 . 2 . Mr . Frost asked if they owned the 9 . 2 as well and Mr . Gersh replied yes , they acquired the south half in 1977 and the north half in 1985 . Chairman King asked if they had not subdivided a single lot , and Mr . Gersh replied that ' s correct . Chairman King asked if the building on the north lot is also residential and Mrs . Gersh replied that there ' s no building there . Mr . Gersh said the survey done in 1971 shows a building on the extreme north side ; but that does no longer exist and wasn ' t there when he bought it back in 1977 . Chairman King said , but there is some building • showing there in the pictures and Mr . and Mrs . Gersh both stated that it is a storage shed right by the creek . Mr . Frost asked , when they had bought it in 1977 , was this a parcel that was 9 . 1 and 9 . 2 or was it one parcel and Mr . Gersh replied that it was one parcel . Mr . King asked if they had bought them at different times and Mr . Gersh replied yes , with the three houses on them . Mr . Frost asked if they owned the vacant land to the north side of that and if they had bought that as a separate parcel as well and Mr . Gersh said yes , from the same seller . Mr . Gersh then stated the former owner had kept part of it because he thought someday he ' d want to build a house there ; eventually , he changed his mind so that ' s how it came about that they bought only part of the tax parcel first , and bought the rest of it later . Attorney Barney asked if the former owner had ever gone through any kind of subdivision process and Mr . Gersh said he didn ' t know - - this was Dave Schulman and his son represented him ( that ' s a Syracuse law firm ) and he didn ' t know what process he went through . Mr . Frost said , if that occurred prior to 1984 , they would have dealt with it and committed without concern . Mr . Gersh said the proposed plan for renovating one building simply calls for providing more useful living space without enlarging the building at all . He thinks the health , safety , and welfare of the occupants will be greatly benefitted and said , if the Board would look at the photographs he was passing around , they would see that the present situation is that of a bathroom which measures 3 ' 8 " x 6 ' with no sink and the floor is rotting through . Mr . Ellsworth said that was nothing to do with this issue and is just maintenance of property in his eyes but , if that was causing safety problems . . 9 and asked Attorney Barney if his thinking was right . Attorney Barney suggested that Mr . Gersh be allowed to finish . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 Mr . Gersh continued that one of the factors the Board was concerned about in • granting a special approval is that it promote health , safety , and welfare and he p believed these changes would do that by providing a safe , bright bathroom ( the resent bathroom doesn ' t even have a sink ) . They plan to rearrange the interior of the place to provide a much nicer , healthier , safer environment . They are providing an additional door so there ' s additional means of ingress and egress and , basically , modernizing and improving . This cottage is perhaps 60 years old , and they ' re bringing it up-to-date and doing it without increasing the square footage of the building and without increasing the legal occupancy of the building . Chairman King asked if the changes were being made without increasing the enclosed space , and Mr . Gersh replied that they are increasing the enclosed space by enclosing the existing porch . Chairman King asked if it was the front porch which would be enlarged and Mr . Gersh replied that it ' s the porch facing the lake . Chairman King asked how much they would be enclosing : what the size of the porch was ; and Mr . Gersh said , if you refer to the plan , it ' s 8 ' x 16 ' . Attorney Barney asked if the back end renovation was what they were now not going to be doing , and Mr . and Mrs . Gersh agreed that is correct . Attorney Barney then asked : so where does the additional room for the bathroom come from? Mr . Gersh stated , if you compare the two pictures given to the Board members , you can see they ' re taking a piece of the kitchen and making it into the bathroom ( he referred to the diagram that shows existing and proposed ) . Mr . Frost said that , perhaps , is not so significant for the purpose of this hearing but he thought what is relevant tonight is the fact that they have an open porch on the lake side of the building which is now being turned into a bedroom so , in a sense , he ' s enlarging the house that way , and not by footprint necessarily on a non- conforming property . • Mr . Frost asked how many bedrooms are in the house now and Mr . Gersh said there would be three . Mr . Gersh said they ' re creating a living space and people can use it as a study , they can use it for whatever they wish . Attorney Barney said , but you could rent to more people . Mr . Gersh said they can rent it to three right now ; they couldn ' t rent it to more people , now it ' s legal for three and they can rent it to three so they ' re not increasing the legal occupancy at all . Mr . Gersh said the porch , under the zoning ordinance , is part of the building and all they ' re doing is asking permission to enclose the three open sides of it . It will also accomplish another purpose they ' ve found useful and that is that the bedroom above the open porch is uncomfortably cold in the winter ; the only source of heat in that bedroom is through heat which rises from the living room below , .about one fourth of the bedroom is over the living room and the other three quarters is over this porch . By enclosing it , they ' ll be able to provide more heat for the upstairs bedroom . Attorney Barney asked if the little area where the stacked washer / dryer was going was part of the plan still . Mr . Gersh said that is part of the plan and is a cantilevered bunk , just big enough to hold the water heater and a stacked washer / dryer . Attorney Barney noted that there is a slight enlargement of the footprint then for that 2 ' and they would need a foundation for that space and Mr . Gersh said it would be cantilevered ; the plans call for it and , as indicated , it would be cantilevered out just enough . Mr . Frost stated he didn ' t know how they would do that without getting into the existing floor joist because normally , when you cantilever something , your floor joist going back into the building is two- thirds of the distance more than what ' s cantilevered out so you have a foundation , you ' re a third over that foundation but your floor joists support the other back two-thirds . Mr . Frost said he wasn ' t sure how they would accomplish that without some kind of support . ® Mr . Lorren Hammond , the contractor , stepped to the microphone . Mr . Hammond said he proposed to deal with the cantilever question by getting into the floor deck there ; as was mentioned before , there ' s a rot problem in the floor . In order to renovate the bathroom and create the proposed changes the Board has in front of them , they need to Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 get into that floor deck anyway dealing with plumbing , etc . so , when they ' re in that • floor deck space , they ' ll create the provisions for the cantilever . Mr . Frost said such that the floor joists are replaced? And Mr . Hammond said , exactly , and they have 6 ' bearing on foundation and 2 ' cantilevered which is more support than they need . Mr . Frost agreed that would be adequate . Chairman King asked what the investment or cost was of this revised proposed plan and Mr . Gersh said it was about $ 10 , 000 . Mr . Scala referred to the statement which was attached to the appeal ( fourth paragraph ) . . . " The cost of these improvements are significant . In an effort to offset these costs the proposal provides for the enclosure of an existing porch so that a third bedroom may be added therefore allowing for an increase in rental income . " Mr . Scala asked if the idea there was for more tenants and Mr . Gersh said no . Mr . Scala asked , then how do you increase the rental income ? Mr . Gersh replied because they ' re providing a much nicer space and more living space for the people ; now , people don ' t even have a sink in their bathroom and they have two small bedrooms . Mr . Scala asked if they anticipated still renting to one family and Mr . Gersh said yes and it wouldn ' t hurt , frankly , to get some income to pay back the investment . Mr . Scala said he wasn ' t questioning that but was just asking the form of the income , then asked what the number of people that were going to be renting would be and if it would be one family . Mr . Gersh said yes , a family and one additional occupant is what the ordinance permits . Mr . Frost noted that two unrelated persons being considered a family is the sense of what the zoning ordinance permits . Attorney Barney added they were speaking of " a family" in the legal sense , not in the biological sense . • Chairman King said Mr . Gersh had said at the outset that they were scaling back the proposal considerably but , actually , they were just reducing the addition on the east end of the building . Mr . Gersh said that is correct and noted that the cost of taking out the east wall ( where the three services are - - electric , telephone , and gas ) and dealing with the tree that ' s right there , they found out would just be enormously expensive along with the cost of putting in a foundation . They hadn ' t planned on that and started getting bids of $ 25 , 000 so they were then able to reconfigure the plan , use a piece of the kitchen floor space , enlarge the bathroom , and basically provide a much nicer living unit than what they now have . Chairman King asked if they had given any thought to the idea of abandoning this building as a residence and that the design of the ordinance is to phase out unsuitable buildings , not to promote their existence , so the question is : Is the building worth so much that it ' s worth keeping rather than going with the flow and reducing the congestion on this lot . Mr . Gersh said he certainly thinks so , it ' s a very desirable building . Chairman King asked if it had been a boathouse and Mr . Gersh said yes , he thought originally it was probably a boathouse . Chairman King wanted to know if the walls were even insulated , and Mr . Gersh said yes . Mr . Scala asked what the form of the heating system is and Mr . Gersh said it is a gas heater . Mr . Frost asked if it was a space heater and Mr . Gersh said it is a gas forced air and space heater in the center of the living room . Mr . Frost said , but that heats the whole building so there ' s no real duct work going from that space heater . Mr . Frost said when you look at many of the old original surveys , you see that all ® of the buildings on that east side are labelled as boathouses . Mr . King said of course , there must be a wall there now which would make it impossible to use it for a boathouse anymore and Mr . Frost said that was right . Mr . Gersh said that the property is adjacent to a multiple residence zone in which more than one building is allowed . Mr . Frost wanted to know if that was the corner adjacent and Mrs . Gersh said no , on the other side Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 of the street . Mr . Frost said the east side of East Shore Drive is multiple residence zoning . Mr . Gersh said , so more than one building could be permitted on a lot there so he is suggesting that the character of the area is not changed substantially because there happen to be these three buildings on this lot . Mr . Ellsworth said , in other words , we ' re talking about the character of the area and the buildings nearby all have screen porches and so on , then asked if those were all permanent residences there or are they just summer residences . He said he was referring to the character of the neighborhood and asked if there were people there year round and Mr . Gersh said they ' re all available for year round use . Mr . Ellsworth said he knows , and everybody is renting the places to students ( Mrs . Gersh said that ' s right ) . Mr . Dietz , the property manager , said some of them are rented but there are also some owner- occupied homes along that area . Mr . Gersh said he thinks it ' s also true that this Board has been very understanding of the unique nature of the lake properties ; it has granted approvals , variances , etc . to his neighbor , Jon Albanese , on many occasions even though he has two buildings on a 40 ' wide lot . He continued that the Board had granted approval to his other neighbor , Dick Thaler , who has a building on a tiny lot . In other words , Mr . Gersh said he thinks the lake situation ( as Mr . Frost had suggested ) is somewhat special . The lots are non- conforming , they ' re irregular shaped , etc . Mr . Ellsworth said he knows why Mr . Gersh doesn ' t want to abandon the building , because it ' s lake front building ; he said Mr . Gersh had kind of walked around that earlier with some wording . Mr . Gersh agreed that it is lake front property , and Mr . Ellsworth said even a student would like to be on the lake if they can year round . • Chairman King asked , once they enclose the front porch to make a bedroom , when will they be applying to add a deck out there . Mr . Frost said it ' s actually shown on one of the sets of plans and that Section 65 of the ordinance would exempt the deck from the requirements of the ordinance if it ' s within 3 ' of the ground surface which he presumes this is . Mr . Gersh noted that they might just put a patio or some paver blocks there . Mr . Ellsworth said , so there is intent there . Mr . Frost asked if they would intend to put a patio and then come back to the Zoning Board and say , now I want to put a roof over this and make it an enclosed porch . Mr . Gersh said he will commit himself to say this is all he wants to do absolutely and that ' s why they scaled back . Mr . Gersh said he thought he could also speak for his wife too , they plan no further enlargement , extension , enhancement and this was the reason , in fact , why they scaled back the project initially . Even though it would have been very nice to put a 6 ' extension on , giving the occupants even more elaborate floor space , the expense was just too much . Mr . Scala said , if anything , he would say this is quite a large lot ( 1741 ) across the lake ; you ' ve got so many 50 ' properties here that this one is quite large compared to many . Chairman King noted that the Board is really dealing only with the south end . Mr . Frost said the Board should be aware that there are actually two separate tax parcels now and Chairman King said two deed parcels , two tax parcels . Mr . Scala asked if they were only dealing with Lot 1 then and Mr . Frost said it was 9 . 1 and , if you look on the tax map provided , he could theoretically sell off parcel 9 . 2 and remain with three buildings on a parcel that ' s 80 ' wide and 260 plus or so feet deep . The fact that now you ' re the current owner of both parcels doesn ' t mean you should necessarily sell off 9 . 2 and leave yourself with an 80 ' wide parcel . Both Mr . and Mrs . Gersh said no , they ® wouldn ' t do that and Mr . Frost noted he wasn ' t saying they would do that but , potentially , they could do that . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 Mr . Scala asked if right now what they were approving was essentially for the full • area and Attorney Barney said no , you ' re approving an addition on an 87 ' x 263 ' lot and that ' s the lot that you ' re dealing with . Attorney Barney said , unless you wanted to impose some sort of condition . Mr . Ellsworth said the condition being that they ' re not doing the addition . Everything the Board has in front of them right now shows that addition , so one of the conditions will be that the proposed addition is not part of this approval . Attorney Barney said yes , but all he ' s saying is that you should be taking into account the fact that the other lot is available and you may or may not want to impose such a condition limiting altering the lot . Chairman King said , under the present ordinance , only one residence could be built on that lot . Mr . Frost said , on the vacant lot , yes . Chairman King opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Chairman King read into the minutes the letter dated July 26 , 1994 from Jonathan 0 . Albanese , the adjacent neighbor to the south residing at 1040 East Shore Drive . Chairman King noted the only concern expressed in the letter is that the residence is one of three on a single lot zoned for a single family residence and that there will now exist four separate living units on that property . Mr . Gersh stated that the north most house has the two apartments ( two one bedrooms , one house ) so there are four living units on that one property . Chairman King went on that the letter read although the addition of an additional bedroom may create some additional congestion in the neighborhood , the increase in congestion could be minimized by the Board requiring that the property be occupied by no more than two unrelated persons . Mr . Frost said he ' s assuming that the two - family home is assessed as a two family and you bought the parcel in 1977 and Mr . Gersh said yes , that ' s true . • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman King asked Mr . Gersh if he had received a copy of the Environmental Assessment review and Mr . Gersh replied no . Mr . Frost stated that usually , if it ' s a positive action , they try to get that to the person involved but , if it ' s a negative action , they usually don ' t copy them . Chairman King asked if this one wasn ' t recommending a positive action and Mr . Ellsworth said no , it was a negative recommendation despite some comments . Chairman King noted that the Environmental Assessment was completed by George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner and dated July 21 , 1994 . He said they understand this has to be modified because the short Environmental Assessment Form , as submitted , calls for the construction of a 6 ' x 12 ' addition to the east side of the building but that proposal has now been abandoned . The applicants now want to cantilever only a small section ( 2 ' x 4 ' at the northeast corner of the building ) but still want to enclose the front lake side porch to create an additional bedroom . Mr . Ellsworth said he had a question for Attorney Barney ; since they ' re not doing the addition , it ' s still a negative determination but there are comments by the planner that might change without that addition . Mr . Ellsworth said , should we continue to move on this or what direction should be taken? Attorney Barney said , in view of the fact that he recommends a negative determination based on a more expansive program than what ' s being presented in front of the Board , he did not have any difficulty with proceeding without sending it back ; it was negative with the expanded program , so it ® would be real strange for it to come back positive with a lesser program . Chairman King read Part II - C1 , C4 and C5 of the Environmental Assessment form . He then read C4 and C5 and Part III of the Environmental Assessment form . Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 MOTION • By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner on July 21 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal by David Gersh /Quality Rentals for the property at 1046 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 2 - 9 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Frost said he would like to mention , should the Board approve this , that the sketches the Board has before them would not necessarily constitute an approval of the specifics shown on the papers . Though in concept the Board may approve it , it should be understood that the actual building permit will not go along with what he shows on the sketch . Mr . Ellsworth asked in what regard , and Mr . Frost said it was specifically showing slide bi- fold doors for the hot water heater which is part of the code for the hot water heater and the bathroom . He may not approve the sliding doors but will approve its location , probably with some fire resistant sheet rock . Mr . Frost said this is minor , but Mr . Gersh should understand that the Board is not approving this as part of their approval ( Mr . Gersh said he understood ) . Chairman King asked if they were looking at the plans submitted today which are dated July 27 , 1994 and consisted of two drawings and Mr . Frost said yes . Mr . Ellsworth said it would seem to him , as part of the contingency of the approval , is that all these plans should be brought up-to- date with what ' s going to be done and not what is shown now . Mr . Frost said there is some newer version of both that the Board does have . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the newer version doesn ' t show the addition then and Mr . Gersh said no and pointed out to Mr . Ellsworth which were the old and new versions of the drawing . Mr . Ellsworth said there is a site plan which still shows that addition . Mr . Frost said this will go through the full building permit process . With no other discussion , Chairman King asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , David Gersh / Quality Rentals , a Special Approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge the bathroom by utilizing a portion of the existing kitchen , addition for a one story 4 ' x 2 ' utility space , and enclosing the existing roofed front porch to create a third bedroom for the property at 1046 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 - 9 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings and condition : 1 . Being approved as shown on the last drawing submitted to the Board on July 27 , ® 1994 with retention of the present size of the overall building and footprint . The appellant would be adding a bathroom , toilet and shower within the present kitchen and they would be enclosing a porch , in fact creating a third bedroom and be it understood that it will still be limited to a single family dwelling and the rules that apply thereto . Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 2 . This would leave the 87 ' wide lot with three buildings and proper provision will . be made for parking , presumably towards the road along the railroad right-of - way . 3 . Upon noting that the proposed addition across the east side of the building has been withdrawn and limiting that to a one story 4 ' x 2 ' addition for utilities ( water , heat , and the like ) . 4 . The matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Chairman King asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Willis and James Hilker , Appellants , requesting a variance from Article %III , Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two family residence on a building lot 60 + feet wide and 120 + feet in depth at 158 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54- 5- 16 , Residence District R-9 . Said Ordinance limits the use of undersized building lots to single family residences . Authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct the • residential building , under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested . Chairman King invited James Hilker to the microphone to present his case . Mr . Frost said , before the appellant starts , he wanted to say that he kind of wrote the advertisement two ways : Section 57 basically says a lot of deed record , if its undersized , is allowed to have a single family residence and the appellants are looking for a two family residence . So , on one end , Mr . Frost said he sees this as a variance of Section 57 ; on the other hand , it ' s a non- conforming lot so he also included special approval under Article XII , Section 54 so this was properly advertised in any event . Jim Hilker asked Mr . Frost if the Article XII , Section 54 referred to road frontage and Mr . Frost said yes , basically their road and lot , for example , has to have a width of 75 ' which they didn ' t quite make and he thought the lot area had to be 12 , 000 square feet . Chairman King said he didn ' t think any of the lots in that subdivision actually meet with the current code and Mr . Frost agreed and said , not at all . Jim Hilker stated this was the subdivision that was created back in about 1894 and most of the lots in the area are 50 ' wide , and they ' re fortunate enough to have one of the wider ones in the 60 ' range . He didn ' t know if the Board members had the tax parcel map there in front of them , but you could see on that map that most of the lots that have existing houses are combined lots - - they say 100 ' , and you ' ll see a dash line that used to divide it down the middle so they were originally 50 ' lots . There are very few 60 ' lots in there , but they have one of them . The house is not that big and they ' re only talking about 1 , 000 square feet per floor ; each unit having two bedrooms and one bath . They ' re not trying to crowd the place but they ' re trying to get a couple of decent , affordable - sized family apartments in this building . ® Mr . Ellsworth asked where Kendall Avenue is and wanted to know the names of some other streets in the area and Jim Hilker said it ' s near Therm - - Mr . Ellsworth said it must be near Pennsylvania Avenue then . Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 Chairman King said the first question he would ask is , how come the building is already constructed and they ' re just now coming before the Board . Mr . Frost said they went through and obtained a notice where he signs stating that he realizes , if he doesn ' t get the approval , the house will be utilized as a single family home . In fact , the building permit issued shows it as a single family , even though the plans potentially show a two family home . Mr . Frost said he thinks Mr . Hilker is aware that , should he not get the approval , basically some minor alterations will occur to the building which will render it a single family residence . Mr . Frost also stated he is comfortable with what they ' ve done here . Jim Hilker said , right now , it ' s still at a point where it can be easily turned into a single family home although that ' s not what they desire . They don ' t have either kitchen in yet and they ' re not done with the house . He would say 50 to 60% of the neighborhood in that stretch , currently is multiple family . Right next door , there is a four unit building ( Chairman King asked if by next door , he meant to the east and was told that ' s correct ) . Chairman King asked if their building faces north , on the south side of Kendall Avenue . Bill Hilker said the building directly to the east on the floor plan ( or the building directly across the street ) is multiple units - - one room apartments for college students . Mr . Frost said what they have in the neighborhood , because of the 50 ' wide lots , is some landowners who came to the Board and said that they ' ve combined the building lots and , in some cases , there may actually be two to four building lots . So , rather than building four single family residences , they got approvals from the Zoning Board years ago to allow them to build multiple residences so you end up with one building ( albeit four units ) ; it ' s not four buildings on four building lots . In some cases , they have • had two family lots where there ' s two building lots combined and they built a two family home on a larger size lot . Mr . Ellsworth said it ' s kind of a side issue but this property isn ' t too far from Pennsylvania Avenue , isn ' t it a block or so? Mr . Ellsworth said there are enough people on Pennsylvania Avenue - - families , that still live there - - who are having a terrible time with college students and the noise . Mr . Ellsworth asked if any of the people who rent their buildings are families and Jim Hilker said that they ' re hoping for families , but you never know . Bill Hilker said in fact , if they could have written the lease , they ' d already have a family in there . Bill Hilker added however , they couldn ' t write a lease until they know just exactly where they stand and they ' ve lost that particular family now , they ' ve rented elsewhere . Chairman King said he noticed that the lot to the west of them is listed as vacant and stated it seems to be 60 ' wide . Bill Hilker said Mr . Capozzi owns that lot and he lives in Colorado . Chairman King asked what their best argument is for making the house a two family and Jim Hilker stated that it ' s economics more than anything ; they would like to build a base of rental units and , to make it a feasible project , it really needs to be two family . Otherwise , they would run into a financial hardship . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that was with regard to getting loans and so forth , and Jim said getting loans and also being able to draw enough rent to pay for the mortgage . Mr . Scala asked if they had built other homes of this type and Mr . Frost said they ® had built on the very end of Kendall Avenue which also went before this Board for lack of road frontage ( that was a single family ) . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that had been a little while ago , and Jim Hilker stated it was approximately one year ago . Mr . Scala then said what he was getting at was setting a precedent for any other places with a two family building zone where it is really intended to only have one . Jim Hilker said they Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 conformed to all other zoning ( he said he meant as far as the second unit being totally • in the basement ) so they ' re keeping the building as small as they can deal with and still get a decent two bedroom apartment in there . He said , really , they ' re conforming with the zoning as far as the second unit is concerned in most other districts in the whole town and they weren ' t trying to get around any of them . Bill Hilker said there ' s a paradox here that , as a two family house , they can rent to two families . As a single residence house , they ' re locked into renting to students because you can ' t make a single family residence house work that well there for rental . You can ' t garner enough rent to cover the house as one living unit ; as two living units , you can do that . So , as one living unit , you almost have to rent to students and that accentuates the problem which is always there . Bill said , so it ' s a paradox and they quite frankly did not know any other way but to come before the Board and say look , help us out to make it work for the neighborhood as well as for ourselves . Bill said his sister- in- law lives two houses down . They have no problems ; in fact , one of the neighbors approached them today and might be interested in renting an apartment . Mr . Frost asked if their intent is to own the building and rent the units and Bill Hilker said that ' s exactly correct . In fact , it ' s a long-term rental ; between he and Jim , they want to keep it - - not to set it up and sell it , that ' s not the issue . Mr . Frost asked if they had an intent , as they could conceivably be permitted by the zoning ordinance for R- 9 , to then come back before the Board and say we now want to put four or five other people in the building . Bill Hilker said they had never discussed that and it wasn ' t an issue , and Mr . Ellsworth said they could take care of that if the variance is approved . Bill Hilker said , in fact , he didn ' t believe the Zoning Board of Appeals grants something they don ' t set a precedence to do . Mr . Frost then said that • district R- 9 actually would allow them to come into an R- 9 zone and ask for permission to have more than three unrelated people in a building . Bill Hilker asked if he meant as a single family and Mr . Frost said yes , then Mr . Hilker said that would be another way of approaching it . Mr . Scala said right now , the intent is to get approval to make it a two family residence and that would mean that they could presumably put students there , also . Mr . Frost said a two family residence does not allow any boarders so , presuming you have students , you can have two students living together as a family in each unit and you can have four in the entire building . As a single family residence , though , the ordinance would allow them to come to the Board and ask for a permit to have more than three unrelated people ; it doesn ' t mean the Zoning Board has to grant them that approval . At the same time , the Board could - - in approving this variance - - limit the occupancy to no more than two in each unit . Mr . Scala said , if this is approved , they don ' t have to come back before the Board to rent to four students and Mr . Frost agreed that ' s correct . Jim Hilker said they really don ' t want to get into one unit because , like his dad ( Bill Hilker ) said , you ' re really locking yourself into students . Mr . Ellsworth said to Jim that he was talking about hardship and Jim agreed and added that - - when you get into one unit with four students - - most of the time they ' re going to be four friends , they ' re going to like to party , and they could destroy the place . If you get two bedrooms for one unit , one person usually likes it and tries to keep someone else in there as a roommate . Bill Hilker said years ago , he had renters on South Hill and never rented to students ; back then , you prohibited renting to them and just plain told them no , but you can ' t do that these days . Mr . Scala said it ' s expensive to maintain and you get a number of people who disappear without paying . Jim stated that grad students are ok . Bill Hilker said but you can ' t very well use a single family residence because they want smaller units and there are just two in a family type group usually . Chairman King opened the public hearing noting there was no one present to speak , then closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals July 27 , 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Chairman King noted that the Environmental Assessment Form was done by Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner and dated July 21 , 1994 . With no further discussion required , he then asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner dated July 21 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal by Willis and James Hilker for the property at 158 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 5 - 16 , Residence District R- 9 . Chairman King then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . With no additional discussion required , Chairman King then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION • By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicants , Willis and James Hilker , a variance from Article XIII , Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two family residence on the building lot 60 + feet wide and 120 + feet in depth at 158 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 5 - 16 , Residence District R- 9 , with the following findings and condition : 1 . The building is now in existence , but not finished , and was originally intended to be a single family residence . 2 . With the understanding that this will allow them to rent to two families . 3 . Conditioned on the applicants submitting a survey of the project ( as built ) showing the side , rear , and front yard setbacks and that this be made part of the record for the building permit . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . With no further business , Chairman King adjourned the meeting at 9 : 00 PM . • Y Janda M . McLaughlin Recording Secretary Edward King , Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FINAL • WEDNESDAY , JULY 27 , 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 , July 27 , 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 Ken Ritter and Linda Holzbaur , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non- conforming building with a 14 foot x 30 foot addition at 249 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 7 -40 , Residence District R- 9 . Said building is non-conforming since it is located 7 + feet within the required front yard building setback . The proposed building addition will be 6 + feet within the required front yard building setback . Appeal of T-S -T BOCES , Appellant , Robert L . Manvell , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article XIII , Section 59A of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to install a 12 foot diameter satellite dish with an overall height of 30 + feet . The satellite dish will be attached to the north side of BOCES building " A" , located at 555 Warren Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 73- 1 - 1 . 31 , Residence District R- 15 . The Zoning Ordinance only allows for 15 feet high freestanding satellite dishes , located in rear yards only . • Appeal of David Gersh/ Quality Rentals , Appellant , Jerry Dietz , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enclose an existing porch and convert it to a bedroom and to construct a 6 foot x 12 foot room addition on the east side of a non- conforming building / lot located at 1046 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 - 9 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it has a 2 . 5 + foot south side yard building setback ( 15 foot setback required ) and said lot is non- conforming since it contains three residential buildings ( one residential building on a parcel of land permitted ) . Appeal of Willis and James Hilker , Appellants , requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two family residence on a building lot 60 + feet wide and 120 + feet in depth at 158 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 - 5 - 16 , Residence District R- 9 . Said Ordinance limits the use of undersized building lots to single family residences . Authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals to construct the residential building , under Article XII , Section 54 may also be requested . 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 : July 19 , 1994 Publish : July 22 , 1994