Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-02-11 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 11 , 1995 FINAL 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 , January 11 , 1995 , 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 James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non-conforming single - family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19- 2 - 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 ' 1 " + from the south side yard property line , whereas 15 ' is required . The property is also . 16+ acres in area , whereby . 34+ acres is required . A variance from Article IV , Section 11 may also be requested as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' + , whereas a 30 ' maximum height is permitted . Appeal of Joanne C . Kaplan , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing • single - family residence with a south side building setback of 12 . 5 ' + ( 15 ' setback required ) at 159 Westview Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58- 2 - 39 . 56 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building was constructed in 1989 in non conformance with the building permit which was issued in conjunction with approved building plans . Appeal of A . Matthew Thompson , D . S . S . and Nancy Thompson , Appellants , Cornell University , Landowner , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 and 12 , to be permitted to operate a non- residential dental office with 4 employees at 101 Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 60- 1 - 9 . 3 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Ordinance would only allow for such an operation when the office is a part of the dentist ' s residence and no more than 2 additional persons not residing on the premises are employed therein . Appeal of Stephen Lucente , Appellant , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing two- family residence with a 14 ' north side yard building setback ( 15 ' required ) at 106 Christopher Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 2 - 5 , Residence District R- 15 . Appeal of Charles F . Welch , Paul W . and Sylvia Gatch , Owners , Town of Ithaca , Appellant , Daniel R . Walker , P . E . Agent , requesting variances from the requirements of Article V . Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the subdivision of land that will result in a substandard sized lot and building setbacks from property lines that are deficient at 110 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 33- 2 - 5 . 1 and 33- 2 - 5 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said variances are for parcel no . 33- 2 - 5 . 1 to contain an area of 28 , 750+ square feet ( 301000 square feet required ) , with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback line of 1271 + ( 150width required ) . Parcel no . 33- 2 - 5 . 1 will have a principal residential building with a front yard building setback of 8 . 7 ' ( 30 ' setback required ) and a north side yard setback of 10 ' + ( 40 ' required ) , while parcel no . 33- 2 - 5 . 2 will contain a municipally owned utility services building with a north side yard building setback of 36 ' + ( 40 ' setback required ) . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated * January 3 , 1995 Publish * January 6 , 1995 FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 11 , 1995 7 . 00 P . H. 1 . Appeal of James Hider at 1134 East Shore Drive , 2 . Appeal of Joanne C . Kaplan at 159 Westview Lane . 3 . Appeal of A . Matthew Thompson , D . S . S . and Nancy Thompson at 101 Snyder Hill Road . 4 . Appeal of Stephen Lucente at 106 Christopher Circle . 5 . Appeal of Charles F . Welch , Paul W . and Sylvia Gatch at 110 Seven Mile Drive . 6 . Appoint Vice Chairperson for 1995 . • Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273- 1783 Dated : January 6 , 1995 • F� ®W ET:" CFIa ZONING BOARD OAPPEALS WEDNESDAY , JANUARY 11 , 1995 'Date-L. L llw — • Clevkrkw ° L, bn1 & cl The following appeals were heard by the Board on January 11 , 1995 : Areal of James Hider , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non-conforming single - family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2- 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming since it is located 7 ' 1 " + from the south side yard property line , whereas 15 ' is required . The property is also . 16+ acres in area , whereby . 34+ acres is required . A variance from Article IV , Section 11 may also be requested as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' ±, whereas a 30 ' maximum height is permitted . ADJOURNED TO FEBRUARY 8 , 1995 . Appeal of Joanne C . Kaplan , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single- family residence with a south side building setback of 12 . 5 ' + ( 15 ' setback required ) at 159 Westview Lane ; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58- 2 - 39 . 56 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building was constructed in 1989 in non conformance with the building permit which was issued in conjunction with approved building plans . GRANTED . ANkAppeal of A . Matthew Thompson , D . S . S . and Nancy Thompson , Appellants , Cornell University , andowner , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 and 12 , to be permitted to operate a non- residential dental office with 4 employees at 101 Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 60- 1 - 9 . 3 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Ordinance would only allow for such an operation when the office is a part of the dentist ' s residence and no more than 2 additional persons not residing on the premises are employed therein . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Stephen Lucente , Appellant , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing two- family residence with a 14 ' north side yard building setback ( 15required ) at 106 Christopher Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 2 - 5 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED WITH A CONDITION . Appeal of Charles F . Welch , Paul W . and Sylvia Gatch , Owners , Town of Ithaca , Appellant , Daniel R . Walker , P . E . , Agent , requesting variances from the requirements of Article V , Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for the subdivision of land that will result in a substandard sized lot and building setbacks from property lines that are deficient at 110 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 33- 2 - 5 . 1 and 33- 2 - 5 . 2 , Residence District R- 30 . Said variances are for parcel no . 33- 2 - 5 . 1 to contain an area of 28 , 750± square feet ( 30 , 000 square feet required ) , with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback line of 127 ' + ( 150 ' width required ) . Parcel no . 33- 2 - 5 . 1 will have a principal residential building with a front yard building setback of 8 . 7 ' ± ( 30 ' setback required ) and a north side yard setback of 10 ' ± ( 40 ' required ) , while parcel no . 33- 2 - 5 . 2 will contain a • municipally owned utility services building with a north side yard building setback of 36 ' ± ( 40 ' setback required ) . GRANTED WITH A CONDITION . -r . TOWN Oe 0 u F tiACA � TOWN OF ITHACA u�a4Q ��Q� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS d JANUARY 11 , 1995 ClerkbnciA • PRESENT * Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , David Stotz , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Jonathan Kanter . OTHERS : Nancy Thompson , A . M . Thompson , James Hider , Charles House , Peggy House , Dr . Bob Baker , Dr . Bernice Parisi , Larry Fabbroni , Ralph Varn , Joanne Kaplan , Town of Ithaca Highway Superintendent Fred Noteboom , Spence Silverstein and Karen Herzog . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 08 PM stating that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . He further stated that the agenda would be changed a little bit . The appeal of Charles F . Welch , Paul W . and Sylvia Gatch , Owners , Town of Ithaca , Appellant , is going to be first on the agenda tonight . He then invited Mr . Noteboom to take a chair by the microphone . Chairman Austen noted that there are only three members of the Board present at the time and they are trying to get one more member present because there is a problem on the appeal of Dr . Thompson . If they can get another member , they will proceed with that appeal ; if not , they will adjourn that for this evening . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Charles F . Welch , Paul W . and Sylvia Gatch , Owners , Town of Ithaca, Appellant , Daniel R . Walker , P . E . , Agent , requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 21 and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to allow for • the subdivision of land that will result in a substandard sized lot and building setbacks from property lines that are deficient at 110 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 33-2--5 . 1 and 33-2- 5 . 2 , Residence District R-30 . Said variances are for Parcel No . 33-2- 5 . 1 to contain an area of 28 , 750± square feet ( 30 , 000 square feet required ) , with a lot width at the maximum front yard setback line of 127 ' + ( 150 ' width required ) . Parcel No . 33-2-5 . 1 will have a principle residential building with a front yard building setback of 8 . 7 ' + ( 30 ' setback re- quired ) and a north side yard setback of 10 '± ( 40 ' required ) , while Parcel No . 33-2- 5 . 2 will contain a municipally owned utility services building with a north side yard building setback of 36 ' ± ( 40 ' setback required ) . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Noteboom if he is going to take Dan ' s place tonight . Mr . Noteboom replied in the affirmative . Attorney Barney said that , if it is all right with Chairman Austen , he could assist Mr . Noteboom and the Board as to what this is all about . Attorney Barney continued with , the Town of Ithaca is purchasing ( referred to a map ) Parcel 2 . The property is adjacent ( left hand corner of the map ) to the Town Highway property in the southern part of the Town , off of Seven Mile Drive . When we went to acquire it and made the purchase offer on it , these properties were separately assessed on the existing tax map and there did not appear to be any problem . So , there was a contract signed for the purchase . When we started getting into the matter , we discovered that while Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 have been sold as Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 for a number of years , and I would say that a number meaning 15 - 20 years , as separate parcels , back in about 1978 or 1979 , somebody went to the tax office and requested that they be merged for real estate tax assessment purposes , which they were . So , there was a period of two or three years , or maybe longer where 1 and 2 , while they were separately Speeded and shown as two separate parcels on each deed , they were , in fact , treated as one arcel for real estate tax assessment purposes . When we discovered that , we went back to the Planning Board because we had taken a position with other land owners that , under that circumstance , it ' s necessary to re -- subdivide . You , basically , abandon your subdivision Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 rights when you come in and say I want to consolidate it for tax purposes . The Planning Board granted subdivision approval back to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 , the way they had always been but , in so doing , by redrawing this line between the two , it creates the deficiencies that ' s before you tonight because the building in the front is a little too close to a side line . The area of Parcel 1 is slightly under that required for an R-30 zone , which is 30 , 000 square feet , and the barn on Parcel 2 was supposed to , I think , have a 40 foot setback from the side yard ; it has a 36 foot setback . There isn ' t a heck-of- a- lot one can do with respect to the frontage of the building on Parcel 1 . That ' s been there , I think the building was there mid- 40 ' s -- - I suggest that ' s when it was probably built . And , it ' s obviously been eight feet from the road for that period of time . So , there ' s not much of a practical solution for that . So , having granted that subdivision , they have brought the matter to you to request a variance so that Parcel 2 can be sold as contracted for with the Town of Ithaca . Chairman Austen stated that the house that ' s on Parcel 1 pre -exists our zoning . Mr . Frost informed the Board that the house was built in 1860 according to the Assessment Office . Chairman Austen asked if the municipal building that is proposed is existing . Attorney Barney replied that the new barn is shown as a new barn . There ' s nothing more being added ; it ' s existing already . Mr . Frost stated that the zoning ordinance , in R- 30 zones , permits a municipal building utilized for the maintenance of public utility services and the highway would certainly be considered a public utility . This really is not an accessory building ; it ' s a principle building . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Since no one appeared to address the Board , 1whairman Austen closed the public hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr . Kanter noted that it was the basic , simple short form with no expanded comments or anything . Chairman Austen asked if there was anything down on the form that the Board should know? He then stated that the preparer was Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner . He ( Mr . Kanter ) is suggesting that there will be no significant environmental affect on the property and would pose a negative declaration . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendation of Jonathan Kanter , Town Planner , for a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the appeal of Charles Welch and Paul W . and Sylvia Gatch , Town of Ithaca , to allow for the subdivision of land that would result in a substandard sized lot and buildings setback on property lines that are deficient at 110 Seven Mile Drive , Parcels No . 33- 2- 5 . 1 and 33- 2 - 5 . 2 . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as followsa • AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Stotz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Chairman Austen stated that the Planning Board has adopted a resolution ; they also found negative determination of environmental significance , which was carried unanimously and they made a motion for the preliminary and final subdivision approval on this . Mr . Kanter said that preliminary and final approval was granted at the January 3 Planning Board meeting , subject to obtaining the necessary variances here from this Board . That would be done prior to the signing of the plat by the Chair of the Planning Board . Chairman Austen said they need to have some variances for these two parcels ; one for Parcel 1 with the setback of 8 . 7 feet from the front yard line and the side yard on the house is now ten feet and it requires 40 feet . Then we also have a deficiency in the square footage on Parcel 1 , it ' s 28 , 750 and it needs to be 30 , 000 . He then asked if someone would like to make a motion on this . Mr . Ellsworth said he would like to ask a question first . He continued by saying he presumed the Town ' s going to keep all of these buildings on here . Attorney Barney replied by saying that the Town is only getting Parcel 2 , that ' s the reason for the subdivision ; if they were getting both parcels , they wouldn ' t be here tonight . Mr . Frost said that what he means is that , if they take the buildings down then some of these aren ' t a problem later on . Attorney Barney responded that the buildings on Parcel 1 , obviously , will remain with the owner of Parcel 1 . The building on Parcel 2 will remain , and he thinks the plan is to upgrade it somewhat and use it for the highway , actually Fred would know better about that . Mr . Noteboom said yes , they are going to use it mainly for storage . Chairman Austen asked , for storage ? Mr . Noteboom replied yes , for some of the Parks equipment . Mr . Ellsworth said they should look at the top of the page , which is Parcel 2 . That building on the very top , which would be the north side yard is approximately 36 ± feet , to the side lot line it would 0eed 40 ' . By subdividing this , there are lot of legal non-conformities to this property and 11 the buildings . The barn needs a setback variance . The house , particularly the north side lot line now has a property line there and that ' s too close to the building . That setback ' s approximately ten feet , where 40 feet is required . So , because of the subdivision , we now have this side yard setback deficiency . To be safe , we are also including the front yard setback of the house , which is otherwise legally non-conforming . That should be 30 feet and it ' s the 8 foot measurement . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the Town is going to use the barn . Mr . Noteboom replied yes . Mr . Frost said the current resident would remain in the residential building . Mr . Stotz asked what the access is going to be for that new barn . Mr . Noteboom said it would not be from the roadside ; it would be from the already-existing property side . Mr . Stotz asked , so there won ' t be any road? Mr . Noteboom replied that there is an existing driveway there , which they might use occasionally , but the plan is to access it from our existing property . Mr . Frost asked if they were all familiar with the location of the Highway Department with regard to this property . You can also refer to it on the tax map copy which you have if necessary . In summary , they have on Parcel 2 , which is the building which would be utilized by the Highway Department , a side yard deficiency of four feet + . On Parcel 1 , they have the front setback deficiency , the north side yard setback deficiency , as well as the lot area , which is off by a couple of thousand square feet . Mr . Stotz asked who is on the other side of that? Mr . Noteboom responded that Sheldrake is . Mr . Noteboom said they ' ve heard no reaction at all . He also indicated that there are signs out there , too . Mr . Frost said they ' ve had the benefit of commenting at the hearing for the Planning Board , as well as the Zoning Board . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • RESOLVED , that the Board grant the Town of Ithaca a variance from the requirements of Article V , Sections 21 and 23 , for their purchase of Parcel 2 , which was at one time a two-parcel property for the address of 110 Seven Mile Drive , for the variance granted for Parcel 2 is the deviation from the required setback on the north side , allowing the building to be 36 + feet from the north line rather than the required 40 feet , and that the variance for Parcel 1 be allowing the principle building , the residence , to be approximately ten feet from the north property line instead of the required 40 feet , to be approximately 8 . 7 feet from the highway right- of-way line instead of the required 30 feet , and a variance allowing the acreage of Parcel 1 to be 28 , 750 square feet instead of the required 30 , 000 square feet , based upon the following findings and condition : 1 ) That the variance will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties . 2 ) That the benefit granted by the variance cannot be achieved by any other reasonable method available to the applicant . 3 ) The deviations are not substantial in the context of that particular neighborhood . 4 ) The proposed variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood . 5 ) The need for the variance was not self-created . 6 ) That the house has been there since at least 1940 . 7 ) That there be no further additions to the principle dwelling at 110 Seven Mile Drive , on the north side or on the east side , that would impinge further on the setback requirements that are being allowed for by this variance without approval of this Board . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Stotz . NAYS - None The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen stated that they did , indeed , have another Board member coming in , so the appeal of A . Matthew Thompson would be put at the end . Attorney Barney stated that the problem is that one of the Board members present at this time will have to disqualify himself from voting on that appeal and it will take three votes to make any kind of decision at all . So , that ' s the reason for the concern here . Mr . Frost added that , without a full Board , they have to have all three votes or it doesn ' t count . So , we ' ve got someone who was not going to come to the meeting coming down at 8 : 30 p . m . so that we can deal with this . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : • Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • Appeal of James Hider, Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a two- story 20 ' x 30 ' addition to an existing non-conforming single- family residence at 1134 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19-2-2 , Residence District R-- 15 . Said building is non-conforming since it is located V 1 " + from the south side yard property line , whereas 15 ' is required . The property is also . 16± acres in area, whereby . 34± acres is required . A variance from Article IV, Section 11 may also be required as the building addition may result in an overall building height of 32 ' + , whereas a 30 ' maximum height is permitted . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider to please come up and take the seat by the microphone . Mr . Frost stated that the picture going around was taken from the lake side . He continued , from the road side it is about two stories and it looks like three stories from the lake side . But , the lake side is the side where the addition is going . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider if the existing building is more than 30 feet at this point . Mr . Hider said he believes that ' s the case . Mr . Frost stated , actually the addition is going to put the foundation at a slightly lower level . So , the new addition , I believe , is creating the height problem . As it is now , it ' s probably close to 30 feet . Mr . Ellsworth asked if they would be going any higher than the peak of the existing building . t-fr . Hider answered no . Mr . Frost said that , since the back yard slopes towards the lake , by adding on it will create a lower building . Mr . Stotz asked if that was measured from the lowest point of the building . Mr . Hider affirmed that it was . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider if this is his present residence . Mr . Hider stated that no , it is the summer residence . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider to tell them Ghat he is planning on doing there for the Ocottage - .. you ' re looking to add a pretty fair-- sized addition on to an already fair- sized house , isn ' t it? Mr . Hider responded that no , it ' s not ; it ' s about 600 square feet . It ' s about 20 ' x 30 ' with a partial upstairs attic that was the only bedroom . Mr . Ellsworth asked , in the existing house ? Mr . Hider said , that ' s right . Mr . Frost stated , the point that I might add is that you couldn ' t maintain living space in that attic space , which would appear to be a third story and you couldn ' t add living on that attic area . Were you proposing to maintain a bedroom up there , still ? Mr . Hider replied that it would probably be used for storage . Mr . Frost added that there may be a code problem from a legal standpoint in occupying that attic area , which , perhaps , is even more reason why you need to add on to the house . Mr . Stotz stated that , if he understands correctly , that portion of the house that juts out somewhat is going to be removed . Mr . Hider told him yes , that ' s correct . Mr . Stotz continued by asking if he was going to build up and attach the roof at an angle , enclosing paa. t of that dormer . Cir . Hider said that ' s correct . Mr . Stotz asked if that interior roof is going to be covered or opened up . you ' re coming up with a room on top of another room . Mr . Hider said that ' s cor.l^ect . Mr . Stotz continued , you have this roof underneath ; is that going to be removed? Mr . Hider answered no , that ' ll be just walled in . Mr . Frost said , so , his new roof. , actually , will come up to the ridge of the existing roof . Mr . Hider said , that ' s correct . Mr . Frost noted that it aesthetically , as well as structurally , works . Mr . Frost asked as he noticed when he took the pictures , is the foundation , from the retaining wall to the garage in a state of disrepair . Mr . Hider said yes , that ' s a problem . Mr . Frost continued by saying he. has not been in the building , obviously , and then asked Mr . Hider if he had done much of a survey that the existing foundation is adequate , We may be doing that you should we get to the b'ullding permit stage . What is the foundation like in the , with house ? Mr . Hider answered that the foundation seems adequate ; he ' s had people in to check it outo Chairman Austen stated , you ' re adding three bedrooms , moving the kitchen . . . Mr . Hider interrupted to say the kitchen would remain the same . They are actually adding four bedrooms , a living room and a bath . Mr . Frost asked if Mr . Hider had municipal sewer . Mr . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Oider responded yes . Mr . Frost then asked if they were connected to the sewer . Mr . Hider responded yes . Mr . Ellsworth asked if this was to be their full-time residence . Mr . Hider said no , summer residence . Attorney Barney asked what they plan to do with it during the winter . Mr . Hider answered that he has not , yet , decided what to do with it . Attorney Barney asked , rent it? Mr . Hider stated that he ' d like to have that possibility . Attorney Barney informed Mr . Hider , you understand that the rental would be limited to three unrelated people . Mr . Hider said yes . Mr . Frost asked , currently , you have , how many bedrooms was it , again? Mr . Hider responded that the attic is currently the only bedroom . Chairman Austen asked , the attic is the only existing bedroom now? Mr . Hider answered yes , the total floor space on the first floor is 20 ' x 30 ' . It ' s very deceiving because what you see from the lake side of the house , that is basement level . There are two porches that you see there that are seven feet wide by 15 feet - - that ' s what you ' re looking at . The lower one is the basement level . The access to that is from the basement . They are , virtually , useless rooms - - 7 ' wide by 15 ' long . It appears as though they were at one time open porches and then became enclosed . Mr . Frost asked if the back door on the rear yard just goes into a shed , or does it enter into the house . Mr . Hider responded that it is under the basement . It ' s dirt under the foundation . Mr . Frost asked , so , can you go in that back door and get underneath the foundation? Mr . Hider answered no . Mr . Frost stated , so , you stop at the foundation wall , essentially . Mr . Hider said yes , that ' s correct . Chairman Austen asked if that ' s just a storage room now that will be removed . Mr . Hider replied , right . Chairman Austen continued , and then the extension will follow the same line as the house on the• north? Mr . Hider answered , on the north side , yes . Mr . Frost stated that it wouldn ' t get any closer to the side lot line than it is now . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider if it would leave him 23 ' to the railroad right-of- ,ray . Mr . Hider responded yes . It was then decided that it was 21 ' - 23 ' + . Mr . Frost asked how high off the ground the lowest level of the room addition would be . One of the things is that you are operating within a flood plane area , which has rules and regulations set , required by federal government to elevate and/ or flood-proof ; you ' ve considered that , I would hope . Mr . Hider answered by saying that they are on the east side of the railroad tracks , and it ' ll be about five feet above the ground . Mr . Frost stated that Mr . Hider would need to comply with the flood regulations that we have in the Town of Ithaca , again which are basically mandated by the federal government . An architect will need to be involved , at least to certify the elevation as being above the flood stage , which can be determined easily . Mr . Stotz said that there ' s a drawing here of what appears to be three bedrooms . Mr . Hider said yes . Mr . Stotz continued by asking where they would be located . Mr . Hider answered in the exact location of the bottom row of windows that exist now . They will be also at the basement level . Attorney Barney asked where the fourth bedroom would be . Mr . Hider answered on the main floor . Mr . Stotz asked what kind of siding would be going on . Mr . Hider answered that it would be vinyl . Mr . Stotz asked if it would be white , like the rest of the house . Mr . Hider said that it would be either white or gray . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Hider if he had talked to his neighbors . Mr . Hider said he has talked to the neighbors to the south ; there ' s nothing else to the north . Someone interrupted by saying : Excuse me , but you haven ' t talked to the neighbors to the Woment .outh . Chairman Austen informed the person that the public hearing would be opened in a Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Mr . Charles B . House came to the microphone and stated that he lives directly to the south of this proposed addition . He continued by saying that he has lived there about 20 years , he owns the house . He said he was basically at the meeting primarily to find out what ° s going on with the addition . Is it going to affect my view? He states he was never told a thing about it except that he went to Mr . Hider . Mr . Hider never went to Mr . House ' s house . Chairman Austen asked Mr . House to please address the Board and not Mr . Hider . Mr . House said he wants to know what ' s going on with the addition . Is it going to affect his view? He has to pay $ 3500 a year for taxes , and a big chunk of that goes towards the view . Mr . Frost asked Mr . House if he had already had an opportunity to look at the sketch . Mr . House replied that he has had no opportunity to see anything . Chairman Austen said ok , that ' s why you ' re here tonight , Mr . House replied yes , I don ' t know if I have a problem . Mr . Frost stated that ' s why they hold public hearings . Mr . House is welcome to look at the plans . Mr . House said he ' d just ask , how does that come out to the back of my house ? Am I going to be able to look out my window and look down the lake , or am I going to look at the side of your house ? How far out from the back of your house does it go? Mr . Hider said it would extend it from what it is now about 12 feet . Mr . House asked , 12 feet? My letter says 20 - 30 feet . Mr . Hider said that part of it comes out , the house that comes out is out seven feet now . Mr . Frost added that the mass of what he would see now , that sticks out seven foot , that ' s being removed , that side wall is certainly much , much smaller than what the new wall would be . fir . Hider stated that it would be an additional 12 feet . Mr . House said that he was well aware of what was coming off . Mr . Frost stated that he does not have a side view picture of the house , even though he was there . He then asked Mr . Hider to refresh his memory . That addition , which shows the back door now - - if he ( Mr . Frost ) was to look at the side of that , which would be facing the south side , which would be facing your W Mr . House ' s ) home , is it just like one story? If I put a rectangle around that side wall , hat would be the approximate dimension of what ' s there now versus what will be the side wall shown here ? Mr . Hider stated that the height i-yould be the same . The distance to the west , or toward the railroad track will be an additional 12 feet . Mr . Frost asked Mr . House if he was beginning to follow? Mr . House said that no , he doesn ' t understand . Mr . Frost said they need to try to explain it clearer then . He then continued by saying that the back section is being zemoved . Mr . House asked if that meant the upstairs also . Mr . Hider said yes . Mr . House said he would have felt a whole lot better about this if Mr . Hider had just come next door to explain . Mr . Frost explained that part of what Mr . House may look at now is being replaced . Part of what will go on will still be what he sees now . Mr . House asked how far westerly are they going? Mr . Hider told Mr . House that he didn ' t believe it would go much more westerly than Mr . House ' s house . Mr . House stated he didn ' t want it any closer to his house, . Mr . Hider said it would go right here ( point to the map ) . Mr . House stated that he ' d have no view out of his bedroom windows the way that it would be . Mr . Hider , said that it would be the same height as it is now . Mr . House replied yes , but it ' s going to come out . So that ' s going to take care of my bedroom windows - - I won ' t even be able to see the lake from them . So , the only thing I ° ve got is the front of my house . Mr . Frost and Chairman Austen both reminded Mr . House that he is supposed to be addressing the Board and not Mr . Hider . Mr . House told Mr . Hider that he should have come over . Chairman Austen asked Mr . House where his house is located . Mr . House said right next door . Mr . House said it was the yellow house . Mr . House reiterated that he isn ' t sure whether or not he has a problem and he could have avoided being here . Attorney Barney told Mr . House that the Board is delighted he came . Mr . House pointed out his house on the map . Chairman Austen pointed out that Mr . House ' s house sits a little uneven to the lot line . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . House if he is on Cortion he north side . Mr . House said he is on the south side . Mr . Frost pointed out that the of the yellow house seen in the picture belongs to Mr . House , Mr . Stotz pointed out that Mr . House is concerned with the angle of the addition . He then asked how much that would impede Mr . House ' s view of the lake . Mr . House then asked how high are they talking about -- two stories , three stories ? Chairman Austen stated that it was roughly 30 feet , Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 4same height as the existing house . Mr . House said , ok , if , in fact , he ' s only going to come up about 20 feet and , due to the fact that I didn ' t go over into his yard and measure how far from that wall 20 feet is going to be , is it going to be equal to the back of my house ? Or , is it going to extend out past the back of my house so I can ' t look at the lake ? Mr . Frost said that he thinks what Mr . House is suggesting is that it should not go beyond his house . Mr . Frost continued by telling Mr . House that it ' s possible he may lose some view , he doesn ' t know . Mr . Frost pointed out Mr . House ' s house on the map and asked if there was 40 feet between the two houses . Mr . Hider said maybe 35 feet . Mr . House said probably . Chairman Rustem asked Mr . House if he knee' how far he was from the railroad right- of-way . Mr . House replied that he didn ' t know how far his house was from that point . Mr . House continued by saying that the property lines run a little different from the railroad down through there . Some run 33 feet , some run 19 feet . Chairman Austen added that the shore line goes in and out dowm there . Mr . Frost informed everyone that what they are trying to do is to get a sense of what this will do on an angle from Mr . House ' s house . Mr . House said he hoped they understand what he is worried about . Mr . Ellsworth pointed out that a tree had been cut down and asked Mr . House if he now had a better view . Mr . House said no . Mr . Frost asked Mr . House if the tree cut down in Mr . Hider ' s yard changed his ( Mr . House ) view at all . Mr . House replied that not at all . It actually , helped . Mr . House pointed out where his beach was on the map . He then pointed out on the map some property belonging to his neighbor , Mr . Gardner . Mr . House again pointed out his house on the map , stating that the map is a poor drawing . Mr . Frost asked Mr . House if the perspective he would have from his house with regard to the tree that he ( Mr . Hider ) cut down gave him any sense of the view . Mr . House responded , like I say , I have no idea . I can ' t imagine without measuring or maybe putting up balloons , a helium balloon or something , on a string so I can go to my picture windows and �ook and see if that ' s going to obstruct my view down the lake . Like I said , half of my taxes are probably based on the lake view . If I don ' t have it , we ' ll have to work something else out . Chairman Austen asked which tree was taken down . Mr . Hider pointed out the spot on the map . Mr . Frost pointed to what he believes to be the base of the tree . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider if something ( pointing to the map ) was incorporated into his foundation . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider if he was extending out on the north side . Mr . Hider responded affirmatively . He continued by saying that it would come out an additional 12 feet . Mr . Stotz pointed out that it already comes out seven feet . What Mr . Hider is doing is tearing part down and then building out 20 feet , so the difference is another 12 feet . Mr . House said that it looks different on the map and asked the Board to understand that looking at it on the map doesn ' t mean a heck-of- a- lot to him . He said he ' d like to see it there ( on-• site ) so he knows what ' s what . He then asked if they understood what he is saying . Chairman Austen said that this ( on the map ) would not be a legal bedroom anyway . Mr . House responded that he doesn ' t care about what . He doesn ' t care if Mr . Hider has 20 bedrooms . Mr . Hider said there ' s a big opening with bedrooms on each side . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Hider what his building plans were , where did they stand . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hider what his feeling would be concerning adjourning this to another meeting , until the next meeting , giving Mr . House , and whoever else wants , a chance to look at it and see how it lines up with your proposed locations . Mr . Frost told Mr . House that what was being suggested was to adjourn the meeting so he can talk , then come back next meeting . Mr . Hider asked if that put everything off for another month . Mr , Frost said that yes , it puts it off until February , Mr . Hider asked if there was any way to go through , if .:.his is the only potential situation that may prohibit this , can we get through the rest of this? Mr . House said , again , that there may not be a problem . Until he sees some kind of stringed up deal . . . Chairman Austen said they cannot grant approval tonight for something in the future . Mr . House wondered if there ' s an intention , later on , for a deck . Is Mr . Hider Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 going to add something else that Mr . House will have to live with? Attorney Barney stated that a deck would require another appearance before the Board so Mr . House would get notice of that . Mr . Frost told Mr . House and Mr . Hider that if the two of them got together , they may find there ' s no problem . Mr . House said there may be no problem . Mr . Frost also said that it may mean only a minor modification on Mr . Hider ' s part to satisfy Mr . House and then the Board still acts . Adjourning it doesn ' t mean a denial . It just gives the Board more information in order to make a decision . Chairman Austen pointed out that the next scheduled meeting is February S . 1995 . Mr . Ellsworth said that , at this point , the way it stands now , there ' s a good chance it wouldn ' t get passed . Mr . House said he feels bad about that , he really does . Mr . Ellsworth said that it has to keep in character with the neighborhood and so forth . Mr . Hider said it was best to adjourn then . It was then reiterated that the soonest they could come back would be on February 8 , 1995 . Chairman Austen said they would adjourn this appeal for tonight and put it on February ' s calendar . Mr . House asked about a write in . He said he knows Mr . Hider is anxious to get going and Mr . House doesn ' t want to hold him up . Mr . House added that they have to understand , he lives there 365 days a year . Chairman Austen said it would be much cleaner just to adjourn and redo it on February 8th then . He told Mr . House that he would be able to now have his chance to look and make sure everything is satisfactory . Mr . House asked if he could have a copy of one of these ( a map ) so he can look at it and compare . Mr . Ellsworth suggested Mr . Hider stake out on the ground what he plans to do . Then Mr . House can surmise from that and so on and so forth . Mr . Frost said he was willing to meet both men out there and mediate some of this if they would like . Mr . House told Mr . Frost that would be fine at any time . He also said that just a couple of $ 2 balloons on a string on a calm day to Oteasure how high they ' ll go would be fine . He has to pay all that tax money and wants to get is money ' s worth . Mr . Hider explained that the thought came into his mind , but he thought that there was no way it would prohibit Mr . House ' s view . Chairman Austen adjourned the public hearing until February 8 , 1995 . Mr . Frost again offered his services , at no cost . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Joanne C . Kaplan , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single- family residence with a south side building setback of 12 . 50 + ( 15 ' setback required ) at 159 Westview Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58-2-39 . 56 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building was constructed in 1989 in non-conformance with the building permit which was issued in conjunction with approved building plans . Chairman Austen asked Mrs . Kaplan if she built the house . Mrs . Kaplan replied that she is the second owner and this has come up because she is selling her house and the seller ' s attorney discovered that this was out of compliance . She had no idea . All she could think of was that they were going to tear her house down , Mr . Ellsworth responded that was a special case . Mr . Frost said that she has a memorandum from him and , with this being a setback , there is no environmental assessment form involved with this . He attempted to clarify the situation . In the memorandum he suggests the house , as it is , if you put a garage on the house and have no living space adjacent to that garage , your setback would be ten feet . The house , as constructed , has a recreational room or living room ( Mrs . Kaplan usaid it was a family room ) , a dining room that ' s directly in back of the garage . That ltimately requires a setback of 15 ' . He does have the building plans if she desires to ook , as well as , the plot plan that was submitted as part of the building permit application . The as-built deviates somewhat from what was submitted on the building plan . In the memorandum he suggests that there could have been some changes made to the house without a permit . However , after taking the pictures for the Zoning Board , it seems somewhat Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Oclear to him that the house was probably built this way right from the start . He takes full responsibility for whatever inspections his office performed . He was not involved with the inspections for this particular building . He continued by saying that they have a notation made on the survey map that they got for the final inspection of the building . It ' s written in " garage " at the bottom there , which , without looking at the house , if you look at the survey map , you just presume that it ' s all garage and not house . So , he suggests that the certificate of occupancy issued in 1981 was issued in error . Mr . Frost stated , the exterior walls in the plot plan which you have in your mailing , is a copy of the plot plan from the building permit application . This shows the storage room , which shows the side exterior wall in the storage room being set in three feet from the exterior wall of the garage . As built , that side wall lines up from front to back . Had it been set in that extra three feet , you would have had a building that was in compliance . It would certainly be a hardship , a number of years later , to move the house . Chairman Austen asked if , instead of a storage room , it had become a family room . Mrs . Kaplan stated that it would have been a huge storage room . The only thing she can think of is that , as it was being built , they decided , instead of putting the garage this way , which is similar to what her neighbor ' s is , they just reversed it so that the garage is not facing the front , but to the side . She has no idea how that happened . Mr . Frost stated that this was obviously the certificate issued to her when she bought the house . Mrs . Kaplan said yes , and she has a certificate of occupancy . Mr . Frost asked her if she got it when she bought the house . Mrs . Kaplan said no . Mr . Frost said there was a certificate issued which the first owner bought from the builder . When you bought it there is no record of us having issued a certificate to you . Mrs . Kaplan said that she had just recently applied for that when this issue came Op and she did get it , but the notice down at the bottom said that its authenticity couldn ' t be verified . Mr . Frost told her that what they gave her was a copy of the original certificate , which basically had this disclaimer on it that says this is an old certificate and does not constitute any current compliance . He also said that actually is something that a lot of lawyers or banks get on house sales - - they get copies of old certificates which we put a disclaimer on . It says this is a certificate that does not certify any current compliance . Attorney Barney asked if it was being said that the garage door faces the side yard or the road . Mrs . Kaplan said it faces the side yard ; it faces north . Mr . Frost stated that the original plot plan showed the entrance to the garage straight in from the road , The as- built shows it at an angle . Chairman Austen said it ' s been changed all around . Chairman Austen noted that it doesn ' t even look like the same house and he asked if they were sure they had the same plans . Mr . Frost told them that was the plan that came with the building permit application . Attorney Barney then said that the garage projects out quite a bit in a certain spot , Mr . Stotz asked Mrs . Kaplan what a certain part of the house was . Mrs . Kaplan answered that it is a family room . She continued by saying that all of those houses , to her knowledge , have family rooms . They are in a different position in each house . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Chairman Austen noted that he is confused as to how the plans can be so different from athe house . Mr . Frost told him it was because of the orientation of the garage . The ttorneys are suggesting that it was improper supervision of my no- longer- assistant at the time . Mr . Frost reiterated that he takes full responsibility . He then said that this house was actually one of the last done in that area . Mrs . Kaplan said she thought the contractor started there . Mr . Ellsworth said he started near where she is . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • Chairman Austen asked Mrs . Kaplan if she is selling the house . Mrs . Kaplan replied yes . Mr . Frost informed them that what they are looking at is a deficiency of 2 . 5 feet . Charman Austen asked for a motion on this matter . INION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the appeal of Joanne C . Kaplan , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 , of the Tot-in of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be approved in order to permit maintenance of an existing single - family residence located at 159 Westview Lane , with a south side building setback of 12 . 5 feet . This would allot, a 2 . 5 foot variance in the side yard , with the following findings : 1 ) That it would be a hardship and impractical difficulty to move a portion of the exterior of the house . 2 ) That it doesn ' t change the character of the neighborhood . Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as followse AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Stotz . NAYS - None . • The motion was carried unanimously . Airs . Kaplan asked if she would get a statement or something . Mr . Frost told her she would get a certificate that shot-is the variance . The variance is granted on the house as it is ncw . If the new o�-mer did any changes to that side of the building , they would have to come back to this Board . Mrs . I:aplan said yes , she understands . She just wanted to make sure that everything was all right for the closing . Attorney Barney asked her when her closing was scheduled . Mrs . Kaplan replied it is scheduled for January 31 , 1995 . Mr . Frost said she may want to call him on Tuesday to arrange for a new certificate . Mrs . Kaplan asked if that would be sent to her or her lawyer . Mr . Trost replied that it would be sent to her property , or it could be sent to her lawyer . Mrs . Kaplan thanked the Board . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was the followings Appeal of Stephen Lucente , Appellant , Larry Fabbroni , Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing talo--family residence with a 14 ' north side yard building setback $ 15 ' required ) at 106 Christopher Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71-2- 5 , Residence District R-- 15 . Air . Larry Fabbroni said that Mr . Lucente outlined in his letter , basically , how this all happened and that he ( Mr . Fabbroni ) would try to walk the Board through that . He continued , at the time he bought the residence , he had a survey that had been done earlier by Ken Baker , that shooed the house on the lot . It shooed it as a slight angle , but to tell you the truth , he didn ' t pay a whole lot of attention to that drawing because of the way the house looks in &he field . When he applied to Andy for an addition , he was under the belief that the house was more square on the property than what it obviously is . Mr . Fabbroni brought some pictures to show . The first picture , if looking way to the left , a wood fence can be seen . This is on the opposite side of the house than the side yard variance problem , but that fence is kind of parallel to the side of the house and it gives you the appearance , even to me ( Mr . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 abbroni ) , who has ultimately surveyed and found the problem , that the house is more square to the lot than it is . Ralph Varn , who is here tonight , can speak . He did the addition for Mr . Lucente and he can speak to some of what I ' m going to show you . On the other side of the lot , where the side yard variance exists , there ' s a substantial amount of landscaping all the way down that line . Mr . Fabbroni indicated that the first two pictures look from the road and then the subsequent pictures show farther down that property line between the two houses . The third set of three show what actually is between the two houses in the immediate area of the side yard problem . Mr . Frost asked if what PPr . Fabbroni was saying is that it ' s pretty dense . Mr . Fabbroni said it ' s pretty dense there and , the more pertinent point , is typically the builder might stretch a line along the line and measure back from it . Since we were starting out thinking , in the original survey , it showed more than 24 feet from the side yard , and , not thinking that the house was that skewed , they went ahead and built and never thought about the side yard in all honesty . Mr . Frost stated that the plot plan they had did show the end result , the final setback of 21 feet . So , there ' s quite a deviation . Mr . Fabbroni told them that the last picture shows , looking from the back toward the front . What you might pick up from this picture , in addition to the vegetation between the two houses in question , is that the tree line actually angles away from the house that ' s the problem , and it gives you more of a deception that the house is actually going away from the property line , where the property line actually comes down , is not parallel to the tree line . • Mr . Ellsworth asked Mr . Fabbroni if he was saying the trees meander onto someone else ' s property . Mr . Fabbroni answered that if you were down in the back of the lot , where the back pin is , that ' s about what you would see at eye level . The lot drops off in the last six or seven to the back pipe , and it ' s kind of back in no--man ' s land in terms of where the lawn is for this property . That ' s sort of the sad story of how it wound up being 14 feet from the line rather than the 15 it should be because they thought they were more like 20 feet . Then he ( Mr . Fabbroni ) cane along and did a survey for a property transfer and that ' s when the issue carne to light . Mr . Fabbroni made the point that where , in the first two pictures , it shows the garage is out front of the property , the side yard requirement is 15 feet because of the living area behind the garage . If it were just a garage , we wouldn ' t be here . Mr . Kanter asked 14a . Fabbroni how old the evergreens are . Mr . Fabbroni stated that it ' s really hard to say . The subdivision goes back to the early 60 ' s , so it ' s 30 years anyway . He guesses he would have less to appeal to the Board for if that was an open side yard there between the two properties , Mr . Frost said that in his office when you ' re within three feet of a required setback , they mandate a survey map . With what was shown , we had 21 feet . Chairman Austen noted that it was kind of strange because the lot lines all look parallel . Mr . Frost infcrmed them that they never use tax maps as any property plots , Mr . Fabbroni told the Board that the last map in the packet shows what the existing situation is . * Attorney Barney asl,.ed what the dimensions are from the front of the house to the side ard , Mr . Fabbroni said that he doesn ' t have it with him . But he believes it ' s more on the order of 21 feet . He can give an exact dimension , based on what he did in the field and provide that as a final map . He has that information , but it wasn ' t the critical dimension . It ' s wrell in excess of 15 , to put it another way . If you look at the Baker map , the actual addition was four feet to that house ; you can see that it ' s more on the order of 20 feet . That newer dimension by his memory , is about 20 - 21 feet . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 0 Attorney Barney asked if it was his imagination . He stated that the surveys look a little different . It almost looks like Kenny ' s is a parallelogram and Mr . Fabbroni ' s looks almost like a rectangle with the house skewed a little bit . Mr . Fabbroni said it ' s a slight parallelogram . Mr . Frost said that on their map , Mr . Fabbroni is really showing close to accurately the 30 foot . He ( Kenny ) is showing it slightly off , which is probably a product of the copies . He reiterated that Mr . Fabbroni ' s survey , when scaled , is pretty much on the mark . The other is not . Mr . Fabbroni said that the only thing he could say was that if you put one map over the other , you ' ll see the angles of the lines are about identical . Mr . Frost said that on his ( Kenny ) scale is showing about 16 feet where it should be 17 . 7 . Mr . Fabbroni noted that he had found a foot discrepancy on the south line ; that ' s about the only difference he found . It really had nothing to do with the area we ' re talking about . The only changes , like the southwest corner , where Mr . Fabbroni found the old pipe - - that dimension was only 248 . The other map shows 249 . Mr . Fabbroni continued by saying that if you had a light table , you could see that it ' s just surveyors ' differences in down to minutes rather than degrees . Attorney Barney asked if Steve had this plotted out by anybody before he laid out the foundation . Mr . Fabbroni said they felt they were at 24 feet . They didn ' t realize the skew was as much as it was . So when you extended back another 30 feet is where the problem arose . Mr . Frost noted that a 21 foot setback had been planned and they ended up with 14 feet . Mr . Fabbroni continued by stating that on the side where there is 17 . 7 on the Baker map , that ' s 0here the split- rail fence is and it pretty well parallels the side of the house . He ( Mr . abbroni ) was new to the property and when you go in there you are studying that and trying to figure out what ' s going on there , until you find all of the pipes . So , to a layman , it ' s still a mistake . He starts off by saying it ' s a stupid mistake . Beyond that , if you could take a triangle off that was one foot by ten feet in that corner of the house , if you chopped it off and put the siding back on , it would get you the 15 feet . Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Chairman Austen asked if the Board had any more questions on this matter . He then asked if someone would like to make a motion . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that , for the appeal of Stephen Lucente , for the property at 106 Christopher Circle , the Board grant a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town Ordinance to be permitted to maintain an existing two- family residence with a 14 foot , north side yard setback , whereas 15 feet is required . This is for Tax Parcel 71 - 2 - 5 , Residence District R-- 15 , with the following conditions : 1 . The variance be granted only for so long as this present building remains on the property . • Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows * AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , Stotz . NAYS - None . Tom of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 The motion was carried unanimously . The last appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : Areal of A . Matthew Thompson , D . S . S . and Nancy Thompson , Appellants , Cornell University, Landowner , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 and 12 , to be permitted to operate a non-residential dental office with 4 employees at 101 Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 60- 1- 9 . 3 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Zoning Ordinance would only allow for such an operation when the office is a part of the dentist ' s residence and no more than 2 additional persons not residing on the premises are employed therein . Chairman Austen asked who was going to speak on this . Nancy and Matthew Thompson said they were and that they resided at 107 Park Lane , Dr . Thompson stated that they had put in a purchase offer , contingent on the variance , for this property . It ' s about one - half mile from their house . Right now they have a dental practice dorm on Aurora Street . Their lease is up in May , so he does have to move somewhere and this would be ideal . Chairman Austen asked if it was a good use for the property . Mrs . Thompson stated that they ' ve been looking for quite a while and most of the properties they ' ve looked at are very expensive and out of their price range . This is something they can afford that ' s nearby and they think it would be a big improvement . They live nearby and they ' d like to see it by something besides an empty house . They don ' t plan on really changing the exterior , other than taking off that one thing on the back - - that tacked- on thing -- - then siding or painting it . The changes would be inside . 0 Mr . Frost asked the Thompsons ghat road they live on . Mrs . Thompson said that they live on Park Lane . She added that there ' s a little footpath from this house up through , behind , so they walk there all the time to see the sheep . Chairman Austen stated they haven ' t had too many businesses in residential zones without the owner residing on the property . Mr . Frost stated that the Board should have handouts that show various property owners - - most of them show support of the petition . Dr . Thompson said that the property has been vacant for about 1 - 1 / 2 years now and is starting to show some signs of deterioration . They have talked with most of the neighbors in the area and they would think this is a good idea , since it ' s going to be his professional office . Mr . Frost asked if it was possible to show the Board a picture on the section of the house that would be removed . Dr . Thompson stated that it was just a tiny corner - 5 ' x 15 ' he believes . Mr . Frost wondered if it projected out in front of the window . Mrs . Thompson pointed out an area that has been re - roofed . She then stated that it ' s the part that ' s not roofed . :Ir . Frost said that there ' s a much better picture in the packet . Mrs . Thompson said that it looks like they had planned on getting aid of that little part , as it didn ' t get re - roofed when the rest of the building was done . Chairman Austen noted that some additional letters had come in after the packets were made up . Mr . King stated that the application indicates that there will be a total of four employees in the office . Dr . Thompson said that includes himself . Mr . King asked if that s what the current level is in his practice . Dr . Thompson answered yes , he doesn ' t plan to xpand . There ' s one dentist , one hygienist , one assistant and a front office person . Chairman Austen said he thinks there ' s a question that the Planning Board brought up on the parking lot . They felt the proposed parking lot could be set back some place different to have less impact . Dr . Thompson asked if he meant closer to the west . Mrs . Thompson said Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Wey don ' t really have a preference ; it just seemed that was the logical place because the Chews ' house , the house next door , doesn ' t have any windows on that side and so it seemed logical to have parking there . Really they have no preference . Mr . Ellsworth asked if it was now a garden area . Mrs . Thompson said that the whole yard is overgrown right now , but the parking would be sort of where the vegetable garden was . Mr . Frost stated that he thinks the planning staff that visited the site felt that the parking area might also be visible from the roadway and that maybe moving it back into the interior somewhat more might help mitigate that . Mrs . Thompson asked if he meant from Snyder Hill Road . Dr . Thompson said it wouldn ' t be a problem . Mrs . Thompson asked if that meant towards Pine Tree , but along that same side . That would be fine . She thinks you could also add landscaping in that space between that access and the egress to help hide the parking from Snyder Hill Road , Mr . Kanter said that the planning staff did do a recommendation to the Zoning Board which really went beyond that , which the planning staff that examined the site felt that the proposal would be a significant change in the use and intensity of the property and this particular lot seems to be the beginning of the real residential area in that vicinity . They felt that there would be a number of impacts related to the proposal that might have negative impacts on that residential character , which we can go into further as we go along , but , basically , it was more than just the location of the parking area . He just wanted to make that clear at this point . Mr . Frost commented that if the Thompsons resided in the building , they could still do t with one less employee . Mr . Kanter said he is aware of that . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Karen Herzog of 107 Pine Tree Road spoke . She apologized because she hasn ' t seen any of the proposals or plans ; she read about this in the paper on Monday . So , other than what she ' s heard this evening , she doesn ' t know what the proposal for the property is . Her concerns are several with this property % it does transfer commercial development from , what she guesses , is the north side of Snyder Hill Road to the south side or the southeast side of Snyder Hill Road , or the southwest side , into a residential area . It ' s close to an intersection , a dangerous intersection , at this point , where people are always seeming to be sneaking out in front of oncoming cars . She lives down the hill towards Route 79 . So , when you are coming up that road , people are always kind of popping out . There is not adequate shoulder along this road for any additional vehicles to park , certainly there is not on Snyder Hill Road . So the parking on the property needs to be adequate for all the employees as well as for the projection for the number of patients that are going to be on this property at the time . She knows that , with her own dentist ' s office , although he has five people working there , there ' s a large number of cars when you add up the people both in the offices and in the waiting room . He has a single -person practice , too . She thinks it ' s going to change the character of the residential neighborhood . She doesn ' t know what they have planned for landscaping . She hopes it ' s better than a lot of the other commercial things that have been done in Ithaca recently . They may plan additional plantings on the edge of the property , but if it includes cutting trees and bushes and significant foliage and plantings , she thinks that would be unsatisfactory , given the residential character of the neighborhood . She thinks they need to look at how many people are going to be coming and going from there , where they are going to be parking , what ' s going to be happening at that intersection ; there ' s a problem at Judd Falls , Ellis Hollow and Pine Tree Roads right now , at the gas station . She doesn ' t think that ' s been addressed yet , it ' s just going to increase the traffic in that area . It makes this movement from Cornell ' s recent development at the Tennis Center farther down into the residential center . She ' s not , necessarily , opposed to their kind of business or operation , but it ' s what ' s going to happen at that location and what happens to the additional properties if he should decide to expand his practice - - add Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Wother person , add another hygienist , if he decides to sell the property . She doesn ' t know if you can bend , transform , this back to residential , or does it continue as a commercial and then there will be additional commercial creep there . She thinks all of those things need to be looked at . Chairman Austen answered by saying that , first of all , there would be no access or egress onto Pine Tree . There would be no parking on Pine Tree Road . Mrs . Herzog said that doesn ' t prohibit people from parking along the shoulder . There needs to be , at least , some no- parking signs there or something . Chairman Austen said that , if he remembers right , there ' s no shoulder there to park anyway . Mrs . Herzog stated that there ' s enough for 3 / 4 of a car . Mrs . Thompson continued by saying that it wouldn ' t be any different than what ' s there now . Mrs . Herzog said that she has called the Sheriff a number of times and it ' s impossible to get them over to Pine Tree Road to police that for speeding people . It ' s dangerous on Pine Tree Road right now . There ' s a problem with people trying to cross to their mailboxes with people speeding . The Sheriff says he doesn ' t have enough personnel to come there and patrol it . In the 12 years she ' s lived there , she ' s seen two cars on that road sitting there . So , she doesn ' t think speeding is a problem with his office , but it ' s going to be a problem if there ' s going to be people hedging on the side of the road . Mr . Ellsworth asked how many properties away from this property is Mrs . Herzog . Mrs . Herzog answered that it ' s easily ten . Dr . Thompson stated that he can see Mrs . Herzog ' s concern about parking . He continued by saying that he ' s fairly certain that they would see no more than 15 - 20 cars all day . He sees about 8 - 12 patients a day and his hygienist sees about 8 - 10 and sometimes the patients come together as a family group . So , 10 - 20 ofars per day , maximum . Mr . Ellsworth asked how many cars the parking is set up for . Dr . Thompson answered that it ' s set up for four staff and four patients . Mrs . Thompson said that ' s to allow for someone who ' s there and someone who ' s coming in . Mr . Ellsworth said he understands , every 15 - 20 minutes there ' s someone coming . Mrs . Thompson stated that most of their appointments are about an hour long , so you don ' t have the turn-over that some offices have . She continued by saying that the majority of the patients live nearby . In fact , many of them said that now they can make their kids walk . So , a lot of people wouldn ' t be driving . Dr . Thompson said he could show statistics , not tonight , but his scheduling , literally , would never have more than 20 cars in a day . Chairman Austen asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this . Dr . Bob Baker , Jr . , who lives at 114 Pine Tree Road spoke next . He said that he certainly shares the concerns of Mrs . Herzog . However , he spoke in favor of the dental office . He ' s known Dr . Thompson and Nancy for the last five years and he knows their practice very well . Dr . Thompson is the past president of the Tompkins County Dental Society and he looked at this property very , very carefully . He knows the nature of Dr . Thompson ' s practice , he knows the number of patients that he has on a daily basis . He ' s been very concerned about the traffic up in that area and , when the intersection was put in , he played a role in trying to modify it slightly because it was a very expensive intersection , as everyone probably well knows . He feels very confident that Dr . and Mrs . Thompson ' s practice will not interfere with that neighborhood , particularly with that location that is quickly running downhill and devaluing the whole property situation , both on Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road . He believes a lot of them will be able to walk there . He , of course , Waving hares the concerns about traffic , but he doesn ' t think it ' s going to impact this area in some expertise in the dental field . He also doesn ' t think that , with the number of cars they have up on Pine Tree and Snyder Hill , they ' re really going to notice much of a difference . Dental visits can sometimes take 1 / 2 hour or even longer . So , the cars going 9n and out will probably be very , very minor . He continued by saying that they do have a Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Orecedent in the community . At the Community Corners there is a private home that a single- dental practitioner , with a staff , has taken over . He runs successfully right next to a group practice . He ' s increased the value of the properties in the area , he ' s got a practice very similar to the Thompson ' s and in looking at that precedent and the traffic situation in that area , where many corners come together , we can feel pretty confident that , with the nature of their long- standing practice , we will not interfere with the community . He said that ' s a big concern of his so he looked at this very carefully knowing what he knows about dental practices and what he knows about their practice . He has to say he ' s in favor of it . Mr . Frost asked Dr . Baker where he resides . Dr . Baker responded that he lives at 114 Pine Tree Road , Attorney Barney asked Dr . Baker what kind of practice he has . Dr . Baker stated that he is an orthodontist . Mr . King said that Dr . Baker mentioned some input into the intersection , the rebuilding of it . He then asked Dr . Baker which intersection . Dr . Baker answered that it ' s the intersection at Pine Tree , Judd Falls and Ellis Hollow Roads . Where the light went up and the corners came together , He was involved with that at the time that it was constructed . He continued to say that Snyder Hill actually was done at the same time to alleviate some of the traffic concerns of people coming out of Snyder Hill going on to Pine Tree . He is very aware of the traffic situation at Pine Tree . He , too , has called the Sheriff many times . He knows Emery Guest quite well and knows their constraints . He really has to say that he doesn ' t see a traffic problem here , knowing the nature of the Thompson ' s practice and the way they treat patients . They have a family practice , which is very different than a big sort of group , where they have a lot of patients coming in and out . People come in at varying intervals , maybe 1 / 2 hour at a time or something . One car will go in or out . He added that �the Thompsons would walk back and forth to work because they occasionally walk down to see r . Baker , so he knows that they can do that . Chairman Austen asked Dr . Baker where his practice is located . Dr . Baker answered that it is on Tioga Street . Chairman Austen asked if anyone else wished to speak . Mr . Spence Silverstein , who lives at 117 Eastern Heights Drive spoke next . He stated that he has known the Thompsons for many years and they , actually , his wife and himself , did a lot of the work with them -W - laying out the house and judging the impact . He also goes through that same corner probably six or seven times a day . He is well aware of the kinds of traffic problems . They have spent a large amount of time judging how much the traffic pattern of the neighborhood would be upset by having the number of cars in there . He actually did some modeling to his computer to show that it really wouldn ' t affect anything compared to the number of cars that went by . One other thing that , particularly , concerned him was that , the house being empty for 1 - 1 / 2 years and being run down , attracted a number of homeless people . He feels this really detracted from the value of the neighborhood . One nice thing he likes about it is that it ' s not a practice that goes day and night . So , when the kids are off at school is when the traffic comes . When the kids are coming back , the traffic is not there . So , he thinks , all - in--all , it does add to the value of the neighborhood . To the best of his knowledge , it doesn ' t impact the traffic patterns at a fairly difficult corner where people like to zoom in and out . He does share the concern of people going down Pine Tree at excessive speeds . He believes this is well out of the pattern . People turning off on Snyder Hill Road in no way affect that Pine Tree traffic is pattern . He would urge the Board to vote in favor of it . Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 Mr . Frost asked Mr . Silverstein to state his profession . Mr . Silverstein said he is an entrepreneur and president of an electronics company . Mr . King asked Mr . Silverstein if he has looked at the proposed parking situation - - where will the entrance to the parking lot be in relation to Pine Tree Road , Mr . Silverstein responded that it ' s significantly up Snyder Hill Road , from Pine Tree . He thinks it shows on the map ; it ' s almost at the extreme end of the property . Mrs . Thompson stated that it ' s across from where you enter for the horse barn . Mr . Frost indicated a location and asked if that is approximately the location of the entrance . Dr . Thompson answered yes . Mr . Silverstein said that someone making a turn off Pine Tree onto Snyder Hill would not immediately run into the turn-off ; there ' s a significant area past the turn- off , onto Snyder Hill so that , if a car stopped to turn into the parking area , they wouldn ' t block traffic back into Pine Tree Road . Dr . Thompson stated that it ' s about 150 feet up Mr . Ellsworth asked if the entrance would be off where there ' s a little parking space now , Dr . Thompson answered yes , right there . Chairman Austen asked Dr . Thompson what his hours would be there . Dr . Thompson stated that he doesn ' t think they ' ll change and right now they ' re 8 : 30 - 5 : 00 and everyone gets there about 8 : 00 and usually leave about 5 : 30 . Mrs . Thompson said that one of the first people she talked with was Shirley Raffensperger , who lives on Pine Tree Road . She gave Mrs . Thompson a lot of suggestions about parking and access and egress and it was her suggestion that the entrance be where the xisting driveway entrance is because she thought it would be safer and , after having been there and measuring , Mrs . Thompson agrees with her . She wouldn ' t want to have anything to do with Pine Tree Road . Snyder Hill Road has much less traffic and is a lot safer to go in and out there . Mr . Ellsworth asked Mrs . Thompson if that ' s how she came up with this access and egress plan . Mrs . Thompson said yes , after talking with Shirley Raffensperger , Mr . King asked if the egress would be further up Snyder Hill Road , away from the intersection . Mrs . Thompson responded that it is near where the empty lot is , near the property line . Mr . King noted that it looks to be as though the entrance would be 150 feet , 200 even from Pine Tree and he noted that the gas station down on the corner at East Hill Plaza -- - the entrance to that is probably , from Judd Falls Road , 75 feet from the intersection . He added that has apparently worked out all right for some very high driving traffic , much higher than would be experienced here . firs . Thompson stated that the horse barn is across the street and they get those real long horse trailers there , and they ' ve had no problem with those . The kind that have to back in and there hasn ' t been any problem . Mr . King asked what are their plans for the interior of the house . Dr . Thompson said they were pretty substantial . They have to take the interior walls out and check the wiring . They are going to be refurbishing the entire inside . Mr . King asked if they would be creating new rooms . Dr . Thompson said no , they are going to add a bathroom near where they are going to take that little piece of the building off , but they ' re not changing the Wwxy ternal footprint at all . Mrs . Thompson added that it ' s pretty much an open floor plan , the the house is now , so there wouldn ' t have to be a lot of walls added or anything like that . The major change , other than renovating it , would be the bathroom . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • Mr . Icing wondered whether , if they decided to move their practice elsewhere later on , after they ' ve renovated this , that there would come some point when they no longer wanted to practice and , if they have no one else to take over the practice , the question is would the building be in such condition that it could easily revert to a family , residential use . Mrs . Thompson said yes , because all the walls would be the same . Mr . Ellsworth said she means all the bearing walls would remain the same . Mr . Frost said that they have a house , two houses up , where the Bowmans live now . It was occupied by a pediatrician . They moved and the house is now back to a single - family residence . Off hand , he can ' t remember where it is . Mrs . Thompson said it ' s two houses down Pine Tree . It ' s the gold colored one . Mr . Frost asked that , of the four employees , including the Thompsons , are any of those people family or are they outside your family . Dr . Thompson said they are all outside . Attorney Barney asked if Mrs . Thompson works there . Mrs . Thompson answered that she fills in . She ' s a hygienist but she doesn ' t work there because they have three children so she ' s not very reliable . Dr . Thompson added that was why they couldn ' t live there - - it ' s too small . Mrs . Thompson wondered if they could have an apartment upstairs . But , when they had a builder look at it , he said the ceilings were too low and it wouldn ' t be up to code . Mr . King asked if there would be any night- lighting for security purposes , like in the parking lot . Dr . Thompson replied that yes , absolutely . It wouldn ' t be bright lights that would be offensive , but they would keep a door light out front . Right now he thinks it ' s not in good condition because they are having vagrants that have been coming down to the Ouilding . The police have been there at least once that he knows of . As far as offensive , alogen lighting , no . Mrs . Thompson added that they would need an outdoor light because in the winter it gets dark early . Chairman Austen said they would have residential lighting , he assumes a post light , maybe some little lights or something . Dr . Thompson said on the main door and , probably , toward the front . Mr . Frost asked if the house is secured now . Dr . Thompson stated that he saw a light on the other night in the basement . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the light was on in the basement . Mrs . Thompson said that yes , and there ' s a bicycle in the back yard . She called the Campus Security and they said they would check on it because the bicycle didn ' t used to be there . Mr . Frost noted that it is a fairly visible corner - - there ' s traffic going on each side of the house . It ' s not very remote for vagrance . Mrs . Thompson stated that the heat ' s on so if you don ' t have a place to live , it ' s probably appealing . Chairman Austen informed everyone that , just to add to the comments , they do have eight form letters here from neighbors from Snyder Hill , Pine Tree Road , Honness Lane , all within the area of the proposed changes . He ' s sure the Board ' s aware of those . He then asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on this matter . Dr . Bernice Parisi , residing at 114 Pine Tree Road , wife of Dr . Bob Baker , Jr . , spoke next . She added her encouragement to pass this variance for this as a dental office for Dr . Thompson . She agrees with their neighbor , Ms . Herzog , that there ' s a problem with speed on Pine Tree Road . They, usually, each winter season , have their mailbox removed two or three times by people who are sliding off the road at too high a rate of speed when it ' s snowing , Were ' s definitely a speed problem , but she doesn ' t think that a dental office would add to e speed problem . She thinks that the number of patients that they would see per day would really not impact the neighborhood at all . Right now that house is looking a little bit shabby and she thinks it would definitely be an improvement to the area . So , she would just like to add her recommendation to pass the variance . Thank you . Town of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • Attorney Barney asked Dr . Parisi what kind of doctor she is . Dr . Parisi stated that she is an orthodontist . Mr . Kanter stated that , getting back to the traffic issue , in their environmental assessment , they looked at that also and estimated that there would be maybe in the range of 48 additional trips per day generated . That basically is in and out traffic ; that ' s how they estimate traffic , not by number of cars , but by trips in and trips out . It sounds fairly similar to what the Thompsons came up with , but it ' s not an insignificant increase in traffic on the roadways . It ' s something beyond , certainly , what a normal residential use would accommodate . As Andy pointed out , if you compare it to what the accessory home occupation could be , it ' s slightly more because of the additional employee . But , again , if you take into consideration the fact that some people could conceivably walk to the area , including the doctor sometimes , it may equal out to what is currently permitted in the zoning . But , it is not an insignificant increase in traffic for that type of an area . Chairman Austen noted to Mr . Kanter that they have , probably , one of the longer write ups on the environmental assessment . He thinks Mr . Kanter could summarize it much faster than reading it . Mr . Kanter started by saying that some of the highlights included the traffic estimates . They felt that the increase in activity in traffic would have some impact on a residential neighborhood . The parking issue was identified , with some impacts on the residential character of the area . Basically , the visibility of the parking lot from the roadway , and possibly the visibility from neighboring properties . It was pointed out that the 41omprehensive Plan , Chapter 3 , goals and objectives and recommended actions provides for a imited home occupation while guarding against the creation of nuisances . The planning staff felt that there were two possible impacts there on the surrounding neighbors . Again , the increased parking and traffic could become a nuisance in the neighborhood . The night lighting , which was the question which was raised before , which is mainly needed for security purposes , was raised as a possible impact on the neighbors . In the review , they also pointed out that there was another variance request in that area for the craft artists pottery , where they were proposing an addition of a storage area , but also an additional non- resident employee at that site . He believes that the Board granted the variance for the addition , but the condition was that no non- resident employee be allowed to work on that premise . Mr . Frost stated that what is significant , though , in their original appeal , which was granted many years before , was conditioned that there be no employee period , and yet one appeared . Attorney Barney added that as he recalls , this building was smack in between two residences , a resident on each side , as opposed to this one which is kind of bounded by more open space . Mr . Frost said that a good point was made - - there was a longer history that went on before , years before that . Mr . Kanter continued by saying that in terms of the overall environmental impact , in the way SEQRA , the State Environmental Quality of Review Act , looks at it , the staff recommenda- tion was for a negative determination of environmental significance , but pointing out these possible impacts on the residential character of the neighborhood . Then , there ' s a memo that was done specifically by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II , basically with a recommendation outside of the SEQRA process that the increase in traffic and the eight-part parking lot on this very visible residential corner could detract from the residential character of the area . Allowing for the proposed project would set an undesirable precedent in a residential zone Omd is not recommended . Chairman Austen thanked Mr . Kanter . He then added that , to the best of his knowledge , he doesn ' t believe they have any businesses that are not resident , or where the owner isn ' t residing there that he can think of in the Town . He just wants to say that he doesn ' t believe they have a precedent any place . Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • Mr . King asked what about Buttermilk Falls Road . There was a doctor ' s office there that was not owner- occupied . Mr . Frost added that they just also had a case that was a change of use - - Dr . Goodfriend on Trumansburg Road , Mr . King asked if this matter has been before the Planning Board? Mr . Frost said it would be a permitted use if there was owner occupancy , so this is a variance from the permitted use . Chairman Austen stated that he had closed the public hearing . Ms . Herzog asked if she could speak again . Chairman Austen reopened the public hearing . Ms . Herzog said that in regard to the parking comments people are making about this . It seems to her that Dr . Thompson has made adequate provision for his parking and , if he maintains the plantings on the property , that seems to satisfy it . She thinks it would be superior to having cars parking along the road if he can guarantee his patients will be parking in the parking lot . Certainly, if you drive dowm Pine Tree Road , there should not be a question of him in parking if he supplied it when everyone else down Pine Tree Road , doim toward Route 79 , has all their tenants parking on the shoulders . Day and night there are cars all along the way there , creating a hazard for oncoming cars , especially in bad weather . So , the parking question , with regard to where they ' re going to be should not be held against him when those who live on Pine Tree ( although she makes provision for her tenants - - always off - street ) do not make provision . WMr . Frost stated that should the Board grant this variance and there was a condition that ere be no parking , that ' s something that he , as Zoning Enforcement Officer , could have some authority in regulating that kind of thing with citing them for violating those kind of conditions . In the residential properties , where we ' ve had no variances granted , he has little or no power to take any enforcement action . Ms . Herzog said there ' s a shoulder and everyone ' s allowed to park along the road . Mr . Frost said he can ' t prevent it on the road , but it could be prevented here with a condition . Ms . Herzog just wanted to make that comment because that shouldn ' t be something held against him when , in the neighborhood , it is another problem . Mr . King said that if the variance is granted , also , it looks like there is room on- site for expanding the parking area . So , one condition you might consider if you ' re in favor of granting it is monitoring the parking for some certain amount of time and requiring additional spaces if it looks like it ' s necessary . Mrs . Thompson stated that there ' s plenty of room . Dr . Thompson added that the parking seems to be the big issue and the parking lot would be against a row of trees , which would not inhibit the Chews ' view at all . The only place it could be seen from would be Snyder Hill Road . It would not be able to be seen at all from Pine Tree . Mrs . Thompson added that they could have landscaping on the Snyder Hill side . She thinks there used to be big trees there that the Grant ' s cut down ; they cut doom the big trees , so you could put new trees in . Dr . Thompson added that one of his hobbies is landscaping so he plans to make the place look nice . Mr . Ellsworth said that the plot plan they have shows landscaping on both sides . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen reminded everyone that the Town Planner has gone over and given his opinion on the environmental assessment form . He asked for a motion . Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the 101 Snyder Hill Road property , Tax Parcel 60-- 1 -9 . 3 , based on the review by the Town Planner . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : Mr . Stotz , at this point , withdrew himself from voting in this matter . Attorney Barney announced to the Board that the Thompsons have been clients in his office from time -to-time . He doesn ' t believe anyone in his office is representing them in connection with this particular appeal , although they may be representing them in - connection with the purchase . AYES - Austen , King , Ellsworth . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Frost asked that , if the Board should grant the variance , could it be granted with a time limitation , which would bring it back for some re - review should there be some negative problems that are not anticipated now . Attorney Barney answered that yes , under the law now , Wo u can grant a time- limited variance . Chairman Austen asked if the Board has any more questions on this matter . Mr . King wondered about any proposed signage that you would have . He asked Dr . Thompson what he proposes . Mrs . Thompson stated that they would have a sign but she supposes there are some rules about signs . She doesn ' t know what they are . Mr . Frost told them that , if they were living there and having their dentist office , they would be limited to four square foot . Any deviation from that would require appeals again , not only to this Board , but to the Planning Board . Dr . Thompson asked if they would stick to that rule - four square feet . Mr . Frost said yes . Dr . Thompson added that it might not even be that big . Mr . King noted that they have a letter from the County , he thinks , that is concerned with the placement of any signs , as far as them interfering with any view from the highway . Attorney Barney said that was correct , he saw it also . Mrs . Thompson asked if they meant interfering with the view for turning . Attorney Barney said yes , sight distances . Mrs . Thompson said they would have to take that into consideration . They had not really thought about where it would be . Dr . Thompson said they could keep it farther to the south on Pine Tree and that way it would not interfere with the view at all turning onto Snyder Hill . Mrs . Thompson stated that she thinks that might interfere with turning from Pine Tree onto Snyder Hill . Mr . King asked if they had plotted the sign location . Dr . Thompson answered that they had not because they did not know what the rules were . Mr . King asked if they were thinking Of it being on Pine Tree rather than on Snyder Hill . Dr . Thompson said he was thinking on ine Tree , but not if it would interfere . Mrs . Thompson added that the address is Snyder Hill . Mr . King said that was something that could be worked out . Mrs . Thompson reminded the Board that they ( the Thompsons ) turn there every day so they wouldn ' t want to have the view blocked . Town of Ithaca 23 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 • Mr . Kanter said they would probably need something that stated the entrance , and that ' s actually permitted without any regulation , just so it ' s a directional sign . Mr . King added that directional signs might be advisable to eliminate any confusion for people trying to find the office and he knows one of the neighbors , Mr . Herb , says that he would not like to see any neon signs . He asked the Thompsons if they had planned on that . Mrs . Thompson said they would have to scratch the neon sign . Mr . King continued to say that Mr . Herb suggested the exterior never look like anything other than a house . Dr . Thompson stated that he likes the character of the building . He ' s not sure whether they will put on white siding or paint , it depends on what the builder thinks . Mrs . Thompson said it would still be white . Mr . King said that , judging from the pictures , the south and east side of the house are going to need a lot of work . Mr . Ellsworth said the south side has grown a little gray . Chairman Austen said they do have a letter from Tompkins County Department of Planning . The only suggestion is that the To°fm reviews the location of the sign to be sure it does not block the sight distances from Snyder Hill Road . The proposal submitted will have no significant deleterious impact on inner community , county or state entrance . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department , and we are free to act without prejudice . That ' s signed by James Hansen , Jr . , Commissioner of Planning . Mrs . Thompson asked if there are guidelines for signs . Attorney Barney said there is a sign ordinance that specifies size . Mr . Frost added that there ' s nothing that will regulate the directional signs , He added that they might want to , if this appeal is considered , require a condition that any placement of signs be approved by the Planning Department and is office . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the proposal . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that on the appeal of the Thompsons for the use of the formerly residential house at 101 Snyder Hill Road as a dental office , where the owner will not be a resident on the property and where there would be one more employee , the owner and three employees . - one more than is usually allowed , that the Board grant a variance to permit the proposed use in conformity with the plans submitted , with the following findings and conditionsa 1 . The matter be reviewed in five years as to parking , signage , lighting and any other problems that might have been noted . Conditions could be imposed at that time to alleviate those problems . 2 . That the appearance of the house will be improved with the proposed modification that Dr . Thompson is undertaking . 3 . That the house is not really in the thick of a residential area . It ' s rather unique in sitting across from horse barns and other Cornell research facilities to the west . The nearest house would be a couple hundred feet to the south . It appears this house is probably 500 ' from the densely residential area where the Board did turn down the • request for an employee . The swine barn facility is within a few hundred feet , as well as a tennis facility . 4 . That the lighting be of a residential nature or type so as not to impact surrounding residences , with the final lighting plan being approved by the Town Planner . Town of Ithaca 24 Zoning Board of Appeals January 11 , 1995 5 . That both directional signs and advertising signs be submitted to the Town Planner for consultation and approval before installation . 6 . That the advertising sign follow the rules of the sign ordinance , and that the sign be located in such a manner as to not interfere with sight distance or traffic on either Pine Tree Road or Snyder Hill Road . 7 . That the parking and access drives be constructed as shovm on the plan as the basis for the granting of the variance . 8 . That there be no on- street parking and , if the parking does not provide adequate off - street parking , the parking be enlarged on- site to accommodate all parking , 9 . That the exterior of the building be maintained in such a fashion as to resemble a one - or two- family residence . 10 . That additional landscaping be provided as a buffer to screen the parking area . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , King , Ellsworth NAYS - None . ABSTAIN - Stotz . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen reminded the Board that it needed to elect Edward King vice- chairman for 1995 and vote on it . The vote resulted as follows : AYES - Ellsworth , Stotz , Austen . NAYS - None . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting . 0 rho Debbie R . Raines VA 114 : iff ward Austen Chairman 0