Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-06-14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JUNE 14 , 1995 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 , June 14 , 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 Elizabeth B . and Ernest VJm . Terwilliger , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 to be permitted to construct a 14 ' 7 " x 13 ' 6 " building addition on a non- conforming building / lot at 620 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29 -4 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The building lot is non- conforming since the property does not front on a Town , County , or State highway . A variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 13 and 14 may also be requested since the proposed addition will have a 10 ' + north side ,yard building setback ( 15 ' setback required ) . A small storage shed is also located . 7 ' from the east side property line ( 3 ' setback required ) . Appeal of Dr . Janusz Sendek , Appellant/Owner , Ken Poyer , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 34 + ( 30 ° maximum height permitted ) at 5 Evergreen Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 22 - 1 - 1 . 29 , Residence District R- 30 . Appeal of Russell A . Poyer , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted o replace and relocate a non- conforming single- family residence on a non-conforming building of located at 518 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 16 - 1 - 4 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non-conforming because it contains 2 residential buildings ( only 1 building on a parcel permitted ) . The existing building is 3 ' + from the south side property line ( 15 ' setback required ) , but the new relocated building will have a 15 ' setback . Appeal of Douglas Ford , Appellant /Owner , Bradford A . Wellstead , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a 300 square foot exterior wood deck on a non-conforming building/ lot located at 909 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 -- 2 - 9 , Residence District R- 15 . The building / lot is nonconforming since the parcel is 36 ' + wide ( 100 foot width required ) and the building is 11 . 8 ' from the north side property line ( 15 ' setback required ) . The proposed deck will be terminated at or just over the north side property line . 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 Oatedo June 6 , 1995 Publish : June 9 , 1995 TOWN OF ITHACA FILED FINAL ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS [Date.\�o OWN OF ITHACA WEDNESDAY , JUNE 14 , 1995 9 . rk The following appeals were heard by the Board on June 14 , 19959 APPEAL of Elizabeth B . and Ernest Wm . Terwilliger , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 to be permitted to construct a 14 ' 7 " x 13 ' 6 " building addition on a non-conforming building / lot at 620 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29- 4 - 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The building lot is non- conforming since the property does not front on a Town , County , or State highway . A variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 13 and 14 may also be requested since the proposed addition will have a 10 ' + north side yard building setback ( 15 ' setback required ) . A small storage shed is also located . 7 ' from the east side property line ( 3 ' setback required ) . GRANTED WITH A CONDITION . Appeal of Dr . Janusz Sendek , Appellant /Owner , Ken Poyer , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 34 ' + ( 30 ' maximum height permitted ) at 5 Evergreen Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 22 - 1 - 1 . 29 , Residence District R- 30 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Areal of Russell A . Poyer , 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 replace and relocate a non-conforming single - family residence on a non- conforming building lot located at 518 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 16- 1 -4 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non- conforming because it contains 2 residential buildings ( only 1 building on a parcel permitted ) . The existing building is 3 ' ± from the south side property line ( 15 ' setback required ) , but the new relocated building will have a 15 ' setback . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Appeal of Douglas Ford , Appellant/Owner , Bradford A . Wellstead , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a 300 square foot exterior wood deck on a non-conforming building/ lot located at 909 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25- 2 - 9 , Residence District R- 15 . The building / lot is nonconforming since the parcel is 36 ' + wide ( 100 foot width required ) and the building is 11 . 8 ' from the north side property line ( 15 ' setback required ) . The proposed deck will be terminated at or just over the north side property line . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . 0 FILED 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Date 1 O l�n,I Q ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 14 , 1995 Clerk Q 01 • PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Edward King , Pete Sca a , Town Attorney John C . Barney , Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost , Town Planner II JoAnn Cornish . OTHERS : Brad Wellstead , Shirley T . Poyer , Elizabeth B . Terwilliger , Ernest Wm . Terwilliger , Ken Poyer and Ernest Bayles . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 02 PM stating that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in order . The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Elizabeth B . and Ernest Wm . Terwilliger, Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 to be permitted to construct a 14 ' 7 " x 13 ' 6 " building addition on a non-conforming building/ lot at 620 Elm Street Extension , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 29-4- 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The building lot is non-conforming since the property does not front on a Town , County, or State highway. A variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 13 and 14 may also be requested since the proposed addition will have a 10 ' + north side yard building setback ( 15 ' setback required ) . A small storage shed is also located . 7 ' from the east side property line ( 3 ' setback required ) . • Mr . Frost stated that the dirt road seen in the pictures is not a Town road . It may have been a future road . Technically , therefore , the side of the building directly facing Elm Street is the front yard , even though the approach to the house is , perhaps , on the left side of the building . Chairman Austen asked if there was a plan for this road to be a Town road . Mr . Frost responded by saying that he has no idea . Mr . Frost reminded the Board that Roy Luft , Sr . , got a variance to build a house on a lot just up hill from the house before the Board . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Ernest Bayles to take the seat by the microphone . He is the architect working with the Terwilligers . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Bayles to go over the proposal so that the Board understands what he actually has proposed for this project . Mr . Bayles referred to the site plan sheet and told the Board that it explains the nature of the variance . First , he understands that one of the variances being requested is related to the fact that this is a non-conforming lot , without frontage on a Town road . So , the property is located off of a piece of Elm Street Extension . The right-of- way is on Helen Pratt ' s property . The need for a variance is incurred no matter what the Terwilligers intend to do in terms of building on this particular piece of property . The primary reason they are there is because they are asking for a side lot variance because they would like to put an addition on to the existing house that extends roughly five feet within the required side yard setback . A 15 ' side yard setback is required and they will encroach on that by less than five feet . He continued by saying that the reasons for the necessity of that encroachment are that there ' s an intention to leave space for • a future garage to the south side of the house . The existing bedrooms in use are on the north side of the house and they want to continue things to the north . The purpose of this addition is to add enough space to this house to accommodate the Terwilligers as they get older . This includes space for improvements for wheelchair accessibility and also for an additional bedroom for a future care giver if that ' s necessitated . Tom of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Mr . King asked how long the house has been there . Mrs . Terwilliger answered that it ' s been there since 1954 . Mr . King asked if they would be encroaching on the north line by almost five feet . Would they be 10 . 3 ' as the survey shows . Mr . Bayles said yes . Mr . Frost stated that it may , in fact , be a side yard or a rear yard . Their attorney will be giving them the proper direction . He added that basically they are still looking at an extension of a non-conforming building so there ' s the possibility of granting special approval as opposed to a variance . Mr . King noted that the front of the house is actually on the left side . Mrs . Terwilliger said that it is the back , not the front . Mr . Bayles added that the front door is actually on the south side of the building but at one time there was a front door facing the left side . Mr . Frost noted that there is still a door there , it ' s just not used . He added that the picture may help to direct them . Chairman Austen asked if they would be making an entrance that ' s wheelchair accessible . Mr . Bayles said that , at this point , it ' s not part of the plan because it ' s not necessary . The entrance would be essentially in the same location as it is presently - - in the area between the house and where the future garage would go . This is on the south side of the house and will not go out of setback area requirements . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT • Chairman Austen noted that they have the short environmental assessment form prepared by JoAnn Cornish , Town Planner II . He advised the Board to look at it and note , especially C1 and C2 . Mr . King noted that the main thrust is an authorization under Section 54 to extend a non-conforming building . Attorney Barney asked if there was a subdivision map of any sort that the title was based on . Mrs . Terwilliger said that the only map she has ever seen is the one she received from the Town office . Mr . Terwilliger stated that Mr . DeGraff owned the property and he planned to eventually to make a division and have a real estate proposal , but he never got around to it . Mrs . Terwilliger added that Mr . DeGraff surveyed the lots himself and then the Terwilligers came along at a time when things were still up and down and they had to have a place to live so they went there in 1954 . They moved in November of 1954 . Attorney Barney noted that the zoning came into effect in September of 1954 . Mrs . Terwilliger said that they started the building in June of 1954 . Practically everything was done and then there was a hurricane that year - - Hurricane Hazel . The hurricane held up the roofing and one window . Chairman Austen read Part III of the environmental assessment form . That was reviewed on June 7 by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II . Chairman Austen then asked for any questions on the environmental assessment . There were none and he then asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . • RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property at 620 Elm Street Extension , Tax Parcel No . 29- 4 - 12 , based on the report of findings of the Town of Ithaca staff , JoAnn Cornish , Planner II , reviewed June 7 , 1995 , for the proposed extension northerly of the house , to within 101 + of the north lot line . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Chairman Austen asked for a vote , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen stated there aren ' t any houses on the adjacent properties . Mrs . Terwilliger stated that , on the corner of Elm Street proper , on the south side is the Vasse house on a double lot . Then comes the Terwilligers . Then the lot beyond them is vacant , the lot to the north . She continued by saying that it belongs to the Swensons and the Terwilligers went to see them about this . She added that they gave the Swensons the details and they did not seem to object . Mr . King stated that the Planning Reviewer notes that the lot on the north , which is also served by the same 50 ' right- of-way , is heavily vegetated and the extension of the Terwilliger house to the north would not appear to cause any adverse impact on the property . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . • RESOLVED , that , based on the testimony they have heard and also on the comments of the Town Planning staff reviewer on the environmental form , the Board grant a permit under Section 54 of the Ordinance to permit the addition to the north side of the Terwilliger house at 620 Elm Street Extension , on Tax Parcel No . 29- 4- 12 , and that the Board grant a variance under section 14 of the ordinance , permitting the new addition to the north to come within 10 ' of the north lot line , whereas 15 ' would normally be required under the ordinance if that is considered a side yard . Chairman Austen asked for a vote , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Mr . Bayles brought up the subject of a shed that was erected at the time the Terwilligers moved in . Mr . Frost asked to address that matter for the Board . He said that , if it were built today , it would not need a building permit because it falls under the threshold of Section 75 of the Ordinance . There ' s no electrical , plumbing or heating in the building and it ' s less than 12 ' high . They wouldn ' t need a permit . The shed , itself , is a panel shed that you buy and then put the sections together . It does sit on a concrete pad and because it is shown on the survey map , he thought he had better advertise it . Whether or not it needs to be addressed as a variance is the Board ' s prerogative . Mr . King noted that the applicant volunteered to move the shed in case it would have • any adverse impact on the building being put on the lot to the left . Mr . Frost noted that the pad is the foundation . He continued by saying that he believes it ' s the type of shed that can be moved if it presents a problem . Chairman Austen asked how large the shed is . Mrs . Terwilliger said it ' s a 6 ' X 8 ' . She said to move it , you ' d have to put Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • down another pad . Mr . Frost said that if it was on skids , he ' d be more comfortable with it . His concern is that it is shown on the survey map and therefore needs to be dealt with . By Ordinance , there needs to be a 3 ' setback . Mrs . Terwilliger noted that the slope of the hill is pretty steep and the next part goes up even more steeply . So , if anyone builds on that lot , they wouldn ' t be anywhere near the shed . Mr . Frost asked when the shed was built . Mrs . Terwilliger said that it has been replaced three times . He then stated that perhaps a time limit on it saying that the next time it is rebuilt , it won ' t be rebuilt on that spot . Or , if somebody develops the adjacent property , they would have the right to request its removal to be within the required setback . Mrs . Terwilliger asked what would happen if one , or both of them , died and their children inherited the property . Would they have to do something before they sold it? She cannot foresee anyone moving onto the lot next door . Mr . Frost noted that there is a variance in place that allows a neighbor to build there . Mr . Terwilliger noted that , if the shed is a problem , it can very easily be disassembled . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board also grant a variance under Section 13 of the Ordinance for the continued maintenance of the shed on the concrete pad , northwest of the northwest corner of the proposed addition , located at 620 Elm Street Extension , Tax Parcel No . 29 - 4 - 12 . Such shed being within . 7 ' of the north lot line at one point and 1 . 2 ' from it at the other point , according to the survey map , with the following conditions : • 1 . The variance will be time limited to ten years , or such shorter period as might intervene before a request is made by the owner of the adjacent north property for the removal of that shed 2 . If the shed is removed , no new shed would be erected on that spot unless it is within the required setback . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Dr . Janusz Sendek, Appellant/Owner , Ken Poyer , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to construct a single- family residence with a building height of 34 ' + ( 30 ' maximum height permitted ) at 5 Evergreen Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 22- 1- 1 . 29 , Residence District R- 30 . Chairman Austen invited Mr . Ken Poyer to speak to the Board to explain why they need a height variance . • Mr . Poyer stated that they ' ve decided to add a walk-out basement . They have talked about putting a sliding glass door in so there ' s another exit out of the basement . This would exceed the height restriction , Mr . Scala asked if the grade level would be the same as the floor inside the basement . Mr . Poyer said that is right . Mr . King asked if that would be on the south side of the building . Mr . Poyer said yes , at the back of the house . The north side is the road side of the house . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Mr . Scala asked if there would be drainage there . Mr . Poyer said there would be . Chairman Austen said a drainage pipe has to be put in . Mr . Poyer said that it drains off the south end of the property . Chairman Austen asked if that poses a problem for the neighbor next door . Mr . Poyer related that it does not ; there ' s a diversion ditch that runs down through the back of all the properties . The total depth of the property is 358 ' and the diversion ditch is about half way back on that total depth . Mr King noted that about 1 / 4 of the width of the rear yard would cause the height to be 34 ' from grade rather than the 32 ' . Mr . Poyer agreed . Mr . King continued by saying that the other 75% would be OK . Again , Mr . Poyer agreed . He added that there ' s only 8 ' that is actually in violation of the requirement . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen noted that the environmental assessment form was prepared by JoAnn Cornish , Town Planner II . He then asked Mrs . Cornish to comment on her assessment . Mrs . Cornish said that she did visit the site and , as Mr . Poyer explained , the area with the variance is a small portion . It ' s graded up from that point , so it ' s really only the opening and it does allow access from the basement . The front of the house , which faces Evergreen Lane , is within the height requirements . That is in keeping with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood . It is not out of character with this height in the back of the house . She saw no problem with it . The house is well constructed at this point . • Chairman Austen asked Mrs . Cornish if she proposed a negative determination of environmental significance . Mrs . Cornish said she did . Chairman Austen said that he has been by the house and the height is not really noticeable . Only a neighbor would see it . Mr . King noted that there appears to be a building adjacent south of this lot . Mr . Poyer said it is on the DuBois Road side . There ' s a house , near the road , on that lot . It ' s a deep lot . He doesn ' t think they can actually see the back of the Sendek house from that lot . Mr . King asked about any house on the other lots . Mr . Poyer said that there are no houses , and he owns those lots anyway . Mr . King noted that the Sendek home is not close to any other home . Attorney Barney commented that there is legislation presently before the Town Board to increase the height to 361 , so in another month this would not require a variance . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board accept the recommendation of the Town Planner II and make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed action of adding the rear basement entrance , which will make the height approximately 34 ' from grade , whereas 30 ' is the present limit , with the following findings : • 1 ) It appears that this will affect only about an 8 ' width , which is less than 20 percent of the total width of the rear of the house . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • 2 ) It also appears that the house will be in conformity as to height in all other respects . Chairman austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board grant a variance for the appeal of Dr . Janusz Sendek for the property at 5 Evergreen Lane , Tax Parcel 22 - 1 - 1 . 29 , to construct a residence with a building height of approximately 34 ' in order to have an exit from the basement , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) This is based on the fact that this property with this basement and height is I n harmony with the neighborhood . 2 ) It is difficult to see from any other adjacent properties . • 3 . The variance is limited to the approximately 8 ' width at the south wall for the walk-out basement . 4 . The height will not exceed 35 ' . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None , The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : Appeal of Russell A . Poyer, 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 replace and relocate a non -conforming single- family residence on a non-conforming building lot located at 518 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 16- 1--4 , Residence District R- 15 . The parcel is non-conforming because it contains 2 residential buildings ( only 1 building on a parcel permitted ) . The existing building is 3 + from the south side property line ( 15 ' setback required ) , but the new relocated building will have a 15 ' setback . Mr . Frost indicated to the Board that they would be taking down a building and putting up a new modular building that would be "elocated and have a new setback of 15 ' . • The setback is fine but the two buildings makes the property non-conforming . Mr . Frost asked Mrs . Shirley Poyer ( Russell ' s mother - - Russell is in the hospital ) if she will be living in the new house and if the existing house is vacant . Mrs . Poyer answered yes on both counts . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Mr . King asked Mrs . Poyer what use the house has been used for recently . Mrs . Poyer answered by saying that her son bought the property two years ago . At that time , there was a woman that had rented it from the former owners . When Mr . Poyer took it over , the woman moved out . He didn ' t want anyone there , so it was good she moved out . Mostly , it has been used for storage . It ' s in very poor shape and no one would want to live in it . Mr . King asked how long it has been vacant . Mrs . Poyer said it has been vacant almost two years . Attorney Barney asked Mrs . Poyer if she knows what the dimensions of the house are . Mrs . Poyer did not know . Attorney Barney said that what he is leading up to is the square footage of the new house - - will it be the same , less or more than the existing house . Mrs . Poyer said the new house will be 27 ' X 40 ' and will be sitting in the opposite direction from the present House . Mr . Frost stated the new house will be 23 . 9 ' X 44 ' . It will be a single- story house . Mr . King noted that they would be talking , then , about 1 , 000 square feet . Mr . Scala asked if the house is in the flood plane . Mrs . Poyer replied that it is not . She said that it does not flood there . Mr . King noted that there ' s a drainage ditch to the left of the property . Mr . Frost said there was a flood two years ago and it flooded the baseball fields on Cayuga Street . Mr . Scala indicated that the worst one was 10 - 12 years ago , during the winter when the high school was flooded . There was water all the way up over East Shore Drive . The ice caused the creek to back up . Mr . Frost asked if there is a basement . Mrs . Poyer replied negatively . He then indicated that if they are in a flood plane , the first floor will be elevated above that level . • Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSH ENT Chairman Austen noted that Mrs . Cornish , Town Planner II , was the reviewer on this matter . Mrs . Cornish stated that she had visited the site and found the existing structure to be somewhat run down . She did not go inside , but it appeared to be in a state of disrepair . She said that , concerning the property itself , they are the only two residences in that area . On one side is the High School and there ' s a Town right- of-way directly attached to the property . Mrs . Poyer added that there ' s a cemetery in front . Mrs . Cornish continued : It ' s a very steep , vegetated slope . As you are looking from the property to the cemetery , you see mostly vegetation . Mrs . Cornish said the houses are out of character with the area , which is interesting . To replace the structure that is there with another house is not going to further impede the character of that neighborhood since it ' s questionable as to how much of a neighborhood character there is at present . The lot itself is very small ; it ' s probably not much more than 15 , 000 square feet . It is squeezing two structures on a fairly small lot . Mr . Scala asked if it will be a prefabricated house . Mrs . Poyer said that it is a modular . Mrs . Cornish added that it will be turned so that there will be more of a setback than there is presently . She does not believe it will make anymore of an impact than what is already there . Mr . Frost asked if there are any plans to redo the garage . Mrs . Poyer did not know . • Chairman Austen asked if there are just the three buildings there * Deeb ' s and these two houses . Mrs . Cornish said that is correct . Mrs . Cornish proposes a negative determination of environmental significance . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment form . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that , with respect to the property at 518 East Shore Drive , the Board accept the environmental impact statement from JoAnn Cornish and make a negative determination of environmental significance . Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , "Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen noted that the Board has a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning . The letter was signed by James Hanson , Jr . , on June 1 , 1995 . Chairman Austen stated that is the only letter the Board has on this matter . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION • By P4r . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Board grant a special approval for the appeal of Russell Poyer for the property at 518 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 16 - 1 - 4 , Article XII , Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance , to remove the south existing building and replace it with a new building , with the following conditions and finding ° 1 . The new building will have no basement . 2 . It will be limited to two bedrooms . 3 . It will be less than 1 , 000 square feet of finished area . 4 . One of the two buildings must be owner-- occupied , meaning the owner must live there . 5 . This location is unique in that there are no adjacent residences . They are surrounded by a school and a cemetary . 6 . The new relocated building will have a 15 ' setback from the south side . 7 . The new building will be located to conform with the requirements of the R- 15 zone . 8 . A survey will be required to show that it complies with the requirements of the • R- 15 zone . 9 . The floor plan will be adjusted and resubmitted to the Code Enforcement Officer . Before the motion was completed , the following discussion ensued : Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Mr . Scala recommended an addition to the motion : This would be a second building , plus a garage , which would make it a non-conforming property . Attorney Barney noted that it ' s non-conforming at present . Mr . Scala said that it would then remain non- conforming because it has two buildings . There are two buildings plus the garage . Chairman Austen noted that the front yard setback may or may not meet the present code . Attorney Barney stated that the Board ' s decision maybe be conditioned on the house being conformed to the Building Code . Attorney Barney said that there are a couple of other things the Board may want to consider . One is that right now there really is no idea of whether the building that will be going on the property is bigger in overall size than the building that exists . Mr . Scala noted that it clearly is bigger . It ' s two bedrooms versus one . Attorney Barney said the other thing he ' d like to throw out for the Board to consider is : He ' s sympathetic to the situation of the applicant . But , there has been recently enacted legislation in the Town of Ithaca to have elder cottages which allow a variance from the normal one principle building on a lot in order to allow for an elder cottage for exactly this purpose , which is to provide a place for somebody ' s relative who wants to live close by . This is a more permanent case and Mr . Scala added that it ' s a two-bedroom place . Mr . Frost said that the elder cottage law was written for one building being originally on a parcel . Attorney Barney said the other possibility , which they might want to consider , is if they choose to grant a variance , the fear would be a rental property at some point . The Board may want to insist on an owner- occupancy requirement , • that one of the two houses be occupied by the owner . Mr . Scala addressed Mrs . Poyer and asked her if the building is being put up for her . She replied that it is . Mr . Scala then asked her why there needs to be three bedrooms . Mrs . Poyer said one would be a guest room and the other would be used as a sewing / quilting room . Mr . Frost asked Mrs . Poyer how a reduction in the size of the building would affect her . Mrs . Poyer replied that it would be OK . Mr . Scala stated that his guess is that the new building is three times the size of the present house . Mr . King asked Mrs . Poyer if she is saying that she could not settle for a smaller building . Mrs . Poyer stated that she said she could settle for a smaller building . It gets down to the point of : If the Board wants two bedrooms instead of three , there ' s no problem as far as she is concerned . Mr . Scala noted that the real problem is not having two bedrooms and a study , which is basically what Mrs . Poyer is saying . The real problem is that the major argument is that they are replacing an old building with a new building that is twice the size of the building being removed . If this was the only house , there would be no problem . However , this is the second house plus a garage . He then noted that there is no other property in that area with which to compare it . Mr . King asked what is the nature of an elder cottage . Is it portable ? Attorney Barney said that it is semi-portable . It can be set on a permanent foundation , but it is designed to be able to move from one location to another . Mr . King asked if there is some special building available for that . Attorney Barney said he believes so . Mr . Scala said that it ' s not really a matter of size . It ' s a matter of portability . • The elder cottage law is to allow for a second residence on an existing lot , a residence that is temporary . Tocsin of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 Mr . Frost noted that the ToEm issued a permit to BOCES for their VoPro course . That essentially looks very much like the single- stogy small modular homes . He doesn ' t think you can tell the difference betcyacn the two onc® they are on ca foundation . Mr . King said that the only logical justification for permitting the larger building on this site is tha unique character of this particular land location . It is not truly a highly residential area . In fact the oc-mer of the property is the only resident in that immediate vicinity . Mr . Scala would see a justification if one argued that one could foresee a caretaker living in the same house with. firs . Poyer . There ' s a stage at which that is an accepted procedure , to have an e::;tra room for a caretaker . One could justify the extra bedreom by not calling it a bedroom but a utility room . In that sense , he sees it as a reasonable plan . Chairman Austen said that perhaps an authorization could be limited to , as the attorney said , ocmer• • occupied ( at least one building ) . They could not both become rental properties . Mr . King noted that the plans from Penn Lyon Homes Corporation calls this model a Richmond Home . It indicates stairs . Mrs . Poyer stated that the stairs are not for the home she will have bAcause there ' s no basement . Instead of the stairs , there is room for akitchen- di:�ing room area . They are not having a basement . Mr . King noted that the plans also indicate that thea are three bedrooms , a living room , a dining room , storage and 1 -1 / 2 baths . Airs . Poyer agreed with that assessment . Chairman Austen assumes that the storage room would have to become a utility for furnace , hot water heater , etc . • Air . King asked if the Board should say it should be limited to a tiro -bedroom to make it smaller than 1 , 000 square feet . Mr . Scala said that the problem may be getting a modular home made with t1iat kind of modif i cation . He bel ieNves not . It may come without the stain-jell , but. it Trill have the same total overall configuration . Mr . King said he is s%;re that they males truo b::lmocm models . It does appear that the request is going from a 500 square foot unit to something over 1 , 000 square feet . He feels it should be limited to two bedrooms at most , not exceeding 1 , 000 square feet . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as followso AYES - Austen , EllswoWth , King , Scala . 7AYS None . The motion was cirri ed unanimously . The last appaGl to be heard by the Board was as follows Appeal of Douglas ford , Appellant/Owner , Bradford A . Wellstead , Agent , 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 300 square foot exterior wood deck on a non.-conforming building/ lot located at 909 Taughannock Saul vard , Town. of Ithaca Ta:e Parcel No . 25--2-•9 , Residence District R- 15 . The building/loot iz nonconforming since the parcel is 36 ' + wide ( 100 foot width required ) and the building i. 11 . 8 ' from the north side property line ( 15 ' setLack • required ) . The proposed deck will be terminated at or just over the north side property line ,, Aix . Frost noted that the Board could see in the pictures that the deck is existing . There was some degree of erode on the house and deck without a building permit . Mr . King asked if they now have a building parnit . Iir . Frost said they did not . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked what part juts over the property line . Mr . Frost indicated a picture for the Board to look at . He then noted that the appellant has offered to move it back to be inside the property line . Mr . King asked if it had been determined how far over the line it is . Mr . Brad Wellstead stated that it ' s a little over two feet . Mr . King asked if that is at ground level . Mr . Wellstead noted that the grade changes as it goes from one lot to another and it ' s about two feet above ground level . Mr . King asked if the property is bounded on the north by Mr . and Mrs . Smith and if they are aware of the intent of the overhang . Mr . Wellstead answered yes . They have sent a letter of support for this appeal as long as it is to the property line and not over the property line . Mr . King asked if it had been surveyed . Mr . Wellstead said not since it had been constructed . They measured it and it ' s 14 ' from the base of the building . So , it ' s 2 . 2 ' over the property line . Mr . Scala asked Air . Wellstead if he had built it himself . Mr . Wellstead answered that he is just the agent representing Mr . Ford . Air . Ford contracted someone else to do the building . Mr . Scala wondered why he had built it without a building permit . Mr . Frost noted that the current owner is away and the place is earmarked for rental . He added that they ' ve done some electrical work inside the building and some minor structural work with regard to the basement . They did not alter the framing of any windows so it did not require a building permit for the window replacement . There has been some kind of tongue and groove wood applied to the ceiling . Overall , beyond the deck , there should be a permit for all work done on the property . Mr . Wellstead stated they are in the process of getting a permit . • Mr . King asked who is the contractor . Mr . Wellstead said Mr . Ford acted as the general contractor . Mr . Frost said he met the actual builder , but has forgotten his name . Mr . Wellstead said it is Kent Moore . He primarily does cosmetic work . Mr . King asked if the work Erias done under written contract . Mr . Wellstead said he is not sure . He added that Air . Ford is a graduate student at Cornell and purchased the house about eight nonths ago . He ' s uncertain as to whether or not he ' s going to rent it . He intends to spend time here during the summer and it ' s difficult to rent under those circumstanc - es . He may rent it during the school year and use it himself during the summer . Mr . Frost noted that it is a common scenario on the lake . Mr . King asked Mr . Wellstead what would happen if the Board refused to grant a variance for this due to the fact it was built without a permit and that it extends over the property line of the adjacent owner . Attorney Barney said Mr . Ford could be subject to a fine , to prosecution and a possible injunction . Mr . Scala asked what the setback would be . Would it be the same as if it were for a house ? Mr . Frost said that if the entire deck was less than 3 ' above the ground surface he wouldn ' t be concerned . Otherwise if it increases , the lower deck has to be 15 ' from the side yard . That would be the normal setback requirement . It ' s always a little convoluted when you have a section of a deck on a steep slope . Mr . Scala said he can appreciate the aesthetics . However , supposing they are starting from scratch , forgetting that it ' s built . What would be allowed? Attorney Barney stated 15 ' . Air . Scala said that would be without a variance , correct? Mr . Frost said yes . Mr . Scala said that wouldn ' t give them very much of a deck . Mr . Ellsworth noted that the lot is only 35 ' in width to begin with . Toim of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 Mr . Scala said that the position to be taken is one of someone requesting to add a • deck to that side of the house , which is fine . What would they allow him? Up to within 3 ' of the property line ? In other words , considering all the other problems in that area , three feet is a lot of space . For most of them you don ' t have three feet . But , suppose they allow up to three feet . Is that the only limitation? Mr . Frost noted that if the deck wraps around , depending on how far it got to the other property line would determine if there e ? s another problem . Air . Scala asked if thea�e is a problem wit" the deck on the lake side . Mr . Frost said no , as long as it maintains a 15 ' south side yard setback . Mr . Scala asked if the same would apply if they go to the edge of the house on the right side . Mr . Frost said that dimension is only 11 ' to the house now . Regardless , the deck is on the opposite side . Mr . Scala asked if the deck also extends on the lake side , Mr . Frost said no . Tor . Scala said they are ccncerred with the depth of the deck on the north side . Length is OXF height is Opt . What they are saying is that they would normally consider allowing the deck to go within 3 ' of the property line . Chairman Austen noted that this was a legal non - conforming lot previously . 161r . Frost said yes , prior to 195 ' . Mr . Frost said this should not be confused with the 3 ' setback for accessory buildings , which doesn ' t apply here . Chairman Austen said they picked 3 ' to have some room to go around the building without trespassing on someone else ' s property . "1r . Scala added that being realistic , allowing the man to put in a deck and throwing • out on the table the proposition that one would be allowed , starting from scratch , to go out within 3 ' of the property line . I-Ir . Frost said there is no precedent that the Board has set over previous cases . Mr . King said that it appears Mr . Ford built at least 14north from the house . Mr . Nellstead said th"= is correct . Mr . King reiterated that to be within 3 ' south of the property line , they would have to lop off 5- 1 / 2 ' or so . Air . Wellstead also agreed with that , Air . Wellstcad said the owner is respectfully requesting to cut off 2 . 2 ' off the deck as it is now and have it go up to the property line instead of crossing it . It would ::hen be an 11 . 8 ' wide deck . Air . Scala asked if the present 14 ' there now would be 11 . 8 ' plus 2 . 2 ' . Mr . Wellstead said yes , even though it ' s not indicated as such on the drawing . Mr . Frost noted a patio on the drawing . Mr . Scala asked if the porch/ patio is close to the ground . Air . Frost said that on the lake side there ' s a cantilevered section that ' s inadequately supported as far as he is concerned . Apparently they stopped construction when the Town got involved . As it is , it is not proper , but they were going to put in supporting diagonal lumber . The cantilevered section typically can ' t exceed one - third of the dimension of all the lumber , He thinks they ' re probably fine with that . Mr . Scala tried to =plain that the question h^ is asking ise Is the allowance relative to that property line ( referbinAg to a thawing ) . Mr . Scala said the question that ' s at issue here is whether Mr . Ford is allowed to • come back to the property line or further , lir . £cost said he understands what he is saying , T=EL of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 4 ,, 1995 Mr . Scala ask^ ' if 1 'r. . Ford should move the pout 2 ' , 4 ' or ho,I much . Air . Ellsworth • noted that on the south side it ' s =Aother problem . Mr . Scala asked if , since there ' s another building right nearby and the code requires 15 ' , c-rould the Board allow a deck at all , starting fracscratch . lir . Frost said not without a variance . Air . Scala said of course they wouldn ' t allow it without a variance ; the point is , whether or not the Board ou'd allow the variance . Mr . Frost said that he doesn ' t know that . He also stated that there are factors involved with each property that vary . lie can ' t recollect there have been -!^ c many cases cshere you couldrach out and touch the adjoining building from a deck , either fror.: an cl,istin, deck or c: new dec)t. Q Air . Ling asked if t'�.at is the case here - can you reach out and touch the adjoining building? Mr . Wellstcad cai d that as the deck is built now , yes you can . Air . Scala said he does not understand , for example , why the deck wasn ' t built somewhere else . Air . 1•?ellstead said the option to extend out from the building was due to extensive cosmetic repair . Structurally , it ' s not in the best shape . Having a deck out from the east side of tho building was 1^ ss than desirable aesthetically , as well as it cost about $ 1 , 500 - $ 2 , 0e0 more . It would require posts approl.imately 20 ' long . Fir . Frost noted that there ' s a pretty new locking retaining wall on the lake side . He asaced if there was fill material brought do,r, to thz% site to provide some base for• the constructicn . IIr . WC% llutoad said no . I.I.L . Frost asked if the patio , then , sits on natural grade as opposed to frill . fir . Wellstead said that ' s correct . It was all leveled out , but there was no fill brought in . Mr . Frost added that , given the grade there , the patio must be on some kind of a fill base . APLL . Scala asked to bC able to toss out some logic at this point . obviously • Air . ford e ,asnted a place where he could get a vied and party or whatever . It ' s a nice idea to have a deck . The issue is that the whole deck is illegal . Does he take the cthole deck down or does he take it back somewhere beyond the property line , or at the property line ? Those are the t 11.Ce possibiliti^ s . ur . Frost said that the fact that the deck was constructed without a permit ahead of time doesn ' t help the case any . Mr . Scala said that is his tough luck . At this s3'age , he is vl? ^wing it as if lir . Ford is applying tc put on a new deck . The ryt.?esticn he is askIn(i is 67, ould the Board allot.r such a deck? Mr .. " cost said that there have not been many instances where they ' ve allo�- ed n c,• construction to go so close to an cizisting house . 1Ir . Scala clarified by saying that the an wer is , Ii Mr . For:', dere to come in right now with a plan for a deck , the Board would probably turn it doc�ra and Mr . Ford would have to move the deck some place else , either t^flc^ rG3 the la:�e s de c . e ,hatever . He obviously built it because the access was there . Mr . Frost said that whether the Board ' s approach to this would have been different if there uvas no d^. .,c , tht Boars has from time --to- time granted variances but not to the full extent as requested . Pir . Ellsworth av'.ped if there are steps off the front of the house in order to have access to the lake . . 1 : . Wellstead said the stens are adjacent to the north side of the house . Air . Ellsc.,orth asked if they were built before the deck . lar . Wcllstead said they have been rebuilt on the ori final location . i?r . Frost indicated that he probably would have allow^ d r building of the steps without goi;i ': ^ fore the Zcni:g Board . Mr . Ellsworth asked how fa. out from the house the stairs come . I-Ir . Wellstead said about 30510 • Chairman Austen pcintcd out to Mr . Frost the encroachment on the south side . lir . Frost said he is aw(,.rc of that . He continued by saying he wanted to gave some perspective on the whole thing . The neighbor on the south side will be coming before the Board for a similar rc �,�cst to the one being heard tonight . 11e will be at the July Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • meeting . He doesn ' t think it ' s to the extent as this appeal however . Mr . Scala asked if the Board is setting a precedent . Mr . Frost stated that is why he is mentioning it . The Board should know that next month the neighbor will be coming to them . That deck , to Mr . Frost ' s kncE,Yledge is not already built . Mr . Scala said that , if he is understanding correctly , Mr . Ford is going to be moving the posts anTiay . The question_ is how narrow s the deck going to get . Mr . Wellstead said that from the stairs out to the property line is approximately 5 ' . From the Edge of the stairs that are going dorm to the property line is 8 . 3 ' . Mr . Scala asked if the stain-iell is 3 . 5 ' wide . Mr . Wellstead answered affirmative - ly . Mr . Scala continued by saying that it ' s possible Mr . Ford may have only 2 . 5 - 31 . Mr . Frost said he can get into the building by ::standing on the patio and going into the house . They built the patio without a permit and went over the property line . You might allow the patio to remain and have the deck removed . Mr . Scala asked if there is any significance as to whether it ' s in violation by 4 ' or 14 ' . Mr . Frost is suggesting that the patio provides them an area to entertain . He would not have needed a permit to put the patio in and , if the Board decides to have the deck removed , Mr . Ford still has the patio at least . This would not totally eliminate Mr . Ford ' s ability to enjoy his property . If you walk on the patio and take a step you are noon on what commends to be the deck . Mr . Scala asked how far towards the line does the patio go . Mr . Frost said the patio is also over the property line . Mr . Scala asked how they know that . Mr . Frost informed him they know because it follows the line of the deco: . Mr . Scala said that the patio is on the ground . Pir . Frost said yes , and therefore • would not be regulated under the requirement . lir . Ellsworth asked who is the neighbor on the north side . Mr . Wellstead said it is Eric and Mary Smith . Mr . Scala said he can ' t think of a worse view for a patio . He wo.dcr d . f they hong out their laundry . Mr . t�rellstead said the Smith ' s live in Freeville and rent out th.n house . Mr . Wellstead informed tate Board that Mr . Ford has spent a significant amount of money upgrading his property . It was bought on a foreclosure agreement from the County . Mr . Frost noted that the upgrading also occurred without a permit . Mr . Wellstead said that the propeLty was close to being condemned when Mr . Ford purchased it . Mr . Frost said he knows , from being in the building , that there are some deteriorating elements to the building that are intended to be repaired . Mr . Scala referred to some punitive actions mentioned before that would be up to the officer to decide . Ise wonders why that wasn ' t done . Why is it up for appeal nota? Attorney Barney said normally the Town ' s philosophy has been not to penalize somebody if they are making a bona fide effort to bring themselves into compliance . They prefer to let this Board make a decision . If the Board decides that the situation is acceptable or grants a variance , then it seems like overkill to penalize that person . There has been one case cohere the Board did grant the permit on the condition of a fine . Mr . Scala said he remembers a case where the Board made someone take away a foundation to a garage . Mr . Frost stated that there ' s nothing that says the Board can ' t recommend some punitive action . U .^ . Scala noted that he gets the feeling that there are other things • in the house that have been done without permits as well . Where will it end? Mr . Frost said there ' s nothing major , but he did ciTlain some things to Mr . Moore , the contractor , with regard to support columns , some electrical work , some finishing touches to the house , all which need a building perrcit . Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appcals Jure 14 , 1995 • I1r . Scala said that ghat bothers him is that a professional would do that ( referring to the contractor ; . ',c car see an owner doing it , but not a professional . The professional , by right, , should be helping to protect the owner . Mr . Frost said that the Board should rec0kgn1ze the fact that , if they have to remove the deck , that in itself is some punitive damage . Like he has suggested , he can retain the patio without any problem and still have sorc use of the property . lir . Scala said that based on the cominerts , he sees no value in trying to bring this closer to the prop arty line . It ' s ur in the air so it doesn ' t interfere with anyone walking around , presumably . So , whether it ' s We inches or two feet or whatever , it doesn ' t mals any difference , as long as hc ' s withi,n the property line . Mr . King noted that it ' s only two fcct in the air at some points . No one can walk under that . 11r . Scala asked if there ' s a need to have access along the ;property line for fare reasons . 14r . Frost stated that he think: any access along those kinds of slopes down to the lake- is certainly worthwhile and is acc=n lishcd' ui'rh the stairway . lir . Scala asked where a fireman would go if he had to rescue somebody on the other guy ' s property? Air . Frost referred again to the pictures , where the staff:7-yell can be seen . Mr . Wellstcad said there io virtually no acceso dorm to the lake . Mr . Wellstead said there was a very old iron stai �17 y , held by a rope . Air . Frost reiterated that there ' s no real issua with tho stasriiell dorm to the landings . Mr . Ellsworth referred to the Smith house on the north side: . Are there windows that loot: right at that deck? tin . ^:ellstcad said yes , one is a storage room and one is a • kitchen . Mr . Scala asked if the pouts have some sort of concrete foundation . Mr . Wellstead sC.id that , as lie urderwtands it , they go four feet into the grade and are resting on virgin soil as well wv on 8 " of concrete . The diameter of the posts are 4 x 4 . lir . frost informed the Board that if they got as far as giving approval , they mould have 11r . Ford =rcavatc at least one post to get a representative sample of what the footing is . Most likely , thea. mould occur or the steepest dormhill side which r�:,uld be the most traumatic area . Mr . Scala asked if they ;could allow the edge of the post to be on thecd,e of the line . Air . Frost e;cplained that he is saying excavating one post dorm to the footing mould allow theca to observ. what was., there for a footing . lar . Scala noted that .he practical point is teat if he has to pull a footing , it- should tshould be something bigger than a 4 x 4 post . Air . Frost stated that normally it will be twice the size . If you ars: looking at a 4 x7 4 ost , it will be an 8 x 8 footer . Each footing is twice the size of r,hatever it is supporting . Mr . Scala noted that you can ' t have the 4. x 4 on the property lire beca�usc the footing is bigger than that . Mr . Frost affirmed that . Chairmen Austen oponed the public hearing . With no one present to spears , the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL- AS)SES031= Chairman bust:n noted that the environm;:ntal assessment form w"cs reviewed by Joann • Cornish . He then asked Airs . Cornish to give: the Board a run- does► or, the assessment . Airs . Cornish said, their main concern was the fact that the deck is over the property line . 11t the tim; ch.-.a did the rcvie, , :he did no. have the letter from the S ith ' s . Although , she did have a letter from the tenant , which she pointed out did not really Town of Ithaca 16 Zonsig 3oard of Appcalo Junc 11% 1995 • wean anything because it wasn ' t from the oimcr . This is a uni .ue property . They don ' t often see lots that ase only 36widen so they az= somewhat limited in what they can do with the property . L,akefro t lots CA.. often narrow and you do come across some restrictions as far as hoer you can build on them . So , she said their original recommendation was to confirm that it r7av , in fact , over the property line and gain some sort of legal docum.cnt- fro-:& the neighbors saying that it was OK with them . Airs . Cornish centinuee ciith the Snaith house , to the north , has an outdoor living space t..at is on the opposite side from the deck . She ' s not sure how clear it is in the pictures , but it appeaarr' that the door nife.Nearost to the dec:, is not really used . There ' s a ccncr:: t^ pad that ' s sort of fallen array a:% '. ".::ore ' s a small elyindow there . Again , if that house were sold and scm one moved in who wanted to develop that side of the property , this could be a serious infra :gem ent c:I their r i ;ht as property ocaners . The future use of the Smith propeMt \ y is definitely enc of the things that has to be looked a.t . She could say that they probably construction because of all of this . But , the p��ropc =y ha: cicamly tccn uor;:ed or and is being improved , but it is being done uit- hout- the benefit, of a permit . ScalaaSP�e � : ��: . CCi a�. d. if , ^..tcept for the staircrell , is there no way to get thrc;lgh with any c Iuipment fore.ample , a firemar, loaded with gear . Mrs . Cornish said he ,rou,ld have tc gc uLnder the stairwell , t.hich is under the deck . He could , in fact , go on the ::eiyl bon ' s pdopc . Tyr . Scala asked if there art other fire requirements here . Attorney Barney said they have thio, problem acroso the Toirn , usually along the lakefront . .',r . Eno ;t i:fog-- t'z Board that , at least fro�a a cod^ standpoint , they have no fire limits in the Toun of Ithaca , and construction can get very close from one building to • another , as close as tnrec feet ''n most areas . Scala, asked about access concerning an elderly person in a wheelchair . Mrs . �oZ,vd h said it ucu.ldn ' bs able to happen . You ' d rave to bring them by boat . Mr . Frost said laz doZssn ' t thin "hat is relevant . I-1. . Scala said no , but he is looking for any tification that assays this is illegal . Air . .r'r'ost r:.oted that , from a building code a,tt ndpozrL J , they `� O LI �j Lt uI�tyblr L. all' s 4f , t�6 ccmbus - able cdlterio♦ facings to the aC� J/`� • ol `� e ' n " Tp� tine /Vane o f 4'�" '� deec., T3hich is the issue e s ' s VJ.tnn4J prLJpr G. �. t ' �. . .n� .� . S.S6 frd�V case Vi lu ..+r deec. , , , he doesn ' t see this as being applicable to a combustible wall . Pir . Scala said that ghat he i , really ' ^ ^ at is dozz he have to ul • for aLcc from east to w st or . ° - rt to cast . p9�oci.�. .. 7 rc+ r fro n -� n 7Y' .� Barneya ... G. �:T off . i �. J .J �:Cav �: L1� J �.GJ Attorney IJu81d no . nYv�°Zss Is not an issue , Mr . Scala said OK , so there is no rat.Lonale for Uhethor or not you rake it 2 " from the line or 2 ' or ul. to 15 ' . Air . Xing said t'.ere ' s only a c0mnnon sense rc.ticnale . Pitt=cy Burney said each individual circiamstanc;; is looker at - if you choose to grant a variance at all . The burden is on the applicant . Mr . Scala noted that whatever the Board does now will set a precedent , Attorney Barney re inded '. 'lr . ScC.10 that every case the Board does is usually based on a fairly unique; set of circ mstanccs . If you have the same s .,--% t of circumstances next month and you deny that variance after you grant this va - ia ,.0 , there ' s some preceding evidence . Mr . Frost said it d :nds cn ho°L7 the urghly you eran.t tc start analyzing the efhole situation . Next u.cck or next month it might involve a two -- story house next door , This happens to, be a single - story house . It depends on hoc " much yon Brant to digest the uhole thing - - cheer it up. , spit out and see ghat you end up c,ith . Tir . Scala said that all he ' s getting at is he has no justification for saying • anything ofheb than come back to the property line , p^riod . Mr . Frost explained that if they locking at this as a variancC as opposed to special approval , they would have to show some kind of h.wzdc.h-?.p This happen.:: to bs a special approval so it ' s a 'little bit different than a straight variance . Toc-m of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals June 14 , 1995 • Air . Scala asked if he is correct in thinking that there is no justification for anything other than a variance that goes out to the line . What ' s the reason for doing anything else ? Attorney Barney asked him if he thought that any time anyone walks in the door and wants a vcriancc to go to the lot line , they should be entitled to it if they decide to give the pezoon a variance . Air . Scala did not respond to that question . Chairman l-,usten noted that he doesn ' t think the Board has ever allowed anything without having some fres space between the property line and the structure . He certainly wouldn ' t agree to go to the lot line . This is a ::Qse where , essentially , to reconstruct this , they would almost have to pull it doc.m anyway . Chairman Austen stated that the planning staff has recommended a negative declaration for this . tors . Cornish said that is based on that it ' s not infringing upon any view . As she e-;alked around the property , the issue is a property line issue wh4ch is a zoning issue and not an environmental issue . The environmental impact of this deck does not exist . The Corbitt ' s , the neighbors to the south , have a much larger lot . Chairman Austcn asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . MOTICN By Mr . Edward Xing , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . =OYLVED , that the Board accept the recoxmendation of the Town planning staff for a negative detcrmination of environmental significance for the construction , to some • extent , of a deck on the north side of the dwelling on Tax Parcel 25 - 2 •- 9 , 909 Taughannock Boulevard , otmod by Mr . Ford . Chairman Pusten asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows * AYES - .Tustzn , Ellsworth , King , Scala . NAYS None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen noted that the question now is what to do with the deck . Mr . Scala said he proposes that the Board deny the variance . period . That does not say that Mr . Ford cannot come back with another proposal , an appeal . Attorney Barney informed the Board that , once they have taken action , in order to rehear a matter , it has to be done by a unanimous , but for one , vote . Then , it takes a majority to grant the variance once that decision is made to rehear . What he is thinking is that if Air . Ford co«es bac:, and says he is looking for a variance to go three feet from the property line , he supposes you could interpret it as a different application . Pir . Scala said that h: is saying , as it exists now, based on what is there , he would deny the variance . Attorney ^arney said it is certainly within the Board ' s power to do that , the question is : Is thc= a set of circumstances under which you would consider a variance . If so , ghat variance ? Por . Scala stated that he had suggested to come up with a reasonable distance that rrold allow a person to get through - - firemen or anyone else other than using the steps . Then come back and propose it . Air . Frost said there • is no rule , he can tc 1 the Board , with regard to how ruCh fire department personnel is going to want to see between a house and a deck , for example . For a wheelchair , you need 3619 but you ' re not going to see a wheelchair coming doc-rn on unfinished grade , at least not by choice . Air . Scala, said no , but thcr ' s got to be a place to put one . Tom of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals June 1 ^1 , 1995 Attorney Barney informed the Board that they need to do whatever they want . If they are saying they want 3 ' from the boundary line , then give them a variance to go out to 11 . 8 ' or whatever that number is . Mr . Scala said the tough point is that he has no basis for deciding anything , other than some arbitrary number . Attorney Barney informed Mr . Scala that he has a basis for saying not to go over the property line , that ' s clear . Then the Board needs to make their judgment . Section 77 gives them authority to make their decision . You can grant a special approval tonight for something less than what is requested . Air . Scala asked what , then , does Mr . Ford have to do . Attorney Barney said he has to comply eYith the special approval . Mr . King said he will have to get a building permit and start the process properly . Mr . Frost commented that if the Board is looking for something objective and are using the findings of fact that Attorney Barney has just mentioned , another perspective might be if he was arguing hardship and practical difficulty for a variance , that would help guide you as to Uhat he needs to relleve his hardship . That ' s a measure of determining something objective to what is arcasonable distance . That would contribute to the Board ' s ability to make a rational and practical decision . MOTION By Air . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . IESOLI,M , that the Board grunt special approval to Mr . Ford for the reconstruction of a deck on the north side of his cottage at 909 Taughannock Boulevard , Tom of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 -- 2 - - 9 , with the following findings and conditions : • 1 . The deck will be reconstructed no closor than 3 ' to the north property line . 2 . It would be beneficial to the owners of both properties , especially the neighbor to the north to have some olboV4 room . It mould be that much less of a fire hazard to this wooden deck to tc moved further away from the building to the north . 3 . That the proposal complies with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a-h . 40 A building permit must be applied for . 5 . The rest of the building must be brought into compliance with the applicable sections of the Building Code as demonstrated to the Enforcement Officer , 6 . The work must be completed and brought into code compliance by September 1 , 1995 . Chairman Auston asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as followse AYES -- Austen , Ellsworth , I{ing , Scala . NARIS - • None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9025 Pt-i . • Tom of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals ,Tune 140 1995 Dcbbic R. Maines ward Austen , c. im-tea • •