Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1996-10-09 fir- 11ii - � Lbb TOWN OF I r,�A D ,d `�1 FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS a � EAL �lerk� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9 , 1996 ie following appeals were heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 9 , 1996 : 2PEAL of David Burbank, Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, action 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single- %nily residence with a front yard setback of 26 +/- feet (30 feet specified for the Deer Run Subdivision lase IIIA), at 166 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44- 1 - 103 , Residence District R- 15 uster. GRANTED )PEAL of Faust and Charline Rossi , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of )peals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to build 7' x 18' addition at the rear of an existing non-conforming building/lot at 210 Forest Home Drive , mm of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66- 2- 13 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building lot is non conforming ice it contains two residential buildings , whereas only one is permitted on a single parcel of land . GRANTED APPEAL of Eugene Erickson , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a newly subdivided parcel of land with a lot width of 40 +/- feet at the street line and the maximum front yard setback ( 60 feet and 100 feet respectively required ) at 130 Crest Lane , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66- 3-3 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , GRANTED APPEAL of Edwin Hallberg , Appellant , requesting a variance front he requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single- family home with a front yard building setback of 24 . 2 feet (30. feet specified for the Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIB ) at 15 Marcy Court , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44- 1 - 147 , Residence District R- 15 Cluster. GRANTED APPEAL of Robert Harris, Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 20 +/- feet ( 15 foot height limitation) at 1176 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36- 1 -7 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 , GRANTED WITH AMENDMENT ' AL FDateio� �f� • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALSWEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1996 PRESENT : Chairman David Stotz , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Ronald Krantz, Andrew Frost , Director of Building and Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the Town ; JoAnn Cornish , Planner. OTHERS : Dave Burbank, Dirk Galbraith , Charline Rossi , Duane Austin , Edwin Hallberg , Vicki Gayle , Karen Comstock , Nancy Ostman , Pete Loucks , Kenneth Grimm . Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 : 08 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notification of 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 David Burbank, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single-family residence with a front yard setback of 26 +I- feet (30 feet specified for the Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA), at 166 Whitetail Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44-1 -103, Residence District • R -15 Cluster. David Burbank of 166 Whitetail Drive , said he has been at Deer Run for five years , and he purchased the house in June 1991 . The house had a valid certificate of occupancy at that time . Mr. Burbank said he is in the process of trying to sell the house so he could build a new one in Deer Run that is being constructed at this point . He has been in the process of trying to close the house for approximately two and a half month . A couple weeks ago , he received another certificate of occupancy for the property. It appears at this time the house might be to close to the property line . Mr. Burbank said his understanding is that the southwest corner of the house is approximately 29 . 6 feet from the property line , and the front porch of the house (3 feet by 4 feet) , is approximately 26 . 7 feet from the property line. Mr. Burbank said there might be some confusion or discrepancy of whether the requirements in this particular Phase of Deer Run ( Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA) , is 25 feet or 30 feet . Mr . Burbank said his request is for the Board to grant his appeal so he could sell this property. Andrew Frost , Director of Building and Zoning said Phase III was done in two sub-phases , Phase IIIA and Phase IIIB . The records and maps that are in Town Hall are clear that there was requirement for 30 foot deep front yard setbacks for Phase I I I B . For Phase I I IA, where this property ( 166 Whitetail Drive ) is located , has some information indicating that there Is a 30-foot front yard setback. Other information does not indicate it is a 30400t front yard setback . In an effort not to hold up the sale , it was recommended to come to the Zoning Board . The whole Phase may go back to the Planning Board in late November for verification of what was intended , 25 feet or 30 feet . The matter • was sent to the Zoning Board to help expedite the property sale for the homeowner . Mr . Frost passed TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 OCTOBER 9, 1996 around photographs of the property in question . Mr . Frost said one of the things that could be picked up by the picture, is that visually there does not seem like a significant difference between the 25 feet and 30 foot setbacks . The building permit that was issued to the developer for this structure , when it was first constructed, shows a 30-foot setback. It is not clear to what the setback is for this Phase of the subdivision . Attorney for the Town John Barney said the normal R- 15 setback is 25 feet . The Planning Board approved it as a clustered subdivision , and imposed different requirements . The requirements on the documentation are a little fuzzy on this particular phase . The recourse in what is being done now , is the whole thing is going back to the Planning Board for them to clarify. The Planning Board cannot hear this matter until late November , but Mr . Burbank needs a certificate of occupancy before then to sell his home . Pete Scala asked where the 26 feet is because it is not clear from the drawing . Mr. Frost said that it is from the front porch to the road side . Chairman Stotz asked if the requirement for 30 feet is the basis of what the Board would • consider for this appeal . Attorney Barney responded , yes . Mr. Frost said the cluster subdivision for Phase IIIA requires that there be 30 feet between buildings . One building could be on the property line as long as the other is 30 feet away. In this case , there is 31 feet between the buildings . Harry Ellsworth asked if the adjacent houses line up in a row. Mr. Scala said it is hard to tell from the pictures the balance of the building . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . Mr. Frost said as far as the hearing notice goes , the Zoning Ordinance would call for a normal RA 5 zone which is 25 feet . The Zoning Ordinance does go on to use the words " as were specified" . In this case , as the Board looks at the variance , it is as specified . Mr. Frost said the variance , for Article IV, Section 14, states , "the front yard depth shall not be less than 25 feet or need it be greater than 50 feet except as otherwise specified" . However the Board looks at this , it is a variance from Article IV, Section 14 . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Burbank how long has this house been at this present location . Mr . Burbank said he closed on the house in June 1991 , and the house was new at that time . Attorney • Barney asked if anything was added to the house since that date . Mr. Burbank responded , no . Attorney Barney asked if the porch was added after he moved in . Mr. Burbank responded , no , the porch was built with the house . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 OCTOBER 9, 1996 Chairman Stotz asked if the setback is currently 26 +1- feet . Mr. Burbank said for the request , yes . He measured the two front property stakes , then measured the front porch to that line . He measured 26 . 7 feet . Chairman Stotz asked if that was the setback he currently has . Mr. Burbank said , yes , from the wooden front porch . Chairman Stotz said Residential District R- 15 requires a 25-foot setback, so Mr. Burbank is in compliance with the setback . Attorney Barney said , except as maybe modified in the site plan approval process . What the Town has is a letter from the developer's planner consultant saying that all buildings would be placed 30 feet back . The understanding would be to make the front yard requirement placed 30 feet back. There is a notation on the map for Phase I I I B that says the front yard being 30 feet wide , and it looks clear that it should be 30 feet . The documentation on Phase I I IA for the resolution approving it does not specify that it is a directed 30 feet setbacks . The safest thing to do is to present it to the Planning Board with the hope that this Board would resolve the matter for Mr. Burbank . Once the Planning Board receives this , they would either do away with the 30-foot requirement or impose it as a clarification of the approval . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that the Board grant the variance for David Burbank of 166 Whitetail Drive (the Deer Run Subdivision Phase /IIA), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 444 - 103, R- 15 Cluster, that has a front porch that comes within 26 feet from the road where regulation for that subdivision was to have 30 feet as a setback. The balance of the house is within four inches of that setback, so the front porch is involved. From the appearance of the house, 4 looks to be the same as all of the other houses in a line as far as the setback and appearance is concerned. There is no evidence of anything being detrimental about this appeal. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : • APPEAL of Faust and Charline Rossi, Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to build a 7' x 18' addition at the rear of an • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 OCTOBER 9 , 1996 existing non -conforming building/lot at 210 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-243 , Residence District R -16. Said building lot is non conforming since it contains two residential buildings, whereas only one is permitted on a single parcel of land . Charline Rossi of 210 Forest Home Drive , said would like to put in a downstairs half bath/powder room on the first floor of the house . This requires tearing down the existing mud room , which is approximately 7 feet by 6 feet , and putting an addition in that space of 7 feet by 18 feet to make room for the half bath and enlarge the existing mud room . Mr . Scala asked Mrs . Rossi if they would be replacing an existing structure . Mrs . Rossi responded , yes . One of the reasons the mud room is coming down in the first place is that there is a beam that needs to be repaired . Since there would be construction done , they thought they would put in a half bath/powder room . Mr . Scala asked what the second building on the property is . Mrs . Rossi said the second building is a garage , which happens to have an apartment over it . This house was built in 1910 , and at some point someone added an apartment to the garage , which caused this condition as a non- conforming lot . Mr . Frost said this property was before the Board a few years back for the addition of a screened porch on the side of the house . Mr. Krantz asked if the apartment over the garage is the only reason this property is not in compliance . Mrs . Rossi responded , yes . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Frost what was approved by the Board before . Mr. Frost said a porch on the east side. The survey map would suggest that there were once two lots , but they are one lot now. The survey map shows Parcel No . 66-2- 12 now consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66=2- 13 . Mr. Scala asked does the survey map not include the other porch that was approved . Mr . Frost said that was correct . The porch is located on the east side of the house located at 210 Forest Home Drive. Mr. Scala asked if this porch was near the present extension would be . Mr . Frost said on the survey map it shows a yellow colored area where the new extension would go , which the addition will be on the south side of the house . Chairman Stotz asked if there was a porch going along the back side of the house . Mrs . Rossi said the house has an unusual shape . Chairman Stotz asked if the addition would not be going out any further than the existing porch , it would just be wider . Mrs . Rossi said that was correct . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5 OCTOBER 9, 1996 Chairman Stotz asked if there were any discussions with the Sissons . Mrs . Rossi said it was two owners ago of this house . Chairman Stotz asked if there have been any discussions with the neighbors in reference to this new addition . Mrs . Rossi said the neighbors are the Bolden and Isabel Peard , and there have been discussions about this . Chairman Stotz asked if the neighbors have a problem with this addition . Mrs . Rossi responded , no . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said there is a document from Mr. Hanson at the Tompkins County Planning Department indicating that there are no impacts for this request . The environmental assessment recommends a negative determination of environmental significance . However, that there is no further development on this parcel without careful review and consideration . MOTION • By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the reviews by Planner JoAnn Cornish of October 3, 1996, for Faust and Chadine Rossi at 210 Forest Home, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66-243, Residential District R45 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION By Mr . Ronald Krantz, seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED,that the Board grant the authorization of Faust and Charline Rossi at 2 10 Forest Home Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 66-2- 13, Residential District R45, • to be permitted to build a 7 feet by 18 feet addition at the rear of the existing home, which is non-conforming because it contains two residential buildings, and since the environmental assessment is negative . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 6 OCTOBER 9, 1996 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Eugene Erickson, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a newly subdivided parcel of land with a lot width of 40 +!- feet at the street line and the maximum front yard setback (60 feet and 100 feet respectively required) at 130 Crest Lane, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-3 . 2 , Residence District R-15. Nancy Ostman , representing the Cornell Plantations , said the lot in question is more than three • acres . It is to be subdivided into two rather large lots . One lot will have the existing house on it , and the other lot will be added to the Cornell Plantations Natural Area along Fall Creek . The existing lot with the house on it and the neighboring house currently has variances with the Town plans . The road that goes to the house is a private road , and that is the frontage available for the lot . Mr. Scala asked what is the setback the Board is dealing with here . Mr . Frost said it is not the setback, it is the lot width . Mr. Scala asked what is the setback between the house and the new line . Mr. Frost said the actual width on the map is 45 feet , and he advertised it as 40 feet , because of the right-of-way. Mr. Scala said the 40 feet are from the line to the house . Mr . Scala asked what it is from the deck to the property line . Mr. Frost said he was talking about the width of the street line . Mr. Scala asked Mr . Frost if he is not concerned about the setback to the new property line . Mr. Frost said he would need to see the map . Mr. Scala asked what is the setback requirement to the back of the house. Mr. Frost said if the deck is within three feet of the ground surface , the setback for R- 15 is 15 feet. Mr. Scala said it looks like the deck is approximately 20 feet from both lines toward the back. Mr. Frost said if the deck was within three feet of the ground surface it would not be counted toward any encroachment . Pete Loucks of 116 Crest Lane said the deck is less than three feet high . Attorney Barney asked if there is a railing on the deck . Mr . Loucks responded , yes . • Chairman Stotz asked if Crest Lane would be extended . Mr . Frost said he is not sure how much of Crest Lane that the Town owns . The pavement ends a few feet back from the house lot . Mr. Loucks said he remembers the deck goes along the whole side of the house , which is like a small • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 OCTOBER 9, 1996 walkway . The deck is approximately eight feet high in a place for the door way of the apartment downstairs . Attorney Barney asked why Cornell located the line where it is . Ms . Ostman said they were following the topography at the time . Mr. Scala asked what is the required setback from the line for the back and the side on that property. Mr . Frost said it depends on how the Board wants to deal with it for this oddly shaped building lot. A 30 foot rear yard setback or 30 foot side yard setbacks . Mr. Scala asked if this would need 30 feet from the deck to the line . Mr. Frost said he does not consider that as a side yard . Mr. Scala said he does not care what side they go with . There are two setbacks involved that are not more than 30 feet . The implication here is the property line should be at that setback or else the Board needs to create another variance . Mr. Frost said by definition , a front yard needs to be a portion of land between the front of the building and a road, which there is no road here . Mr. Scala said the front door to the house would be considered the front of the house . The back of the right side of the house are the two sides that he • wants to know the required setback from the deck to the proposed new division line . If it is not the 30 feet, then there is a choice to either move or declare an appeal for a variance . There are two sides . The Board should take their choice . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Scala if he feels the deck is closer than 15 feet to the lot line . Mr . Scala responded, no , the Board is talking about 30 feet not 15 feet . Mr. Frost said he was talking about 15 feet as a side yard. Mr. Scala said that is fine . If that is the side yard , then the other is the back. Mr. Frost said then there would have more than 30 feet to the rear . Mr . Scala said he sees 40 feet marked from the house to the new line . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . Vicki Gayle of 130 Crest Lane said she is a tenant and potential purchaser of this property . Ms . Gayle asked will the new purchaser be required by the Board on how to use this property. Also , are there any limitations on the use of the property, and what are they. Mr . Frost asked Ms . Gayle which lot is she referring to . Ms . Gayle said the lot without the house . Ms. Ostman said there are restrictions in the deed from the owners to Cornell stating that there can be no structures built on that lot . Mr. Scala asked if the property lines have been accepted on the books or are they still being • proposed . Ms. Ostman said the property lines are part of the deed that has been conveyed to Cornell at this point . Mr . Frost said the condition of the Planning Board is that the subdivisions obtain any necessary variances . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 OCTOBER 9, 1996 Mr . Scala said that is outside this Board , except that the property is not in compliance . Mr . Frost said the only issue he sees is the lot width of the frontage , 40 feet versus 60 feet . There is the 100-foot width as the maximum front yard setback , and this is consistently 45 feet . This is an odd shaped lot , and he does not see where a side yard has to be running perfectly straight for a lot line . Attorney Barney said a side yard is the open space between the principal building exclusive of an over hanging eases and other permissible projects , and a side lot line extending through from the front yard to the rear yard . Chairman Stotz asked is anyone else present would like to speak. With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Chairman Stotz said there is no environmental assessment , but there is a resolution from the Planning Board stating that certain requirements were waived for preliminary and final subdivision approval . The subdivision approval was granted subject to a number of conditions , which one was the granting a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to signing the plat by the Chair of the Planning Board . There is a letter from the Department of Planning making note to the fact that this . parcel is adjacent to the Unique Natural Area located in the Fall Creek Corridor near Flat Rocks . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr. Krantz: RESOLVED, that the Board grant the appeal of Eugene Erickson of 930 Crest Lane, Town of khaca Tax Parcel No . 66-3-3 . 2, Residence District R45, for a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 96, which requires the lot width at the street to be 60 feet whereas approximately 40 feet is the actual width of this lot . The maximum ftnt yard setback is accepted as 45 feet where as the Town of Ithaca 's requirements are 900 feet . Mr. Scala said he thinks the numbers are wrong on the survey map . The decision has to do with the location of the proposed property line . Mr. Krantz asked if there was a reason why Mr. Erickson is subdividing these up , and putting the house in a small area where it does not fit any of the requirements . This leaves the rest of the land out in the open . It just seems like a pin could be moved easily. Mr. Frost said it would still be non- conforming in regards to the width if this was not subdivided . • This would not be changed by the subdivision . Part of this was an effort to provide land for Cornell Plantations as a donation as this went through the Planning Board . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 OCTOBER 9, 1996 Ms . Ostman said Mr. Erickson worked with Assistant Town Planner George Frantz on this extensively, and hive the lot lines match the recommendations from the planners . How close the front door is from the road is an existing condition . The side yards seem to match what was needed . Mr. Frantz was convinced that they have solved the problems by putting the lot lines there , and Mr. Erickson had the land surveyed based on those recommendations . Chairman Stotz said in light of the comment made earlier about the other parcel ( 3 . 34 acres) , which there are some restrictions on that . Chairman Stotz asked what were the deed restriction that Cornell put on this property . Ms . Ostman said there are deed restrictions from the donors to Cornell that states that Cornell and future owners of this property can never build on it . Chairman Stotz said the real issue is the lot line that facing a parcel of land that will never be developed . Personally , he does not think it is a big issue . Mr. Scala said somebody is going to buy that house . Mr . Krantz said nothing can be built on the remaining 2 . 334 acres . Mr. Scala said it does not make any difference . If the current house is not in compliance with the requirements , it would create a variance . Somebody just arbitrarily put that • pin there . If they put the pin 7 degrees instead of 5 degrees , they probably would get away with it . Chairman Stotz said it will still be a non-conforming lot regardless of that . Mr. Scala said that is correct , but they could straighten out what they can . Chairman Stotz asked if the property has already been surveyed . Ms . Ostman responded , yes . Mr. Loucks asked Mr. Scala if he is concerned about the proposed new division line to the east of the house. Mr. Loucks pointed out on a survey map of a line that he drew that extended out farther than the line in question . Mr. Scala said he is concerned about the line closest to the house . Mr. Scala asked what is the distance to the perpendicular line . Mr. Loucks said the property (the lot he drew on his map), for 99 years will be associated with the lot that has the house on it . Mr. Scala asked which is the property line . Mr . Loucks said the people who purchase the property with the house would get the extra property for excessive purposes . This would be associated with the property for the use of the people that live in the house . Mr. Scala asked what is the property line . Mr. Loucks said the proposed new division line . The Town will be taxing the extra part of Cornell's property with the property with the house . Mr . Scala asked what is the distance from the deck to the setback of thero e p p rty line . Mr . Loucks said there will not be any development on this property. Mr. Scala asked all he needs are a piece of information of what the distance is . Somebody is going to buy this property , and the question is what is the distance . Mr . Ellsworth said they are only requesting to take care the two sides close • to the proposed new division line , so it would not need to come back here another time when someone purchases the house . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 OCTOBER 9 , 1996 Chairman Stotz said the appeal before the Board tonight is for the front yard . If it turns out that the deed is a problem , then they would have to deal with it again . This is not part of tonight's appeal . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz. NAYS - Scala . The motion was carried . Mr . Loucks asked if the property gets sold , would there be another variance problem . Chairman Stotz responded, yes . If the property is sold and the survey line is not sufficient , then there would be another appeal . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Edwin Hallberg , Appellant, requesting a variance front the • requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing single-family home with a front yard building setback of 24,2 feet (30 feet specified for the Deer Run Subdivision Phase 11111113) at 15 Marcy Court, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44-1 -147, Residence District R -15 Cluster. Ed Hallberg of 31 Judd Falls Plaza , said there was a mix up . What he did was combine these two lots , did a consolidation with the assessment office , and a boundary change to allow the people to the north to gain a little more property on their side . Mr. Grimm , the property owner, is buying both lots, which have already been consolidated . The scenario of events is , the client and he laid out the house. The building permit showed that is it going to be approximately 70 feet from the property line . The building permit was pulled on a Tuesday , and the following Monday the house was dug . Mr. and Mrs . Grimm decided to put the house in a different place on a Sunday afternoon , then restake the house . Mr . Hallberg said he did not amend the building permit on short notice . Ignorance is not an excuse. Mr. Grimm and he laid out the house . They measured 55 feet from the center line of the road to the house, and thought they were okay . They dug , and missed by two inches . Then the foundation was missed by a couple inches , and now it is out of bounds . Mr . Hallberg said they are not only the 25 feet they thought they were , but they are not 30 feet that it turns out they should be . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Hallberg how he could ever get a 70400t setback on that lot . Mr. Hallberg said when the house was first laid out , it was oriented more to the northwest/ southeast . The • depth line was approximately 150 feet at that time , and the house was considerably further to the north . • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 OCTOBER 9, 1996 Mr. Ellsworth asked, in the curve , there would be more distance of the street line . Mr. Hallberg said that was correct. If the Board looked at the property at the north end of Marcy Court and looked straight up the road, the houses on both sides of the road appear to be all the same distance from the street . Chairman Stotz asked if there was any way of shaving the house some . Mr. Hallberg said there is a way they could do it , and it would be less than aesthetic . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Hallberg if he could angle the garage door, so that the corner would be 39 feet. Mr. Hallberg said the house is finished and Mr. Grimm is trying to move into the house on Friday. Mr. Scala said the options are to grant the variance or move that corner back. Mr. Hallberg responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Hallberg when did he find out the setback was too short . Mr. Hallberg said when he did the final survey of September 9 , 1996 , Mr. Scala asked if the sidewalk is 15 feet wide or 15 feet between the property line and the curb . • Mr. Hallberg said the house is 39 . 2 feet from the curb . Mr. Scala said there is an additional 15 feet from the curb to the center line of the road . Although it is not the required 30 feet , there is another 15 feet in there to the curb , which represents the effective road in terms of the measurements . Mr. Hallberg said from a visual standpoint , the house is 40 feet from the road . Mr. Scala said the setback appears to be close to 40 feet . Mr. Hallberg said when he laid out this house he had 25 feet in his mind , and measured 55 feet from the center line of the road . Mr . Frost said he had a building permit application that showed 70 feet . Mr. Hallberg said that was correct . They laid out the house and purchased a building permit , and then subsequently at the customers request moved the house . Mr. Hallberg said he did not revise the building permit . Chairman Stotz asked if there was any landscaping being done on this property . Mr. Hallberg said the landscape is all done at this time , and the lawn is already seeded . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Hallberg if he did the landscaping on the property. Mr. Hallberg responded , yes . Chairman Stotz said this appeal is talking about a substantial variance from the 30 feet by putting the comer of the house closer to the road . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Hallberg if he has given any consideration to doing some extra landscaping on that corner to hide it by a large tree or something . Mr . Hallberg said there is a row of pine trees that was planted along the property line to the south to separate the properties . • Mr. Frost asked when the foundation was done on this house , and when was the permit issued . Mr. Hallberg said the foundation was put in July , and the permit was issued in June . Mr. Frost asked • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 OCTOBER 9, 1996 if the foundation was put in 24 feet before they had their conversation in regards to the setbacks . Mr. Hallberg said that was not correct . Chairman Stolz asked if a tree could be placed between the corner of the house and the curb side . There is a tree already there on the side of the house . Mr . Hallberg said he would do whatever the Board would like . Chairman Stolz opened the public hearing . Kenneth Grimm of 30 Lee Road, Dryden , said he is contracting with Mr. Hallberg for this house . When he first contracted with Mr . Hallberg they did set the house back in the corner, but a few days later they decided to change it. Mr. Hallberg did change the plans for them . Mr. Grimm said he talked to the people in the neighborhood , who have seen the construction of the home along the way , and there have been no concerns . The construction of the home does finish and complete the neighborhood from an aesthetic standpoint . Mr. Grimm said his wife and family are ready to move in because they have sold their existing house in Dryden , and they are in the position where they need to vacate by Friday. If they are unable to move in , then he does not have a place for his family to stay. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that the Board grant the appeal of Edwin Hallberg in respect to 15 Marcy Court, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44- 9 - 947, Residential District R- 95 clusters, for a variance of the location of the house, which has a corner of 24. 2 feet from the property line where the requirement is 30 feet with the provision that there is additional tree(s) of significant size, approved by the Town Planner, to be landscaped at that corner to mask the fact the corner is five feet or closer than it ought to be. The recommendation of the variance was granted because of the hardship by the proposed new owner, and the extreme cost that would be involved in trying to correct the house that has already been built. Mr. Hallberg will meet with Planner Cornish in the morning at the site in question , to help set up a landscaping plan . A temporary certificate of occupancy will be issued for Mr. Grimm to move in on Friday . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13 OCTOBER 9, 1996 AYES - Stotz , Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The last appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Robert Hams, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 20 +1- feet (16 foot height limitation) at 1176 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-14. 1 , Residence District R -30 . Duane Austin of 506 76 Road , Brooktondale , said he was representing Mr. Harris because he was called out of town. The Harris' s home is well more than 500 feet from the road ( Route 96B ) . Mr. Frost passed around photographs of the property. • Chairman Stotz asked if the accessory building will be built on the concrete pad in the picture . Mr. Frost said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked what the building would be used for. Planner Cornish said the Harris's plan to use the building as storage for their tractor and plows . There will not be any vehicles stored in this building . Chairman Stotz asked if the roof would be matching the existing attached garage on the house . Mr. Austin said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked if the property could be seen from any adjoining houses . Mr. Austin responded, no. Planner Cornish said there is a portion that could be seen from Danby Road , but not very well . It is definitely screened by heavy vegetation . Attorney Barney asked if the Harris' s plan to store anything in the garage . Mr. Austin said he does not think so . Mr . Scala asked if the concrete pad in the photograph is going to be the footing of the new building . Mr. Austin responded , yes . Mr. Scala asked if the variance is to match the slope , because the peak is built up higher than • it would be . Mr . Austin said that was correct . The new building should be a 12112 pitch . Mr . Scala asked if the peak of the new building would be in line with the existing attached garage . Planner Cornish said the pitches will be the same , but the height of the existing garage roof is going to be TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 OCTOBER 9 , 1996 higher. Usually the new structure and the existing structure will be in line , but there might be some difference in the height . Chairman Stotz asked if the Harris's would be matching the siding to be integrated with the siding of the house . Mr. Austin said it might be slightly down graded for a storage building . The Harris ' s mentioned that the new building siding would be done in texture 111 . The house was done in cedar siding , which is very expensive . The texture 111 would be a lower cost . Mr. Scala asked if the new building would be a framed building with a frame door. Mr. Austin responded , yes . Attorney Barney asked if the Harris' s will be storing anything in the attic . Mr. Austin said he did not know. Planner Cornish said she had a little concern because part of the 2" by 4" has already gone up , and there is a concrete extension off to one end of it . Ms . Cornish asked what is the intent the Harris ' s might have for that extension . Mr. Austin said Mr. Harris thought of putting a small roof over top to store fire wood in the back of the building . Mr. Frost said this building is taking on dimensions beyond the garage instead of being the rear yard , which is behind the building , so the Board needs to be aware that this building is really going to be used as a garage . This building would be considered for storage of his tractor and plow. Mr. Ellsworth said with a high-pitched roof, it would be a perfect studio apartment in the future . Mr . Frost said Mr. Harris cannot do that . In the original plan for the building permit , it had a lower pitched roof. Mr. Austin said that is not Mr . Harris ' s intention . Mr. Frost said , however the Board approves this , the Board should make sure that it is justified as the use as a garage . That is the dilemma here , what other uses could it be used for. Chairman Stotz asked if there would be any heat in the new building . Mr. Austin said he was not sure , but Mr. Hams might want to put a wood stove in to heat the area when working on the tractor . Mr. Scala asked if the intent of this appeal is to add an accessory building . Mr. Austin responded , yes . Chairman Stotz opened the public meeting . With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said there was a negative determination for environmental significance recommended by the Town Planning Staff. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15 OCTOBER 9, 1996 MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED, that the Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance for Robert Harris at 1176 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1- 7. 1, for the request of constructing an accessory building based on the review of Town Staff dated October 4, 1996. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . MOTION • By Mr . Ronald Krantz , seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED,that the Board adopts the appeal of Robert Harris at 1176 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36- 1 - 7. 1, presented by Duane Austin, that the request for a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 21 feet, where as 15 foot height limitation it would be exceeding. This accessory building is to be used as a garage and not as an apartment, office, or work shop. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . AMENDMENT TO MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that the Board requires Robert Harris at 1176 Danby Road, Town of • ffhaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 - 7. 1, that the exterior appearance of the accessory building be similar to the siding of the house, or if not, the color be consistent with the house. • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 OCTOBER 9, 1996 A vote on the amendment to the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The amendment to the motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Frost said the Board approved a house on East Shore Drive owned by Mr. John Lango . One of the conditions of the approval was that the siding of his house to be completed by October 1 , 1996. There is a small section facing the lake approximately 10 feet by 10 feet that is not finished with siding, and a small section under the porch roof is not finished yet . Mr . Frost said he had spoken to Mr. Lango this week, and had several reasons why he had not been able to get up every weekend . Mr . Lango is suggesting he will have the siding done by December 1 , 1996 . The Zoning Board condition was very clear to October 1 , 1996 , but a small section has not been completed . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Frost what does he have for leverage . Mr. Frost said to take Mr. Lango to court today seems a waste of time . The leverage would be to take him to Town Court . Mr. Scala • asked Mr. Frost if he had notified Mr. Lango that he is past due . Mr. Frost responded , yes . The Zoning Board of Appeals had a brief discussion in regards to 111 Tudor Road from the previous meeting . Chairman Stotz closed the meeting at 8 : 40 p . m . Deborah A. Kelley , 1 Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Recorder David Stot�Z, Ch irm n • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Dani L . Holford , being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary , Tompkins County , New York ; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper , The Ithaca Journal . Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca New York on Wednesday October 9 1996 commencing at 7 : 00 P . M as per attached Location of sign board used for posting : Bulletin board , front entrance of Town Hall . Date of posting : October 1 , 1996 • Date of publication : October 4 , 1996 O ` Dani L . Ho ford , Build g and Zoning Department Secretary , Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of October , 1996 . ��Ztttt ,� Ll 9 'e - I ^ No y blic PETTY F. POOLE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF . hEW YORK # 4646 427 r F1 NAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 9 , 1996 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 , October 9 , 1996 , . 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 David Burbank , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family residence with a front yard setback of 26 ± feet ( 30 feet specified for the Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA ) , at 166 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 103 , Residence District R- 15 Cluster . APPEAL of Faust and Charline Rossi , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to build a 7 ' x 18 ' addition at the rear of an existing non - conforming building / lot at 210 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 2 - 13 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building lot is non conforming since it contains two residential buildings , whereas only one is permitted on a single parcel of land . APPEAL of Eugene Erickson , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a newly subdivided parcel of land with a lot width of 40 ± feet at the street line and the maximum front yard setback ( 60 feet and 100 feet respectively required ) at • 130 Crest Lane , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 3 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Edwin Hallberg , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family home with a front yard building setback of 24 . 2 feet ( 30 feet specified for the Deer Run Ssubdivision , Phase IIIB ) at 15 Marcy Court , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 147 , Residence District R- 15 Cluster . APPEAL of Robert Harris , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 20 ± feet ( 15 foot .height limitation ) at 1176 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36 - 1 - 7 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . 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 Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : October 1996 Publish : October 4 , 1996 • FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 91 1996 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 , October 9 , 1996 , 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 David Burbank , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family residence with a front yard setback of 26 ± feet ( 30 feet specified for the Deer Run Subdivision Phase IIIA ) , at 166 Whitetail Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 103 , Residence District R- 15 Cluster . APPEAL of Faust and Charline Rossi , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to build a 7 ' x 18 ' addition at the rear of an existing non - conforming building / lot at 210 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 2 - 13 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building lot is non conforming since it contains two residential buildings , whereas only one is permitted on a single parcel of land . APPEAL of Eugene Erickson , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a newly subdivided parcel of land with a lot width of 40 ± feet at the street line and the maximum front yard setback ( 60 feet and 100 feet respectively required ) at 130 Crest Lane , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 3 . 2 , Residence . District R- 15 . APPEAL of Edwin Hallberg , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing single - family home with a front yard building setback of 24 . 2 feet ( 30 feet specified for the Deer Run Ssubdivision , Phase IIIB ) at 15 Marcy Court , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 1 - 147 , Residence District R- 15 Cluster . APPEAL of Robert Harris , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a height of 20 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation ) at 1176 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 36 - 1 - 7 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . 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 Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : October 1 , 1996 Publish : October 4 , 1996 •