Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1998-09-09 FINAL • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 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, September 9, 1998, 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 Lynn LoPucki, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III, Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a proposed rear yard building setback of 10 feet + (30 feet required) at 225 Pearl Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 594 -9, Residence District R-9. The proposed building and lot crosses municipal lines with the City of Ithaca. The property owner is requesting a variance and approvals from the City Zoning Board. Access to the residence will be from the City. APPEAL of Elizabeth Leung and Thomas Lane, Appellants, Attorney Michael May, Agent, 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 residential building with a north side lot line building setback of 10 + feet ( 15 feet required) and a south side setback of 8 + feet ( 15 feet required) at 111 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 16, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Fred Noteboom, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 40' by 96' storage building with a west side yard building setback of 15 feet (40 foot setback required) at 106 Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-2-6. 1 , Residence District 11-30. APPEAL of Ithaca College, Appellant, Bruce Hatch, Agent, requesting a modification of a special approval granted on June 26, 1996 by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a 66' by 84' temporary classroom on the Ithaca College campus located at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 - 1 -30.2, Residence District R- 15 . Said modification is to extend a time4imited approval from June 30, 1998 to June 30, 1999. 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: September 2, 1998 Published: September 4, 1998 • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap- peals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, September 9, 1998 , 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 Lynn LoPucki , , Appellant, requesting a vari- ance from the requirements of 66 " by 84 " temporaryy Article III , Section 7 of the classroom on the Ithaca Col- Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi- lege campus located at 953 nonce, to be permitted to con- Town of Ithaca struct a single-family resi- Danby Road, dence with a proposed rear Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 .30.2, yard building setback of 10 Residence District R- 15 . Said feet ± (30 teet required) at modification is to extend a time-limited approval from 225 Pearl Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59- 1 -9, June 30, 1998 to June 30, Residence District R-9. The 1999. proposed building and lot Said Zoning Board of Ap crosses municipal lines with ppeals will at said time, City of Ithaca. The prop- erty 7:OOp .m ., and said place, the owner is requesting a hear all persons in support of variance and approvals ham such matters of objections • thereto. Persons may appear the City and Board . y pp Access to the residence will by agent or in person . be from the City. Individuals with visual or APPEAL of Elizabeth Leung hearing impairments or other and Thomas Lane, Appel- special needs, as appro- lants, Attorney Michael May, priate, will be provided with Agent requesting a variance assistance, as necessary, from tke requirements of Arti- upon request. Persons desir- cle IV, Section 14 of the Town ing assistance must make of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, such a request not less than to be permitted to maintain 48 hours prior to the time of an existing residential the public hearing. building with 'a north side lot Andrew S. Frost line building setback of 10± Director of Building feet ( 15 feet required) and a and Zoning south side setback of 8± feet 273- 1783 ( 15 feet required) at 111 September 4, 1998 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57.1 - 16, Residence District R-15 . APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Fred Noteboom, Agent requesting a variance from t6 requirements of Arti- cle V' Section 18 and 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 40"x96" storage building with a west side yard building setback of 15 feet l40 foot setback re- quire at 106 Seven Mile Drive, flown of Ithaca Tax Par- cel No. 33.2-6. 1 , Residence District R•30. APPEAL of 160Ca College, Appellant, Bruce Hatch , Agent, requestin a modifica- tion of a. speual ap roval granted on June 26, 1996 by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV Section 11 Paragraph 3 , o� the Town o� Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to • be permitted to maintain a FAM TOWN OF MOM TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS tail ` � gR. WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 9 , 1998k o ��rocd 7 : 00 p . m . 6ppeal of Lynn LoPucki , Appellant, requestin a variance form the requirements of Article III , Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a proposed rear yard building setback of 10 feet ± (30 feet required) at 225 Pearl Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59- 1 -9 , Residence District R-9 . The proposed building and lot crosses municipal lines with the City of Ithaca . The property owner is requesting a variance and approvals from the City Zoning Board . Access to the residence will be from the City. APPEAL GRANTED 6ppeal of Elizabeth Leung and Thomas Lane , Appellants , Attorney Michael May , Agent, 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 residential building with a north side lot line building setback of 10 ± feet ( 15 feet required) and south side setback of 8 ± feet ( 15 feet required) at I I I Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 16, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED 06ppeal of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Fred Noteboom , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 40 ' by 96' storage building with a west side yard building setback of 15 feet (40 foot setback required) at 106 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 6 . 1 , Residence District R-30 . APPEAL DEFERRED UNTIL OCTOBER 14 , 1998 6ppeal of Ithaca College , Appellant, Bruce Hatch , Agent, requesting a modification of a special approval granted on June 26 , 1996 by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Seciton 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a 66' by 84' temporary classroom on the Ithaca College campus located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 - 1 -30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Modification is to extend a time-limited approval from June 30 , 1998 to June 30 , 1999 . APPEAL GRANTED FNJD TOWN, o6 �MiAACK TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DateJI II �CR WEDNESDAY , SEPTEMBER 9 , 1998 cterk�° Ok'6VA 7 : 00 p . m . Present: David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth , Ronald Krantz, James Niefer, Kirk Sigel , Andrew Frost (Director of Building/Zoning) , John Barney (Attorney for the Town) . Others : Thor Rhodin , Lynn LoPucki , Marty Shapiro, Mike May, Patricia Vaughn , Tony Gaenslen , Bruce Hatch , Tom Salm , Patricia Petrillo. Chairman Stotz called the meeting to order at 7 :08 p . m . , stating that all posting, publication , and notification of the public hearing had been completed and were in the same order. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : Appeal of Lynn LoPucki , Appellant, requesting a variance form the requirements of Article III , Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single -family residence with a proposed rear yard building setback of 10 feet ± (30 feet required) at 225 Pearl Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59 - 1 -9 , Residence District R-9 . The proposed building and lot crosses municipal lines with the City of Ithaca. The property owner is requesting a variance and approvals from the City Zoning Board . Access to the residence will be from the City. iChairman Stotz stated this appeal was adjourned from last month because the board was awaiting approval from the city for the city portion . Lynn LoPucki , 107 Irving Place , state he wants to buy a lot and build a single family residence . This is in an area that is zoned for a house with an apartment. The lot is non-conforming and this is a confusing situation because part of the lot is also in the City of Ithaca. It is difficult to say what the requirements are . The part that should be of a concern to the Town of Ithaca would be the setback requirements within the town . He also wanted the board to beware of what he wanted to do on the lot. If there is another problem other than the setback that is of concern to the town it be raised tonight. The lot is shaped for building. The setback is a problem that could be resolved a number of ways . He drew the house on the property the way he felt it worked best. A house could be built on the lot assuming the left side was the front. If that is done , the house is pushed down to the big end of the lot and the driveway becomes longer than it would be . A variance is not necessary to build , but it would locate the house in a better location within the lot. It should have a minor impact on the town since there is not an access in this area. He asked the board to approve his appeal conditional upon the City approving a consistent variance . Mr. Niefer asked which one of the plot plans was he proposing the board to act on . Mr. LoPucki responded there should only be one , and he showed the plot plan to the board . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated he had provided to the board the numerous alternative documents Mr. LoPucki had provided him . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE2 Mr. LoPucki stated the plot plan he attached to the application has a ten foot side rear setback in the area of the town . Director of Building and Zoning Frost asked if it was his relative that lived in Florida was going to be the architect. Mr. LoPucki replied his brother was going to be the architect. Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated he provided to the board the documents his brother had sent him. Mr. Niefer asked if the plot plan he presented was the plan he anticipated building. Mr. LoPucki responded it was a 2000 square foot house . The plans for the house had came out of a book of plans . His preference would vary some from what the book picture had showed . Mr. Niefer asked if he had a purchase offer on the property contingent upon receiving the variance . Mr. LoPucki answered he had an option to buy the property and if the variance was not granted he would not pursue buying the property. Chairman Stotz stated that because of the angled lot line , if the house is moved further back the rear yard setback would be increased and the driveway would be longer. What objection is there to doing that? Mr. LoPucki stated then there would be a driveway that ran the entire length of the lot with the house to the back of the lot. It would be an additional 15 to 20 feet. Mr. Sigel asked if the house would then have 30 foot setback. Mr. LoPucki replied it would leave 35 feet to locate the house in the back while keeping the front of the house on Pearl Street, Chairman Stotz asked if the 30 foot setback was possible . Mr. LoPucki stated yes he could but the shape of the house would have to change . It would be a two or three story house . He would not want to build a house of that shape . Mr. Sigel asked if the setback was still the 25 feet minimal in the front. Attorney Barney stated the town requires a front yard set back from the lot line to the building from the point of the bottom of the flag. If there is 60 feet, then it is sufficient frontage and measured from the road . The problem with this project is limited . The town is not concerned with front yard , but the side and rear yards . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 3 Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated it was an unusual case . Most of the preparation conversations he • had were with Mr. LoPucki 's brother. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 20 p . m . and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Thor Rhodin , 222 Miller Street, stated he owned property bordering one side of the lot in question . He felt the problem was there was more to the proposal than what met the eye . The property Professor LoPucki is considering building on is isolated . The Miller Street Extension is essential to Professor LoPucki because it is his only way of getting access to his property. The key to the project is accessibility. As a member of the community, he is concerned about the driveway if it is built in the proposed site . The City has built Miller and Pearl Street with adequate lighting, surfacing, sewers , and police protection . Cornell University has developed the property on the other side of the proposed site . His property on Pearl Street adjoins Fairview Heights and he thought they owned the property. Mr. Rhodin did not realize there was another lot of land . With the help of Fairview Heights they have maintained the property as an unofficial community park. It would also require cutting down trees and destroying the quality of the neighborhood . Mr. Rhodin stated he is not against Professor LoPucki building a home in their neighborhood and he would like to help him in any way. He feels it should be done in a thoughtful , responsible , orderly way. The present proposal does not satisfy those requirements . There is also serious drainage problems . It is not a contour map . The land slopes up quite a bit. Much water drains down Miller Street, off the proposed property. • Attorney Barney asked what he considered Miller Street. Mr. Rhodin showed on the plot plan the location of Miller Street Extension and the area he was concerned about. He suspected the neighborhood felt it was not an orderly way of developing the area . Attorney Barney asked if Mr. and Mrs . Willet have a proposal that would have opened Miller Street down to their property. Mr. Rhodin stated he did not know what Mr. Willet might have proposed . Mr. Schickel , developer of Fairview Heights , hoped to acquire enough property in the area to build a similar development, and then chose not too. Attorney Barney asked what would be an orderly way to develop the parcel . Mr. Rhodin stated it would make more sense to develop access to both of these lots that belong to Mr . Willet. Having access from the Vine Street Extension would make more sense . Mr. Rhodin showed on the plot plan where he felt there should be access Mr. Ellsworth asked to see the area they had been maintaining as a park. Mr. Rhodin showed the board the location ofthe park. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the park had a flooding problem . • Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 4 Mr. Rhodin stated the park was on higher ground . It presently drained down Miller Street. The drainage • came down to the West. Three thousand square feet of water shed will be added after Mr. LoPucki build 's his home . Mr. Ellsworth stated the water was coming from city property. Tony Gaenslen , 220 Pearl Street, stated the proposed driveway would be 100 feet from his property. He would like to welcome Lynn LoPucki to the neighborhood but, there is a better way of building the house on the lot. It has not been seriously explored . If it were implemented , it would serve the neighborhood and lots in a more effective way. The request for a variance is premature because looking at access not by coming through Miller Street Extension . He felt the board should come and look at the park. Mr. Gaenslen wanted the development of the parcel to be done another way that worked better and allowed Mr. LoPucki to do what he wanted . At sometime in the future Steve Willet will want to develop the adjacent lot and will need access . Mr . Willet will need to come before he board and ask for a second variance . Mr. Willet asked the board to visualize the driveway. There are two possibilities and they should be looked into. Beyond what will be the Eastern Boundary of Lynn LoPucki 's property is a trucking company. The owner stops using the property North of Worth 's Street. Vehicles are occasionally parked near Worth 's Street. No one has explored buying a strip of land from him to serve both lots . The lot is a Vine Street lot and if Vine Street Extension is extended it provides access to three lots . The driveway could be installed along the back to obtain the same objections . He felt a variance should not be granted until it is found out if a driveway could be put in at this location . Chairman Stotz stated that Mr. Gaenslen felt there would be an effect on the trees of putting the driveway in and the effect the driveway would have on the land used as a park. Attorney Barney stated the neighborhood has used this property that does not belong to them to the exclusion of the rightful owner. Mr. Gaenslen stated the lot's access was designed to off Vine Street. If this variance is granted , the board is buying into destroying trees . There is a better place to build the driveway. Attorney Barney stated to do so, Mr. LoPucki would need to cross two other properties that they may not have consent. Mr. Gaenslen stated one of them was Willet and when he develops he will be before the board . Attorney Barney stated Mr. Willet preferred to have access on Worth Street but, he may not be prepared to have someone use the property to the north . Mr. Gaenslen stated Mr. Willet also owned the two lots across from him . On the next block he put up two houses , and they ended up looking like modular homes because of the ten foot setback on either side . If a driveway is on one of the two lots opposite Mr. Gaenslen , and sells the remaining lot, he has access to all three lots and has enough space for three houses . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGES Marry Shapiro, Lawyer for Mr. and Mrs . Rhodin and Fairview Heights , stated various issues have been • addressed related to the various and if it makes sense to have the development and driveway where it is . There is a question whether or not the unopened portion of Miller Street is owned by Mr. Willet. Mr. Shapiro stated he has been unable to do an extensive search for the title , but it appears the unopened portion of Miller Street was dedicated by subdivision map in 1893 , the Mitchell Track . There appears to be no deed from Mitchell or his successor in title to the City of Ithaca, or anyone else . The law is that when the street is unopened for a period of time it is deemed an abandonment. Even if it was not deemed an abandonment the city is attempting to abandoning any rights to open Miller Street Extension as a street. If the abandonment occurred sometime after the dedication , then the title would revert to the original owner and therefore devolve down to the present owner's abutting the unopened portion of Miller Street. It would be Fairview Heights and Mr. and Mrs . Rhodin . For about twenty years he has owned these properties and maintained the unopened portion of Miller Street as part of a neighborhood park. They did this at their cost and expense and under color of title meaning they assumed it was their property. It has met the test for adverse possession since the ownership of that was never in the City of Ithaca. The proposed lot to be developed has as it's only access this portion of land and the title is in question . It will need to be decided by a court of law. Granting a variance for a lot that does not have access is questionable . Mr. Willet owns the lot to the South of the lot in question , and the two lots to the West. The two lots to the West front on Pearl Street. There is access to a public street owned by the same owner and can get access to the back parcels if the would like . Mr. Willet can do that with much less harm to the general neighborhood . Mr. Shapiro stated he raised these issues not to ask the board to make a determination as to the legalities of the unopened portion to Miller Street, but to alert the board to the question that does exist. It would be premature at this point to be granting • variances. He sent a letter to the city and town attorneys raising these questions . Mr. Shapiro asked the board to defer their decision until the question of the title was answered . Mr. Krantz asked if the unopened portion of Miller Street on the Tax Pay Roll . Mr. Shapiro stated the tax maps showed it as Miller Street. The city engineering map showed it as Miller Street, but no one pays taxes on it. This might be compounded by the fact that Mitchell who subdivided the tract, lost the land by foreclosure . The extension of Miller Street is only 23 feet wide . It is narrower than the open portion of Miller Street. Since a variance in one place can have an effect on somewhere else , the town should consider it. Chairman Stotz stated the board was not disinterested in what Mr. Shapiro had to say but, the appeal would be coming for the city. The other issues about the park, water drainage , and trees being cut down is occurring on the city side . Mr. Shapiro stated the drainage problem occurs partly on the town side . He suggested the board hold off to see what the city decides . At present the city has not deeded this property to anyone and they are still looking into it. Attorney Barney asked if the title changed showed a deed to Mr. Willet, Mr. Shapiro responded it does as a quick claim. He has not been able to search the title back from Willet. Willet quick claimed Vine and Miller Street extensions , but Mr. Shapiro did not think he owned it. If Willet did quick 0claim , he could not give up that which was not his . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of,A,opeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 6 Mr. Ellsworth stated there is a question whether the city owns or someone else ones the property . Mr. Shapiro stated the he believed the city does not own the fee to it. They gained dedication rights to the city by subdivision maps to allow them to open it as a street. For over a hundred years the city has not wanted too . Patricia Patrillo , manager of Fairview Heights , stated their concerns were the same as the other neighbors. They are concerned with cutting down trees and the putting a driveway in would do to the quality of Fairview Apartments . They have maintained the parks with the Rhodins since Fairview has been built. They are also concerned about the drainage problem . Ms . Patrillo stated they were not against Mr. LoPucki building a house , but were concerned about the driveway. She did not understand how the LoPucki building could build the driveway without cutting down the trees . Hellen Agston , Corner of Miller and Cobb Street, stated she was concerned with drainage . They did not have a drainage problem before Cornell University rebuilt the Maplewood Complex. Shortly after, her basement started to flood every time there was a storm . The stream was changed . Although Cornell University did a good job of diverting the streams from that area , one of them comes under her property. Ms . Agston now has a sump pump that takes care of most of the water. If the electricity goes off, the pump does not work and she is flooded . Both Cornell and City engineers looked into the problem . Chairman Stotz asked if she was concerned that the drainage would become worse . • Ms . Agston responded yes . Joe Alen , Willet Attorney, stated he did not think the addition of a twelve foot driveway is going to effect he drainage . He did speak to Rick Eckstrom about it. Mr . Eckstrom stated if there was a drainage problem in the area the city would address it. The roads were laid out in 1893 , the map was filed in 1895 in map book B4 and the city maps on page C5 . They followed the tax maps . It was dedicated to the city at that point. Further research will show that a deed in 1947 , library book 325 page 57 , they deeded Miller Street to the city . The city owns the rights and the land . At a city board meeting they decided to quick claim the title they had to the Willets . There is no question of title about the land . The deed has been on record since 1947 . It was laid out on the 1800 map as Miller Street and showed two lots . Developing Vine Street from the north parcel to Worth Street would create a much more substantial ramp for drainage problems than a small driveway . Next to the driveway, the park, is over grown . There is garbage and very few trees . Some trees will come down but, not a substantial number. Mr. Niefer asked if the title of the Vine Street Extension with the property owner. Attorney Barney answered Worth Street was conveyed to the City line , but never conveyed beyond that. Mr. Allen stated the city has title and they have agreed to quick claim what they own to the Willets . The people who have spoken all live on Pearl Street. If the proposal was on Worth Street, residents on Worth Street would have the same objection . It was drawn that way for development purposes . A small driveway is of less impact than the building of a street. Attorney Barney asked if they were quick claiming Vine Street. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, l 998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 7 Mr. Allen stated at the time he had only requested Miller Street. Vine Street has never been approached . Attorney Barney stated the deed conveys the southerly half of Miller Street. He asked if half was in the town . Mr . Allen stated he thought it accounted for the narrowness . It was originally drawn on the plot map as coming all the way across . The city is only showing the half deeded to them . There is question to the title but, it is between Fairview and the city. Patricia Vaughn stated she was the Common Council Representative for Ward 3 in which this neighborhood lies . This is a very fine neighborhood . The city does not have an interest in granting variances that would disrupt the way a neighborhood operates . It also has a substantial interest in developing undeveloped lots . Turning parcels that do not produce much in the way of property tax into parcels that do. The development of a single family home is a rare occasion . The city does not get many people wanting to build single family homes . This particular proposal would have marginal impact on the neighborhood . There would be a modest amount of traffic. It is not like other proposals for apartments . It would add a high quality single family home . Under normal circumstances the city would be favoring. As a member of Common Council , she was present when the Council voted to abandon Miller Street. It was their understanding that the city owned it and they were making it possible to be quick claimed . With no other persons present to be heard , Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 15 p . m. Mr. Ellsworth stated legally the Worth Street extension is owned by the Willets . Attorney Barney stated the matter of the title is a city problem . If this were in the town , he would recommend the board to defer action until town staff had a chance to trace the title . Attorney Barney stated he did not want to devote town money and resources to figuring out a title problem in the city. The town is being asked to accept a different setback requirement on a piece of the property. Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated from the stand point of environmental impact, this being an area variance , there is no Environmental Impact Statement required . There may be environmental factors more appropriate for the city, the area variance being sought from the town does not require an Environmental Impact Statement. Chairman Stotz stated a request for a variance rear lot line . Al the other factors that have been raised , it will be the city's decision . The town 's decision is strictly the variance on the rear lot line . The board needs to consider the appeal as presented . Mr. Krantz stated the proposal is not incompatible with the general character of the neighborhood . The proposal is for a very nice house and would be a compliment to the neighborhood . Chairman Stotz stated he would make their decision contingent on what the city's decision . Mr. Ellsworth stated he was concerned with the drainage that was a concern to the city and town . Chairman Stotz stated the argument has been made that the water would drain down the driveway . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, l 998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 8 Attorney Barney stated they could condition approval on a satisfactory drawing indicating the drainage problem would not be worsened by the project. It could be either the town engineer or zoning officer is satisfied that the proposed construction would be done in such a way that it would not increase the drainage . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the city was going to be involved with the building permits . He talked with the city and Director of Building and Zoning Frost felt the city would take on the issue . MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of Lynn LoPucki , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article III , Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a proposed rear yard building setback of no less than 9 feet (30 feet required) at 225 Pearl Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59- 1 -9 , Residence District R-9 with the following conditions : a . The approval by the City of Ithaca for Zoning Variances on their portion of the property that lies within the City of Ithaca, b . That conditional on receipt by the town of a statement from the City Engineer or other engineer satisfactory to the town that the plan construction can be conducted in a way that does not allow for increase in water flow . � A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . ABSTENTION : None . The motion carried unanimously. The second appeal was heard by the board as follows : Appeal of Elizabeth Leung and Thomas Lane , Appellants , Attorney Michael May, Agent, 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 residential building with a north side lot line building setback of 10 ± feet ( 15 feet required) and south side setback of 8 ± feet ( 15 feet required) at I I I Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 16 , Residence District R- 15 . Mike May, Attorney for Elizabeth Leung and Thomas Lane , stated a survey map done in 1991 was submitted with their application . The survey map shows the location of the house and attached garage . There has not been any change to the property since it was purchased in 1991 . A certificate of occupancy was issued to the prior owners after the survey map was complete . From the survey map the building is centrally from all boundaries . It is a common arrangement in the neighborhood to have about a 10 feet setback requirement. The applicants feel that a Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE 9 • granting a variance would not change the character of the neighborhood . It would be costly for the owners to address otherwise . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated there was a certificate issued in 1991 from a former town employee . It was not clear to him rather a survey was reviewed by him . There was a building permit issued in 1964 for the construction of the house . The back side of the permit application shows 50 foot setbacks on each of the side yards . The town has not had complaints from anyone . He was involved when the most current certificate of occupancy was requested . Mr. Ellsworth stated the property was in his neighborhood and the car port was almost obscured from the adjacent property. Mr. May stated a neighbor had called because he had seen the posted sign . He asked if they were going to change the use of the property. Mr. May explained to the neighbor and the neighbor did not have a problem . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 30 p . m . and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present wishing to be heard , Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 31 p . m . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of Elizabeth Leung and Thomas Lane , requesting a variance from the • requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain an existing residential building with a north side lot line building setback of not less than 9± feet ( 15 feet required) and a south side setback of not less than 7± feet ( 15 feet required) at I I I Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 16 , Residence District R- 15 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . ABSTENTION : None . The motion carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : Appeal of the Town of Ithaca , Appellant, Fred Noteboom , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 and 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 40 ' by 96 ' storage building with a west side yard building setback of 15 feet (40 foot setback required) at 106 Seven Mile Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -2 - 6 . 1 , Residence District R- 30 . l 1 J Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ofAppea/s - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE l0 Due to a brief discussion by the board and the Attorney for the Town, it was decided to defer the appeal • until October l4, 1998. The fourth appeal to be heard by the board was as follows : Appeal of Ithaca College , Appellant, Bruce Hatch , Agent, requesting a modification of a special approval granted on June 26 , 1996 by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a 66 ' by 84' temporary classroom on the Ithaca College campus located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 41 - 1 - 30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Modification is to extend a time- limited approval from June 30 , 1998 to June 30 , 1999 . Bruce Hatch , Director of Physical Plan at Ithaca College , stated it has taken longer than they anticipated to build the HSHP Building. The college needs the modular spaces for 8- 10 months to house the physical therapy school . The modular space has been present for two years and nothing has changed . The building is well maintained . It is Ithaca College 's desire to have the modular remain until after the Commencement Ceremony . Chairman Stotz asked where the occupants would be moving. Mr. Hatch responded they would move into the HSHP Building that is under construction . The construction is behind schedule . • Chairman Stotz asked if there was a possibility the college would need another extension next year. Mr. Hatch stated anything was possible , but it was not anticipated . Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the appeal had a recent Planning Board approval . He felt it was one of the better modular buildings he had seen . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 35 p . m . and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 36 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Ithaca College , requesting modification of a special approval granted on June 26 , 1996 by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a 66 ' by 84' temporary classroom on the Ithaca College campus located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 - 1 -30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : *AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals - September 9, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PAGE l 1 • NAYS : None . ABSTENTION : None , The motion carried unanimously . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board the appeal of Ithaca College , requesting modification of a special approval granted on June 26 , 1996 by the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a 66 ' by 84 ' temporary classroom on the Ithaca College campus located at 953 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 41 - 1 -30 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . This modification is to extend the time-limit approval from June 30 , 1998 to June 30 , 1999 , A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stott, Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : None . • ABSTENTION : None . The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Stotz asked if any members of the board would serve on the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Mr . Niefer stated he would serve on the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Attorney Barney stated the Town Supervisor would need to approve the appointment, Chairman Stotz adjourned the meeting at 8 : 50 p . m . / Car ie L. C tes , eyb rd Specialist/Minutes Secretary. David totz , hair n