Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout449098-002No. of Pages: 4 Aurora R. Valenti TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 320 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-274-5431 Fax: 607-274-5445 INSTRUMENT NUMBER *449098-002* Delivered By: HARRIS BEACH LLP Receipt No. 4.49098 Return To: HARRIS BEACH LLP 119 EAST SEN ECA ST DATE: 02/20/2004 ITHACA, NY 14850 Time: 03:51 PM Document Type: MISC RECORDS Parties To Transaction: NOTEBOOM Deed Information Consideration: Transfer Tax: RETT No: Mortgage Information Mortgage Amount: Basic Mtge. Tax: Special Mtge. Tax: Additional Mtge. Tax: State of New York Tompkins County Clerk Mortgage Serial No.: This sheet constitutes the Clerk endorsement required by Section 316-A(5) & Section 319 of the Real Property Law of the State of New York. DO NOT DETACH Tompkins County Clerk 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 r Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1993 The motion carried unanimously. The third Appeal to come before the Board was as follows: APPEAL OF FRED AND JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM, APPELLANTS, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 1122 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 37-1-19, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE ENLARGFNM CONSISTS OF A TWO-STORY BUILDING ADDITION. THE ADDITION WILL BE 27 FEET + FROM THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE (30 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED) AND 20 FEET + FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, IN THE FRONT YARD (25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED). VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED; HOWEVER, THE EXISTING BUILDING (PRIOR TO THE ENLARGE EN'T) ALREADY ENCROACHES IN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. Chairman Austen asked fir. Noteboom when he acquired the home to which he answered that the property was bought last fall. Chairman Austen commented that the existing house is rather small. Mr. Scala asked what the existing footprint of the house is and would be. Mr. Frost explained the existing property on the map and the addition to be made is the area surrounding the section labeled "house". Air. Scala asked if the deck on the house is existing, to which he was answered "yes". Air. Frost stated that the orange line is the addition which will encompass the house. fir. Scala commented that the addition is much bigger than the house and the deck. Mrs. Noteboom commented that part of the addition would be a garage. Mr. Frost explained that there would be a two -car garage with a space above it. Air. Noteboom stated that the room above the garage would be a bedroom. Chairman Austen stated that the lot was an unusually small lot, to which there was general agreement. However, Mr. Frost pointed out that there was a similar lot that might be slightly smaller in a northerly direction from the Notebooms' place. Mr. Frost stated that this structure was built before 1954. Mr. Hines remarked that the state of repair on the structure was in better condition now than it was a few years ago. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. No one appeared to address the Board. Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. t-ir. Hines stated that he had viewed the premises and there is no house immediately next to it. One of the factors to consider in granting a variance of the side yard and front yard requirement of setbacks is if you are effecting other property adversely and are you encroaching on the space and enjoyment of your neighbors. He further stated that he did not notice any close neighbor, and he asked if the appellants had spoken to any neighbors about this matter. Mr. Noteboom said they had not because there was no one really close by. Air. Hines observed that fir. Noteboom's address is "1122" while the next nearest address is "1132". Chairman Austen commented that there were some building lots marked out on the south side, but there has been no apparent movement to build. Mr. Noteboom also stated that on the south side there is a ditch which runs down through there, commenting that he was not sure there would be a house on the north side of the ditch. General discussion was continued about the cul-de-sac, Sesame Street, and the subdivisions on the maps for that area. Mr. Frost explained that some of the lots were not approved, some were eliminated, and that there is no road. Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1993 fir. Scala asked for clarification as to the proposed extensions. Mr. Hines stated that the addition would not be any more in violation than it already is. Mr. Frost stated that the encroachment in the front yard setback would be a little bit more than now exists. After further discussion, Chairman Austen stated that the front yard dimension was not being changed. Chairman Austen asked where would be the proposed entrance to the house, and fir. Noteboom stated that it would be 3ust to the right of the existing house. It would be on the south side, next to the garage. fir. Hines stated that he believes the proposed addition will be a vast improvement, architecturally, over the existing house. fir. Noteboom said they felt it would be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. fir. King asked if this proposed addition is two stories all the way. fir. Noteboom said that the existing structure is basically a story and a half. Therefore, over the garage would be a two story addition. tor. King asked if the area over the garage would be a living space. fir. Noteboom indicated that it would be a bedroom and bathroom. fir. King asked if the roof line on the wing would be the same as the present roof line. fir. Noteboom said it would be the same height, and everything else would run right into it. fir. Scala wanted to know what the finished area would be,relative to the lot. fir. Frost stated that the lot was approximately 7,000 square feet; the house, excluding the deck, is approximately 1,408 square feet, (200 of 7,000 is actually 1,400 square feet) so it would be over. He further stated'that if you count the deck, which apparently has been included by the Tom Planning Department, the actual square footage is approximately 1,508, counting the deck. The Environmental Assessment Form reviewed by George Frantz actually addresses this. The proposed expansion will result in approximately 230 of the lot being covered by buildings (the existing deck is included in the lot coverage). Mr. Scala stated that the new addition plus the old house will be 230 of the lot, which Mr. Ellsworth added would be 3=a over. fir. Frost commented that not only are the building setbacks non -conforming but the building lot is non -conforming. fir. Barney wanted it known to all of those present, and for the record, that fir. and firs. Noteboom have a relationship with the Town of Ithaca in that Fred is the Acting Highway Superintendent and Joan is the Town Clerk. Chairman Austen asked if there was any plan for the widening of the Danby Road. Mr. Noteboom said that he could not answer that question because he had not heard anything about it. Chairman Austen reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form which was completed by George Frantz. The record is so noted that each of the Board members received a copy of Part I and Part II. Chairman Austen read Part III recommendations into the record, commenting that the main concern of the application was the total coverage due to the expansion of the building. Chairman Austen asked for a motion. Environmental Assessment MOTION By fir. Scala, seconded by fir. Ellsworth. own of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1993 C1 RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make a negative declaration of environmental significance with respect to the request of Fred and Joan Lent Noteboom for the enlargement of an existing single family dwelling on a nonconforming lot located at 1122 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37-1-19, as recommended by Assistant Town Planner, George Frantz. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Austen, Hines, Ellsworth, Scala. Nays - None. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Austen commented that the addition would enhance the area and would make it conform more to the other buildings around the area. Mr. Barney wanted the motion to be made clear that, if it is indeed the Board's inten- tion, that the variance may very well include a side yard variance on the south side as well. As shown on the sketch in front of the Board, the side yard of the garage is 10 feet. It is the Board's intention to permit the house to be constructed as shown on the plans. It should be clear that the south line variance is being granted as well. MOTION By Mr. Hines, seconded by Mr. Scala: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant to the Appellants, Fred and Joan Lent Noteboom, a variance from the conditions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance requiring the structure located at 1122 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37- 1-19, to be 30 feet from the rear line (to wit: 27 feet), and 25 feet from the roadway line (to wit: 20 feet), and further grant to the Appellants permission to enlarge the structure which is nonconforming by reason of the setback requirements of the Ordinance; this approval incorporates an approval of the existing structure setback on the north line and that the finished structure may exceed the Ordinance's area requirement, with the planned structure occupying 230 of the total lot rather than 200. In the event that a subsequent ruling is made that the living space above the garage area requires the side yard setback to the south to be 15 feet, a variance is granted such that the side yard setback may be less than 15 feet. The Board makes the following findings of fact in support thereof: 1) The facts and depictions shown on the photograph of the property which are accepted as a reasonable portrayal of the area. 2) All facts set out on the application made by the owner and in particular the plot plan and elevation of the proposed construction. 3) The observation that the construction would architecturally enhance the Notebooms' property and improve the general architectural character of the neighborhood. 4) The small amount of encroachment on the side yard and the front yard setbacks would be overshadowed by the other improvements. The small amount of the addi- tional 30 of the lot coverage pales in connection with comparison of the signifi- cant improvement which will be made to the property. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 9, 1993 d 7 5) There is a small ravine as shown on the tax map and if that is accurate, it would be unlikely that any structure would be built between the south line of this property and the ravine on the adjacent properties. 6) There were not any neighbors who responded adversely to this matter. 7) The benefits of the property far outweigh any detriments that might arise as a result of the addition. 8) This approval is conditioned on the requirements that all construction is to be in accordance with the plans submitted by the Appellant and this variance is expressly related to those plans as submitted, and that a building permit should be issued for the construction of the improvements thereon in substantial compliance therewith. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Austen, Scala, Ellsworth, Hines. Nays - None. The motion carried unanimously. The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was as fitpn': La*' Se ZX is P4104 t;x► t17 o .45 4 sV444TX L4>-' -//nee i Z071gt., sce 2, of a4- p,�E 9-7 follows: APPEAL (ADJOURNED FROM MAY 12, 1993 AND MARCH 24, 1993) OF DAVID BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, AND/OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, AND ARTICLE %III, SECTION 68, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON -CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25-2-38, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDEN- TIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND. THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT, ON CAYUGA LAKE (BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND IOW WATER MARK), AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE. fir. Frost said the pictures that were never picked up for the March meeting were now being circulated and he spoke with the Army Corp of Engineers ("ACE") and he tried to get them to have an enforcement person go out and look at the structure to determine whether it's in compliance with the permit, that permit being the permit which was discussed during the Board's March meeting. fir. Frost said he did not get ACE there by the Board's May meeting, and that is why the flay meeting was adjourned. fir. Frost further stated that the ACE did get out there iionday (June 7, 1993) and the indication is that the current permit they have for the "boat house" has been exceeded by the structure that is there now, so that a new permit could be required for Mr. Bowlsby. Mr. Frost said that ACE did indicate, however, that they conceivable would allow the structure to remain as is but without the amenities that would make it living quarters. fir. Frost said that ACE does not define living quarters and that the gentleman from ACE did indicate that it would be another 30-45 days before fir. Frost would get anything in writing because one of the things he had to do was to go to different organizations and agencies such as Fish and Wildlife, DEC, and a variety of other people to determine as to whether they would have any objections to this type of structure being on the lake. fir. Frost further said that it seemed clear that ACE would not allow living quarters, so a structure that would have plumbing and heating would not be anything they would permit. He stated that the ACE seemed to indicate that unless other agencies have a problem, the structure without the amenities of living quarters conceivably will be given a different type of permit than that of a permit for a boat house.