Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2002-07-15 FILE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DAT -aim NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JULY 154 2002 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 Monday, July 15 , 2002 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters : APPEAL of Arthur Bloom, Appellant, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 500 ± square foot building addition to an existing non-conforming building at 118 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5 -4, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is located within the required front yard building setback area. Approved APPEAL of Donald Swart, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing garage, with a new side yard building setback of 6 feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 110 Winston Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 11 -29, Residence District R- 15 . Approved APPEAL of John Lango, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 19 foot high accessory building ( 15 foot height limitation) on a vacant parcel of land, with the accessory building being the principal use, at 203 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -4-6. 6, Residence District R-30 . Said Ordinance would require the proposed building to be accessory to a residence. Withdrawn APPEAL of Edward Gregoire, Appellant, Attorney Edward Mazza, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing garage with a 9 + foot building setback ( 15 foot required) at 2 Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2- 15 , Residence District R-30. Approved APPEAL of Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 256 square foot building addition on the southeast side of an existing single-family residence located at 696 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49- 1 -23 , Residence District R-30. Said addition will be 25 ± feet from the property' s side lot line (40 foot setback required). Approved APPEAL of Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owners, Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create a 1 ,200 square foot retail food service establishment within an existing building space located at 335 Pine Tree Road, the East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C. Approved APPEAL of Nancy Gould, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 201 21 , and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to subdivide a parcel of land, containing two existing non-conforming buildings, resulting in two new parcels with area and building setback deficiencies, at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-2-6. 1 . A variance from Section 280A of New York State Town Law is also requested. One new lot will not front on a public highway, while both new lots will be less than 30,000 square feet in area, with substandard building setbacks and lot area dimensions, including widths and depths . Approved APPEAL of Peter Newell, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter non-conforming buildings on a non-conforming building lot located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 15 , Residence District R- 15 . Said parcel contains four residential buildings with said Alterations resulting in the creation of two residential buildings and one garage. A variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section I 1 may also be requested to allow a building height to exceed 36 feet. Approved FILE DATE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, July 15 , 2002 7 : 00 P . M . PRESENT: Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Neifer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; David Dubow, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner, ALSO PRESENT: Arthur Bloom , 118 Judd Falls Rd ; Ann & John Lango , 33 Prospect Avenue ; Katy Heine , 696 Coddington Rd ; Philip Syphrit , 696 Coddington Rd ; Anna Depue , 294 Breed Rd ; Richard Hautaniemi , 213 Town Line Rd , Groton ; Dylan McNeilly , 2 Schickel Rd ; John Murray , 15 W . Main St , Rochester; Maria Andrews , 95 Brown Rd ; Tammo ; Robin Masson , 308 N . Tioga St . Chairperson Sigel called the July 15 , 2002 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7 : 07 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Welcome to the July 15th meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Tonight we have eight appeals . We have the appeal of Arthur Bloom , the appeal of Donald Swart , the appeal of John Lango , the appeal of Edward Gregoire , the appeal of Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit , the appeal of Cornell University , the appeal of Nancy Gould , the appeal of Peter Newell . We will be taking the appeals in that order. APPEAL : of Arthur Bloom , Appellant, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11 , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 500 + square foot building addition to an existing non -conforming building at 118 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66=5-4, Residence District R-15 . Said building is located within the required front yard building setback area. Arthur Bloom , 118 Judd Falls Rd — We wish to add a ground floor bed and bath to the back of our house with handicap access . Chairperson Sigel — As I understand it , this is because your wife is anticipating some surgery? Mr. Bloom — We can 't make any further plans unless we can have this approved . She ' s walking with a cane and she ' ll probably need surgery within the year. Mr. Frost — I might add that this is one of the few properties on Judd Falls Rd that actually has the square footage that it needs . It is deficient solely on the fact that it is closer to the road than permitted . The house , I think , was built at the turn of the century . Mr. Bloom — 1911 . 1 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Frost — It is somewhat remarkable that they do have more that 15 , 000 square feet and they have more than 100 foot road footage and depth greater than 140 . Chairperson Sigel — What is the setback requirement? Mr. Frost — From the road right of way line it would be 25 foot . Mr. Ellsworth — It looks like 24 foot . Mr. Frost — Actually when it says 24 that is shown to the curb and it ' s not clear where the road right of way is . While the intent most of the time when you build a road is that the center line in the road is the measurement for the midpoint . It's close to the setback that it needs , but I would not assume that it is 24 foot to the road right of way just because it shows 24 to the shoulder. Chairperson Sigel — I think it' s mentioned in your application that you plan to have the same exterior surfacing as the current house on the new addition ? Mr. Bloom — Yes . Instead of using the textured wood finish , we are going to stucco most of the addition to match the existing house . The connection to the garage will match the garage . Mr. Krantz — I noticed that there are seven neighbors who all approved . It' s hard to imagine why this should not be approved . Chairperson Sigel — I would agree with that assessment . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 11 pm . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , do you have anything to add about the Environmental Assessment . I don 't think anything noteworthy appeared on it . Mr. Smith — No . Mr. Neifer — I ' m curious . Why was it necessary to fill out a 21 page State Environmental Quality Review Form for this project ? Mr. Smith — Because the location of the home is within the historical district and that requires the 21 page application . Mr. Bloom — It was curious talking to the Planning Board officers that they don 't hear about these things unless there ' s a special appeal involved , otherwise additions and changes in Forest Home can be made without the Planning Board ever even hearing about it . So , it ' s rather a fluke that since we are near the street , it got routed to the Town and County although the State officer said it certainly wasn 't something that the State was interested in . 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Frost — If people get the permits that are required when they do these changes to their home , we hopefully , can pick up on that . Mr. Ellsworth — What are we going to do with the front yard setback? Is that part of what we have to decide ? Chairperson Sigel — Well , we could , since the addition in not encroaching anywhere near the front yard setback , we could just state approving the addition with the existing house remaining where it is . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-040 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT— Arthur Bloom , 118 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-4, Residence District R-15 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Arthur Bloom, Appellant, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 500 _+ square foot building addition to an existing non-conforming building at 118 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-4, Residence District R- 15. Said building is located within the required front yard building setback area . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB _RESOLUTION NO . 2002-041 — Arthur Bloom , 118 Judd Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-54, Residence District R- 15 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Ron Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Arthur Bloom, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 500 + square foot building addition to an existing non-conforming building at 118 Judd Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-5-4, Residence District R- 15. Said building is located within the required front yard building setback area . 3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED FINDINGS: a . The requirements for special approval have been met. CONDITIONS: a . The addition be built as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : of Donald Swart, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing garage , with a new side yard building setback of 6 feet ( 10 foot setback required ) at 110 Winston Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70-11 -29, Residence District R15 . Richard Hautaniemi , 213 Town Line Rd , Groton — The addition is to enlarge the existing garage on an existing house that was built in approximately 1960 . The addition would be ten feet wide and 24 feet long , the same width of the house . It would impinge upon the side yard setback by about three feet and seven inches resulting in a setback of just a little over six feet . Chairperson Sigel — It seems pretty straightforward , I assume it' s not practical to do this on the other side of the house or in another location that would be conforming . Mr. Hautaniemi — It is impractical . The other side of the lot slopes down and the garage is on the end . Chairperson Sigel —And I see you have a letter from the neighbor on this side saying that they do not have a problem with the variance . Anyone else have any questions? Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 18 p . m . With no persons present to be hear, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 19 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — We have no Environmental Assessment , RESOLUTION NO . 2002-042 — Donald Swart 110 Winston Drive Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 11 -29 . Residence District R- 15 . 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Donald Swart for a variance to enlarge an existing garage, with a new side yard building setback of 6 feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 110 Winston Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 11 -29, Residence District R- 15. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been met. CONDITIONS, a. The garage be no closer than six feet from the side property line. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : of John Lango, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Sections 18 and 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 19 foot high accessory building ( 15 foot height limitation ) on a vacant parcel of land , with the accessory building being the principal use, at 203 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 314-6 . 6 , Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance would require the proposed building to be accessory to a residence. John Lango , 33 Prospect Ave , Union — We also have a residence here at 926 East Shore Dr. which , hopefully , will turn out to be our principle residence in the very near future . We are appealing to be able to build this accessory building because our retirement plan , which was supposed to happen three years from now , has gotten accelerated a little bit . There's a lot of turmoil going on in our lives right now and this is one of them . We are looking to you for some help in our dilemma that we have found ourselves in . Chairperson Sigel — Your proposal sounds pretty straightforward . The problem I see though is , unfortunately , you ' ve come up against the need for a type of variance which has rather strict criteria to meet . What you need is a use variance since you ' re intending to use the property in a way not allowed in that district , which is to say not have a principle residence there , but rather just have an accessory use on the property . A strict interpretation of the requirements for the use variance would 5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED require you to show that you cannot realize a reasonable return from the property any other way except through the granting of the variance . It also requires that the hardship no be self created , which , unfortunately , having purchased the property you have basically created the hardship . Mr. Lango - My question to you is "what options do I have at this time? " Chairperson Sigel — Well , let ' s see what other members of the Board , how they feel . Mr. Ellsworth — When is your plan to build ? Mr. Lango — Well , our cottage on East Shore Drive is on a tiny lot . I 've worked construction all my life and right now I ' m unemployed and at 59 I ' m finding a real hard problem trying to get work down where we live . Mr. Ellsworth — I mean is this going to eventually become a garage and a house will be in front of it ? Mr. Lango — My initial plan was that it was to be a workshop for my retirement years so that I could tinker with and do the things that I wanted to do , all these projects that I said I ' ll do when I retire . Where we are on East Shore Drive , we can 't do it there , there ' s just no room . The cottage is tiny, it' s over an embankment . There' s no place even to park . We have a motor home that we ' ll hopefully use in future years to travel a bit . I don 't even have any place to put it , there's just no place to park . Again , as I say , my occupation has been predominantly construction . I have wood working tools , I 've got joiners and planers and stuff . I don 't want to give that stuff up yet . Just because I retire , doesn 't mean my life is going to end . I need some place to be able to house these items and be able to use them . We discovered that we needed a building such as this about four years ago . The realization that for us to be able to go into this plan that we have formed , that we needed to find another location for a garage or a workshop or storage , whatever you want to call it , but it' s an accessory building . So I started looking around through realtors and one of the criteria that I kind of set for myself was that if it' s so far away , you ' re not going to go to it , so it needs to be kind of close to where you live . I started looking up in Lansing and up on the heights up there . I finally started finding things like 15 miles out further up and I said "well , that kind of distance , I ' m not going to go there" maybe once a week I would go there , but I 've envisioned myself being there three times a week . So one of the things that we did was that we subscribed to the delinquent tax roles of properties that were coming up for auction and low and behold , two years ago , two lots come open on Bostwick Road . We hurried up here and we looked at them and they are ideal . The other thing that I didn 't want to do is I didn 't want to put a garage into a large residential area . I just didn 't want to do that . When I saw Bostwick Road , here ' s the Town school bus garage right there , just up the street is the County Highway Department , across the street is the Assembly of God Church and further up there is a farm , apparently at one time it was all farm land . In fact , the lot that we bought had corn growing on it , we couldn 't even see what the lot looked like because the corn was already six feet high . I just thought that that was the ideal spot to put the kind of building that I wanted to put up because I wouldn 't really make any impact on the neighborhood because the neighborhood was kind of that style of building . I just felt that it was ideal . Yeah , maybe I created my own hardship because at that point maybe I should have stopped and asked "well , can I put a building on it" . Well , I didn 't . Down home , and again I come from a little town down in Dutchess County, we don 't have things like this . I feel kind of like the sheep in the wolf's den 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED at this point . We do have zoning boards and that type of stuff , but this is the big city to me and so , yes , I created my own dilemma in that sense . That' s why I ask "what options do I have at this point? " Mr. Frost — If I could just add , Mr. Lango has had a building permit for the property on East Shore Drive since , I think 1989 , he 's got the longest standing building permit . Periodically, he comes to Ithaca , works on the house and goes back home and comes back up . We 've watched the progress of this house for many years . It is a very small building lot . I think , Mr. Lango , when he bought this property on tax sale , was not thinking about some of the zoning requirements and I certainly can understand his perception of things when he sees the bus garage and highway department and church and , there ' s that one parcel where the Town had been dumping dirt . Buying the property , I supposed could be created a self-created hardship , but I think what' s happened over the last few years where he and his wife now find themselves unemployed is not a self-created hardship and I think the reaction to Mr. Lango ' s dilemma , while could be viewed on one hand as a self-created hardship , losing employment and having to basically maintain some life with employment and using this barn for self employment actually goes along with potential life improvement . So , I guess basically what I am trying to say is on one hand it is self-created hardship , but on the other hand , the unemployment situation that he finds himself in is not a self-created hardship . Mr. Krantz — You know Seven Mile Drive is becoming rapidly a fairly significant residential area , particularly on your side of the road there . The houses are really starting to pop up and they are very nice houses , for the most part . Even though you ' re 150 feet from the road , it's a pretty flat stretch there and there's no landscaping around there . Mr. Lango — There were two open corn fields . Mr. Krantz — It' s going to be quite apparent . Another factor that , just because I happen to know it , that doesn 't necessarily involve this Board is that the diesel fuels from the buses just coat that area and everything in it , which is going to cause a hardship to you if this goes through . Again , that 's not a particular concern of this Board . Mr. Ellsworth — It' s also going to make it tough for people to build residences there . Mr. Lango — You mean the diesel fuels ? Mr. Ellsworth — You got letters from , the church must be across the street ? Mr. Lango — Just down the road and then the other, would be the neighbor adjacent to the property . Mr. Ellsworth — Did you explain to them what you were doing there? Mr. Lango — Absolutely , yes . Chairperson Sigel — So the letter we have , the one that's not from the church , that ' s the neighbor that already has a residence built . Mr. Lango — Yes , that' s right adjacent to the property . 7 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairman Sigel — Did you have any communication with the person across the street? Mr. Lango — I have no idea who even owns the property across the way , I thought maybe the County has it . Mr. Frost — They may , in fact be here . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 31 p . m . Tommo Steenhuis , 224 Bostwick Rd — I live across the street . We have a nice house . We maintain our yard very nicely . We are somewhat annoyed to see that the yard has been used as a dumping ground . It is very ugly right now . I don 't see why we should allow you . . . . Mr. Frost — Mr. Steenhuis , you should be addressing the Board . Mr. Steenhuis — Why the applicant should put a barn , should put something that is against the zoning . I ' m against it . Chairperson Sigel — So , you ' re opposed for aesthetic reasons? Mr. Steenhuis — For aesthetic reasons . Aangua Steenhuis — We own land across the street from your proposed site . We also own land on the other side . I spoke yesterday with the Wurgler family and I asked them if they had heard about this appeal . They told me that they had heard about it and as long as their property value does not go down , they would not oppose it . Now, my question is , if you are going to get a very tall building next to you , is your property value not going to go down . I also spoke to the Gimbaughs , who are going to build a house adjacent to our other property on Bostwick Road , that is actually on Seven Mile Drive . It would over look the hillside and he was not able to come here tonight and he is very much opposed to getting a neighbor who is not living there , but who just has a storage building there . I do think that our property value will go down if we do not have houses close to us , but get a storage shed . Thank you . Anna Depue , 294 Breed Rd — I own the lot right next to Mr. Lango . I am very sorry to hear that they are out of work . I own the open lot right next door to him and we had wanted to build a residence there someday . Part of my concern about this building , is that it appears that the front part of the lot is the part that is being flattened off in preparation for the pole building . I am concerned about my property value and I am concerned about large machinery being out there . It's going to be close to the road as far as I can tell from the grading . I have a question about whether it is going to be permanent or if a house is going to go up and make it blend in with the neighborhood . If he does do this , I don 't see how I can put a residential house there . Thank you . Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 36 p . m . 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Frost — I ' m curious , the woman who just spoke , did your husband call the other day . Okay, I was just making sure that there wasn 't a third party . I did have a couple of calls . I did want to address just a couple of comments that Mr. Steenhuis made . 1 . If Mr. Lango were to build a house , he would have a house of 36 feet and the accessory building that he is proposing now would be allowed to go 15 feet , so there's all of a four foot differential . I don 't think that the height will really impact . The assessment will put a higher value on property with any kind of building there , so the assessment wouldn 't necessarily go down . I ' m not saying that the storage building would be fine from an aesthetic standpoint , I ' m just saying that the assessment of the property would go up . I think the intent of the appeal was also to maintain equipment and machinery inside the building so I don 't think the appeal was intended to have outside storage . Mr. Dixon — My concern is that it's a neighborhood that' s moving in a direction that' s very consistent with the way it's zoned already . It is a beautiful area . There are two or three lots where this one is situated that aren 't in use right now and this is very inconsistent with the direction that it's going in . Chairperson Sigel — I tend to agree . In a way I applaud Mr. Lango for thinking about an area that would be appropriate for his intended use . I do agree with him that just driving up that road , a reasonable person could certainly make a reasonable judgment that that was an area suitable to his purpose given that the highway facility is there and the bus facility is there . However, that doesn 't change the fact that it is a residential neighborhood and it really is not the intention of the Ordinance to allow this type if use , which I consider really to be much closer to a commercial use than a residential use in that area . I agree that the argument is strengthened by the fact that we have neighbors here saying that nearby lots are intended to be used to build residences . Mr. Lango — Can I address some of their issues because unfortunately, I think they are misinformed . I didn 't know these people otherwise I would have approached them . Chairperson Sigel — Well , you ' re welcome to . There were some inaccuracies mentioned . For instance , it does state in your application that it is going to be a completely enclosed structure , that you plan on keeping everything inside and I think the Board is aware of that . Mr. Lango - It' s also my intent to not put up a conventional "barn yard pole barn " . I want to put an attractive building up that I would be proud of to have in my neighborhood . As far as location , it's 150 feet back to the front of the building , so there will be space in front whether I have to build a residence there or, god forbid , someday when I pass away, whoever the next owner may be , there is adequate room up front to be able to put up a residence . The one lady mentioned that the lots are deep , they are , they' re very deep . I 've gone almost midway back in the lot . As far as leveling the land off , yes , it was a slope that sloped not only from left to right , but from front to back . If you ' re going to build on anything , you have to flatten it out , so you take the high point , you lower it down and you push your material back into the lower area to create a flat building area . Yes , there was material hauled in . Ott and Schot were working across at the County garage and it was a source of free fill for me so I took advantage of it . They have since leveled it all off. Does it need further grading , yes , that would be part of the construction process , the same with landscaping . Again , I think I need to go back to the question , I ' m in a fix , our house is up for sale , right now our principle residence . The market looks good down our way , we need to unload that house so that we can come up here and actively start looking for work up here . I have possessions , I have to put them somewhere , I can 't put them into 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED storage because it would cost me a fortune . I need a building somewhere so that I can house these things . Again , I appeal to this Board to allow me to be able to do that . Now, if there are conditions associated with it , I have to live by those . I guess that goes back to the initial question I have : what kind of arrangement can I make at this point or is it just a dead end street at this point ? Chairperson Sigel - I do again sympathize with you position , but we also have to consider the other neighbors who purchased property there with the expectation that the Zoning Ordinance would be enforced both on their own property and on all properties around them . This Board regularly grants variances for relatively minor changes ; a little bit too close to the lot line or something or a building that needs to be a little bit higher than what allows . I consider this to be quite a substantial deviation from the intention of a residential neighborhood , which is to not build a residence there . For me , at least , I don 't think that I could vote for this in any form that would be acceptable to you , which is that you need to store things there and that is really not what the residential neighborhoods in the Town of Ithaca were intended to be used for. I ' m sorry to have to tell you that , but that ' s how I feel . I invite other Board members to make any comments or ask any further questions . Mr. Frost — I bring this up in the event that there is construction on that site because we do have neighbors out there and perhaps they should understand this . By definition , a dwelling area is a building with sanitary conditions . If Mr. Lango was to construct a modest house that had a bedroom or an efficiency type setup with a kitchen and a bathroom and a place to sleep and the area of his hobby shop was of a larger size , it would still be considered a residence . I think that the neighbors should understand that a single family residence is a single family residence regardless of size or what's in it . An alternative for you would be to construct a residence there . You may have a larger work area , but if you have a place to sleep , a place to cook like a kitchen and sanitary conditions , like a bathroom you wouldn 't have to come to this board . Mr. Lango — Could that be included in the same building or would that have to be a separate building ? Mr. Frost — Well , you would be allowed to have a detached garage , how well you could develop a detached garage based upon a floor plan , you could do that , but I would hesitate to say regardless of what you built that it would be okay . A detached garage is still on the property, separate from the residence . If you have amenities in that detached garage , I may be uncomfortable calling it a garage any longer. Mr. Lango — Can I throw out another proposal and neighbors listen to what I ' m saying . Again , I would like to say that we ' re faced with a dilemma . It could be two weeks , three weeks or four weeks when this is going to materialize , all is contingent upon selling our property down there in Dutchess County . What I ' d like to propose is that the Board allow me to build this building there with the understanding that within a time frame I will put up a principle residence there , but beyond what Mr. Frost is suggesting . Put up a house that will be a single family to go with the rest of the neighborhood , not just a little shack in the corner, but actually a residence that I would rent out , obviously I wouldn 't be living there because we have our property on East Shore Drive . To satisfy the regulations of the zoning , but just kind of do it in a backwards frame . The only thing that I would ask for is that this time frame that I am talking about be enough for us to at least get our lives back in order again and get a few things straightened out before I really am forced to do this and if I don 't comply by it , that building gets torn down . 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Frost — The Zoning Ordinance allows placement of a mobile home on property for 18 months , during which time construction of a building occurs . So you technically could put up a mobile home and build your house and have 18 months to do that . I just bring that up to the Board as a thought . Chairperson Sigel — Other than the height , does this proposed structure meet all other requirements for an accessory building ? Mr. Ellsworth — Is there any limit on the size of an accessory building ? Mr. Frost — For a home occupation , the way our Ordinance reads and that very well may change with the new ordinance which is in stages now. Currently , we limit a home occupation to an area of 200 square foot . Over the years , we have had people build accessory buildings with hobby area and home occupation that' s 200 square foot plus . The new ordinance , I don 't think is going to have a hobby description . In fact , the new ordinance , I believe is bringing home occupation closer in line to what' s allowed for professional offices , which have no size limitation . There ' s greater flexibility given to licensed professionals than manual trades under the current ordinance for use of property as a home occupation and that is being revised by the new ordinance . I don 't know if I 've answered your question or given you more information than you requested . Chairperson Sigel — It struck me that it' s a somewhat large building as an accessory use . Mr. Lango — The principle use of the building , we have a 27 foot motor home . I need a higher overhead door to be able to park this unit inside and 36 x 36 is not really that large , it ' s probably comparable to this room . Chairperson Sigel — Well , that's pretty big as an accessory use . Mr. Lango — Well you put a 27 foot motor home in there , it 's ten foot wide , all of a sudden that building gets awful small . Mr. Frost — I think what the Chairman is saying , they might consider, I ' m not saying they are , but they might , maybe of a lesser size , but I would also say that we have had other appellants come before the Board for either construction equipment , whether it be for the height of like a backhoe or for a similar type recreational vehicle for a variance to make a slightly higher building to accommodate something like that . Mr. Krantz — I feel like I agree with you and your initial comments , Kirk . There is something in front of us here now to connect this 19 foot high , 36 foot square building and there is not mention of a house in this appeal that we are looking at . It is a residential area , the highway department is just off of the Elmira Rd , at least a half a mile away with at least 25 established residences between it and this lot . Mr. Lango — No , the County Highway Department is basically across the street . Mr. Frost — No , Ron , I think you are thinking of the Town Highway . County Highway is maybe two lots away . 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Lango — There is a degree of commercialism in a residential area . Chairperson Sigel — What is there are public uses being the highway facility and school facility and the church , which are allowed uses in a residential district . Is it possible that a somewhat smaller building could satisfy your needs . Mr. Lango — To what degree ? Chairperson Sigel — How much smaller, if any would still satisfy your needs . Mr. Lango — I was quite conservative in the size selection that I did , based on what I was planning on putting in there . I have a boat , that during the winter months I didn 't want to leave outside . Like I have mentioned , we already have the motor home , 27 foot long , you have a couple of feet in the front , a couple feet behind it and then a couple feet to walk around it . Half the building is going to be used up by that . I also had kind of envisioned that my wood working equipment , when you have a thickness planer and a joiner and radial arm saw and a table , you don 't throw it in a corner some place because then you can 't use it . You have to have some space around it to use it . I have a backhoe and a bucket loader too . I have a one ton dump truck . Mr. Frost — Do you want to put that all inside , too . Mr. Lango- Right now, I don 't know what I am going to do . I hate to say that because our life is in a turmoil . Mr. Frost — Because I don 't feel that the Board would be agreeable to having a dump truck and a backhoe kept there . So , if that was your intent , I think we better talk about that now . Mr. Lango — It 's not a great big huge backhoe , it ' s a tractor mounted type backhoe . One of the thoughts that I had in mind , we do go to that church that's down there , is that during the winter months , I have a small plow rig on the front , I was going to go down there and volunteer to plow the driveway out for him as part of a service to the church . I do that at home , I plow my neighbors driveways out , I don 't charge them , I just do it to help my neighbors out . But , to answer your question , if I was forced to do it , I would and I would live with it , but do I want to , no . Chairperson Sigel — Do you want to what? Mr. Lango — To reduce the size of the building . If it was an issue that I had to do that and it was the only way that I was going to get anything granted , I 'd say yeah I ' d live with that stipulation , but again , based on the needs that I have and it' s mainly storage needs more than anything else . I had envisioned a small little office area to set up a small microprocessor to be able to play with the computer and stuff . Chairperson Sigel — Let me ask the other Board members how they feel about the possibility of granting , put aside the issue of the site plan , granting the right to build the accessory building ahead 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED of building the house , but conditioning the continued existence of the accessory building on the house being built . Mr. Dixon — You ' re inviting an enforcement action down the road . It becomes a conditional inconsistent use where it' s truly inconsistent , with the hope that it will be consistent one day , but there ' s really no guarantee that it will be . Mr. Ellsworth — We could put the house into the approval . Mr. Frost — I think you ' re raising a good point because there is no guarantee that the house will be built , at the same time he , without Board approval , could place a mobile home there for 18 months with a permit to build the house . Now it may be a compromise for him to make an application for the house , take out a building permit that goes along with the construction of the accessory building . In fact , the permit would allow him to come back to the Board and ask for an extension of the 18 months and we , in fact have had that happen with a local subdivision here . Mr. Niefer — Well , I don 't care to hear about a mobile home being placed in an R-30 residential district . I would be totally against that . It' s inconsistent with all the other structures and everything else there . The suggestion of , at some point in time , within a specified period of , say , two years , that he make application to construct the stick built or modular home there , is a condition of having this pole barn being built has some appeal . I think you could ask for performance bonds and it would be a matter of some type of agreement that would be acceptable to council that within two years of construction start , and be completed within two years and "x" number of days on a residential building and if it isn 't done , if you have a performance bond for doing it , that would cover the destruction of the pole barn should he not complete it . Financially , the Town would be covered for the cost of demolition , should he walk away from the situation and not fulfill his obligation to build in two years or whatever. But , just strictly building this accessory building on the lot , with no house to go with it , I personally don 't find acceptable as a resident adjacent to an R-30 Zone , I would not want just a plain 36 x 36 building on a lot adjacent to me , with no residential building there . Chairperson Sigel — I would like to give Mr. Lango some guidance . Say he were to return to the Board with a plan to build a house and a plan to put an accessory building behind the house and he ' s proposed that he will build the accessory building first and that he would then have some amount of time to complete the house and let 's also assume that he included some landscaping around the pole barn that was going to be put in immediately and also some landscaping around the house when it was completed . I don 't want to ask you guys how you would vote on that . Maybe I can ask if you would find that unacceptable or whether you would consider it . Mr. Ellsworth — I would find it acceptable , in that he would have to build a residence in a certain time limit . I think you ' re going to have to address what' s sitting on the site and what' s sitting in the building , not his tools , he' s got this construction equipment . Chairperson Sigel — Well , I think it 's a given that everything would have to be stored in the accessory building . 13 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth — That' s what l mean . We wouldn 't want to see construction equipment in a residential area . Mr. Frost — One thing that I 'd like to read , Harry, is section 59 : " trailer camps or parks or trailers or mobile homes for residency shall be permitted in all districts, except R-5, which is Collegeview, which is not too far from here, and except as follows; one mobile home may be placed on a vacant lot in a residential or agricultural district to be used as temporary housing during construction of a permanent dwelling on said lot for a period not to exceed 18 months and after that it may be extended by permission of the Town Board. " So if he were building his house there and perhaps he would need a backhoe to do that , there would be a fine line that I would be stuck with to enforce the action of whether he had his own backhoe out there for construction . Chairperson Sigel — Well , I think that could be worked out . He could be allowed to have construction equipment visible while the house was under construction and there would be a maximum time during which the house could be constructed so we would have some start times and some stop times . Mr. Lango — Our thoughts would probably be for a modular versus stick building . I have 926 East Shore to finish yet . Mr. Frost — And that is consistent with what is up and down Seven Mile Dr. Mr. Ellsworth — Do you understand what's taking place , John , this case is going to be adjourned and you are going to be asked to bring back a new proposal next month . I wanted to be sure you understand what 1 think is developing . Chairperson Sigel — Let me finish poling . Harry has said that he would not find it unacceptable . Mr. Niefer —I ' m kind of on the same line . Mr. Krantz — I would probably find it not acceptable , but I am not absolutely certain . It's sort of like , to me , putting up this huge utility building in hopes that within a couple of years a house would be built . You don 't know really the specifications , the situations , what' s going to happen in a few years . Mr. Ellsworth — I think those are things that would be defined as the matter is considered at the next meeting . I think we can define , the house should not be less than a certain size and that certain things be completed within a certain time frame and that failure to comply and meet these specified requirements would result in the forfeiture of a bond of "x" number of thousands of dollars that be performed pursuant to the agreement . Mr. Krantz — That's a strong case on selling your house or else selling some of your toys . Mr. Lango — The bond scares me more than anything because right now the money is an issue . Mr. Krantz — I know you ' re from a whole different section of the country , John , but we have a lot of little tricks played on us here for a lot of different reasons . 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Lango —Well , I shake hands with people and that' s my word . Yeah , you ' re right , I come from a different part of the county . Chairperson Sigel — I assure you , we do that here too . Mr. Dixon — I ' m uncomfortable with anything that doesn 't put the house first . That ' s the intent of what' s it's zoned . Mr. Lango — But is that not the intent of the ZBA to be able to deviate sometime from rules . Mr. Dixon — Well , it is , but I ' m seeing this now as an issue of convenience more than necessity . It's not a place to live , it's a place to store things and this neighborhood is not a neighborhood that is zoned for storage facilities . Chairperson Sigel — I ' m not going to state that I would categorically vote against it , but I also can 't say that I would most likely vote for it . You 've got kind of a mixed bag . Two people indicated that they were leaning against and a couple people indicated that they were leaning for. And to be honest , without thinking about it more , I ' m not sure myself . I think your appeal as presented tonight , I think I can say with confidence it would be voted down . I would suggest you request an adjournment . Then knowing the Boards views , knowing that it is a risk , that you could develop plans to build a house and an accessory building and come back and present those plans to the Board and I think the more that looks like a normal house with a reasonably sized storage building in the back and the quicker that house is going to be build , my guess is the better your chances are of getting approved . I ' m sorry I can 't give you better news than that . I think that ' s the best we can do for you at this time . With your consent , I ' ll to adjourn . Mr. Dubow — I 'd like to suggest that procedurally, it might be more effective to have this application simply withdrawn as opposed to adjourned because it may very well be that the proposal is going to be presented as different or modified . If not it think it would have to be re- noticed . I think it would be more efficient to simply withdraw without prejudice and come back with a revised application . Chairperson Sigel — Okay, that's a good idea , thank you . So , do you agree to withdraw the application ? Mr. Lango — Absolutely . Mr. Frost — Just for the benefit of the audience , nothing is being done tonight . Just like you did this last time around , you ' ll get a whole new notice . Chairperson Sigel — Can anyone from the public come to you and get a copy of the applicant's packet . If he does come up with a different proposal you can come and get a copy of it and study it and there will be another public hearing because there will be a whole new appeal . APPEAL : Edward Gregoire, Appellant, Attorney Edward Mazza , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be 15 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED permitted to maintain an existing garage with a 9 + foot building setback (15 foot required ) at 2 Schickel Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2-15 , Residence District R-30. Edward Mazza — I assume you 've all seen the attachment that I 've made to the appeal from where I 've stated the history of what' s happened here and the reasons why I believe that a variance for the side yard setback requirement should be granted . If you ' d like me to , I could go through that some more , but I ' m sure you 've all read that . I think there was a mistake made back when this was built in 1993/ 1994 time period prior to the time that the Gregoire ' s purchased it , which was in 1999 . Now they have sold it and the new owner is here tonight . This side yard setback requirement of 15 feet and this is about 9 . 9 feet . This is very , very close to a zone that would allow ten feet . If you look at the zoning map , it' s just a few hundred feet from where there would be a requirement of ten feet , so I don 't think it' s out of keeping with what the neighborhood would allow . It wouldn 't look out of place . It' s not going to really infringe upon the neighbors . Mr. Frost — I might add that the original building permit , when it was issued in 1994 or so , did show on a plot a proper setback to the garage . The Certificate of Occupancy you have here , which has a date of May 1 , 2002 was issued , if you ' ll notice the bottom of that certificate , it says see attached disclaimer, dated May 1St. Now , what we have in is a disclaimer that basically says when we re-issue or make a copy and issue an older Certificate of Occupancy , we ' re not making statements that would reflect that the property is still in compliance . What this certificate says is on January 10 , 1994 that property was in compliance , but there was a certificate issued . Again , the one that you have before you was a copy that was made May 1 , 2002 . To clarify why you see a certificate that has a 2002 date on it . Mr. Mazza — There has been no construction that would have made this different since the original certificate was issued in 1994 . It was just a mistake made back then on where the property line was . Mr. Niefer — Who's movable shed is this that is , that's right on the front . Mr. Frost — I don 't know, I noticed that myself. Mr. Mazza — Has that been moved yet ? That' s in the process of being moved . It was an arrangement made between the Gregoire ' s and the new owner to have that moved and it' s going to be moved very soon . That's also been there quite a while . That will be moved . Chairperson Sigel — So that belongs to the neighbors ? Mr. Mazza — No , that belongs to these people . That belongs to this property and is being moved over to this property. Chairperson Sigel — So , they've been paying them rent , I presume ? Mr. Mazza — Please , don 't suggest something like that . Mr. Ellsworth — Well , it clearly seems inappropriate to have to tear down a garage in this case to satisfy an additional five feet or so . 16 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — I would agree . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 11 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 12 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — There is no Environmental Assessment with this case . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-043 — Edward Gregoire, 2 Schickel Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2- 15 , Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Edward Gregoire, Appellant, Attorney Edward Mazza, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain an existing garage with a 9 + foot building setback ( 15 foot required) at 2 Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2- 15, Residence District R-30. FINDINGS: a. All requirements for an area variance have been met. b. The garage has been in existence for nine years with no apparent detriment to the neighborhood. CONDITIONS: a . The garage be no closer than 9 feet from the property line. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 256 square foot building addition on the southeast side of an existing single= family residence located at 696 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49- 1 -23 , 17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Residence District R-30 . Said addition will be 25 + feet from the property' s side lot line (40 foot setback required). Philip Syphrit , (& Katherine Heine) , 696 Coddington Rd — As you said , it was previously approved in May of 2000 . We knew that we were going to need a variance in order to pursue the project at the time . So we hadn 't done anything prior to getting the variance permission . So we needed the time to contact the contractors and get the estimates . When these estimates came in , the costs were such that we thought that we should look around and see about selling this place and buying a new place . In the course of 18 months of looking around , we realized two things ; one , that the time line for that variance had expired and two , no , there is no property out there in our price range that we really want to move to . Yes , you ' re right , this project is almost identical to what we had asked for at that time . Mr. Ellsworth — Since your initial proposal was moved by Kirk Sigel and seconded by Ronald Krantz , I think you 've got two votes . Chairperson Sigel — Do you remember enough about your original proposal to tell us how this one differs , if at all . Mr. Syphrit — There ' s one slight difference . The original proposal was 16 x 12 coming straight out from the property. This one , what we ' re looking for something 16 x 16 coming more towards the front . You can see from the drawing that it is still going to be further back from the existing structure , so that shouldn 't be a problem . That' s it , that's the difference . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . The setback that you end up requiring is still the same ? Mr. Syphrit — Yes . Chairperson Sigel — There' s no Environmental Assessment with this . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 19 p . m . With no persons present to be hear, Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 20 p . m . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-044 - Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit, 696 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 49-1 -23 , Residence District R-30 . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Katherine Heine and Philip Syphrit, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 275 square foot building addition on the southeast side of an existing single-family residence located at 696 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49- 1 -23, Residence District R-30. Said addition will be 25 ± feet from the property's side lot line (40 foot setback required). 18 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED FINDINGS: a . All the requirements for an area variance have been met. CONDITIONS: a . The addition be constructed as shown on the submitted plans and in the same style as existing structures. b. The addition be no closer than 24 feet from the side property line. c. The addition be no larger than 275 square feet. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : of Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owners , Ashley Management Corporation , Agent, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article VII , Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create a 1 , 200 square foot retail food service establishment within an existing building space located at 335 Pine Tree Road , the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C. John Murray, Ashley Management , 15 West Main St , Rochester — There is an existing 4 , 000 square foot space that was most recently occupied by East Side Restaurant . The space , way back, was actually two smaller spaces , made into one and we ' re seeking to revert back to the two individual spaces . One would be about 2800 square feet + and the other about 1200 . Mr. Ellsworth — This is for two restaurants? Mr. Murray — Yes sir. Mr. Frost — The reason why they are here is that the Zoning Ordinances require food service establishments to obtain special approval . My understanding is that there is a possibility that the new space may not be food service , but in case it is , that' s why they' re here . 19 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Murray — That is correct . They haven 't finalized a deal for the two yet . The ideal goal is to put two food service uses or restaurants in the space . We ' re just taking up on large space and cutting into proportions of 2800 and 1200 out of the total 4000 . Chairperson Sigel — So , do you have a tenant for one of the two . Mr. Murray — They' re tentative . We had to come and get Planning Board approval and now your approval . Once we ' re over that hurdle , then we can talk about commitment . But , yes sir, there is serious discussions with two . Chairperson Sigel — So you have tentative people for both sections? Mr. Murray — That is correct . Two food . Chairperson Sigel — So , I assume that since it was at one time , two separate buildings that it's well suited to now dividing it up again . I 've never been in it . Mr. Murray — Well , the one change that we have to do to accommodate that is the space that we are going to carve out for the 1200 square feet does have a front door with a barn wood fagade that 's on there right now . So that was really the third means of egress for the old East Side Restaurant and what we would do is open back up that front fagade so that , actually, it would now match the rest of the fagade that has a white brick ledge and then a plate glass window to match . There would be a requirement to put a second means of egress in for the 1200 square foot so we would cut through the kitchen area of the other space , I think they've outlined it and then put a fire corridor, an emergency exit corridor there with a rear door that would lead out to the back of the plaza . Mr. Ellsworth — Do each have their own kitchen ? Mr. Murray — Yes . Mr. Krantz — Do each have their own bathroom ? Chairperson Sigel — I have a question for anyone who was at the Planning Board . Does anyone know why two Board Members voted against this ? Mr. Frost — i may know, but I ' d rather not answer that . Mr. Murray — I don 't want to speculate . But one particular discussion came up about the sign that was approved for Best Western and that that wasn 't put in right and that was part of our on -going m . o . and I question that I didn 't have anything to do with that sign . Best Western is a whole separate tax parcel . I am not trying to be disrespectful to the Planning Board , I said that they might want to talk to the Zoning Officer who could go out and enforce what they've approved . Mr. Frost — One of the issues that we did have was the Board denied an illuminated sign . 20 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Murray - I think it had something to do with the placement of it facing one direction when it was supposed to be another. All they did from our perspective , we just collect the rent from them . Cornell had approved their concept . We always ask them to come to us first , so that when they go before the Town , they have the owners input and approval . The issue had nothing to do with why I was here , but was about why wasn 't it done the way the Town had indicated and I said I had no knowledge . Mr. Frost — I would say that my dealings with Ashley management have been first class . Chairperson Sigel — That does bring up the question of signage obviously , being one restaurant . It' s only needed one sign , I assume . Mr. Murray — If you read the stipulation that they had was a requirement for the Town Planner. We wouldn 't have to come back before the Planning Board again when it comes to signage , but we would come back to Jonathan Kanter in his capacity showing him , once we know in actuality what' s going to go there . But again , I brought up at the Planning Board , when the Planning and Zoning gave us approval when we renovated the fagade many years ago , that' s done specifically with a fixture box panel system so that people can 't just come and go with signage . Those boxes are predetermined between columns and we would have to come into compliance with what the Zoning Law is and the sign law is . I didn 't have the particulars that night so , I think that ' s why they made it relevant to come back to Mr. Kanter. We ' re not going to be changing . These are just lexon spaces that come out and put back in . Chairperson Sigel — So is there space already available there that you could use ? Mr. Murray — If you look , I think in your photo attachment , it has one for East Side Restaurant and there 's a smaller one that' s behind the tree that we planted . Chairperson Sigel — Closer to the Warehouse Carpet? Mr. Murray — Correct , the former Warehouse Carpet . We would have to come to some kind of configuration allowing for using that box system to the best of ability . Chairperson Sigel — So there will be no other design change . Mr. Murray — It' s strictly , as I stated , that lexon face comes in and out . Chairperson Sigel — Any other questions? Mike any comments? Mr. Smith — Nothing to add . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 29 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 30 p . m . 21 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-045 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT— Cornell University, 335 Pine Tree Road , the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owners, Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article VII, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create a 1 , 200 square foot retail food service establishment within an existing building space located at 335 Pine Tree Road, the East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-046 — Cornell University 335 Pine Tree Road , the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1 A 21 , Business District C. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owners, Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, requesting an approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article Vll, Section 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create a 1 , 200 square foot retail food service establishment within an existing building space located at 335 Pine Tree Road, the East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1 . 121 , Business District C. FINDINGS: a . Requirements for special approval have been met. CONDITIONS: a. Modification be done exactly as presented on the application. 22 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED b. This approval is contingent on final site plan approval from the Planning Board. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : of Nancy Gould , Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 20 , 21 , and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to subdivide a parcel of land , containing two existing non-conforming buildings , resulting in two new parcels with area and building setback deficiencies , at 154 Indian Creek Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-2-6. 1 . A variance from Section 280A of New York State Town Law is also requested . One new lot will not front on a public highway, while both new lots will be less than 30 , 000 square feet in area , with substandard building setbacks and lot area dimensions , including widths and depths. Nancy Gould , 154 Indian Creek Rd — Before we begin , I 'd like to make a correction where it says " One new lot will not front on a public highway' both lots would run on public highways , one from Indian Creek Rd , the second one from Happy Lane and the culvert is already in on Happy to build a driveway for that house . Nothing would change as far as buildings are concerned . The two structures are currently there . What we ' re just asking to do is separate them to give us a little bit more flexibility. Currently , the front house is rented and the back house has my 90 year old mother- in - law living in it . We ' d like the flexibility to be able to sell the front house and turn it back into just a neighborhood house if we could , but we don 't want to give up the ownership of the back house as long as my mother- in - law is alive . It 's become overwhelming for us to maintain both of them . We 've had the deaths of two fathers , so we ' re maintaining four properties and my husband 's tired . Mr. Frost — I just wanted to clarify that in the appeal , I advertised this as needing a variance from Section 288 of the Town Law , which requires a road frontage . That should not be in there . That appeal is not necessary because this does have frontage on two roads . Chairperson Sigel — Well , the original proposed before the Planning Board , I think didn 't have . Mr. Frost — Well I have to speak for what I did when I wrote this up . You take the survey map like this and look at it . That section doesn 't show the word Happy Lane , when you open up the paper and see the words Happy Lane on the other side . I don 't think that was a Planning Board issue . Ms . Gould — It wasn 't concerning the Planning Board because they were aware , I think , that it had road frontage on two different roads . 23 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — And I see , in fact that you did manage to get all of the Planning Board Member to vote for that . How long have these homes been here ? Ms . Gould — The first house was built in 1955 or so . At which time I believe 1600 square foot was the requirement then . The second house , this was the family house , was built for my grandfather when he had a stroke and I believe that was 1962 . Chairperson Sigel — So how is that in relation to when the Zoning Ordinance [the first ordinance] was enacted ? Andy , when was the first Zoning Ordinance enacted ? Mr. Frost — In '54 . Actually, prior to 1960 , we didn 't even label residence districts as residence districts . We didn 't break down things as we do today . That change happened in 1960 . Chairperson Sigel — Is it possibly the case that at that time , two residences were allowed on one lot? Mr. Frost — Prior to ' 60 . If I understand the appellant , the second house was built later on . The change would have occurred in 1960 . The application of the laws that we had in the earlier years was not quite the same as we' re had in the more recent years . Ms . Gould — I believe there was a valid permit granted for the second house . Chairperson Sigel — You think there was a permit? Ms . Gould — Yes , I ' m fairly certain . Mr. Frost — The building permit at that time probably had name , address and phone number and that' s about it . Chairperson Sigel — We do not have an Environmental Assessment form ? Mr. Frost — This is strictly an area variance . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 38 p . m . With no persons present to be hears , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 39 p . m . Mr. Ellsworth — Are we going to have to mention these yard setback dimensions? I just wonder if , Nancy , these are accurate . Ms . Gould — It was recently surveyed by the surveyor. Chairperson Sigel — I think that this chart is somewhat inaccurate because it reflects parcel "A" being less that 15 , 000 square feet and that' s been modified . 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Smith — That was for the Planning Board and they have since modified the plan . Ms . Gould — I think the plan you have before you shows the front the front parcel at a little over 15 , 000 feet . Chairperson Sigel — The survey doesn 't show the setbacks . Mr. Frost — Unless you scale it . The shed shown on the back there , there ' s a note that says "shed to be removed" I assume that' s going to be removed . Ms . Gould — Originally , we were going to keep the shed on the back lot , but because there was enough room to do that when we had made the front lot smaller. When they asked us to make the front lot larger, we had the option of either putting they shed on the front lot or moving it and my husband has decided he ' d like to keep it since he has a lot of carpentry equipment . We ' ll probably move that back over on the other property . Mr. Frost — The only thing I would offer is that the buildings aren 't moving and the proposed property line does not look like it would create any new deficiencies . Chairperson Sigel — We could just state setbacks as they exist currently. There is just the danger of something cropping up , a deck or something . And then it not being clear if that happened before or after tonight . Mr. Frost — The rear lot line of parcel "A" becomes the side lot line of parcel " B" . So you only need 15 feet from parcel " B" to the rear lot line of parcel "A" , which the rear of parcel "A" would require 30 feet and it would appear that you 've got that easy . I don 't think the subdivision is going to change anything . Ms . Gould — I have a scale on my copy, don 't you have a scale on yours . Mr. Frost — There is , but what happens when you copy a map with a scale , it changes the accuracy. Chairperson Sigel — You can just measure . Here , it' s labeled a hundred feet , you know how long a hundred feet is . So what you ' re saying is only one lot line moved . Ms . Gould — The only thing we 've done is basically added a lot line between two houses . Chairperson Sigel — Right , but when this Planning Department chart was made up , the only thing since then is that the lot line has moved towards the back house . Parcel "A" is the front house . Ms . Gould — Parcel "A" is the front house on Indian Creek Rd . Chairperson Sigel — So the rear of parcel "A" would have gotten larger and it was insufficient . Do you know approximately how far the lot line was moved ? 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Ms . Gould — Approximately 20 feet , I believe it was . It was 13 , 000 something before . U Chairperson Sigel — So , it should have increased to approximately 54 feet , which would make it acceptable . So that deficiency should be removed . And " B"'s side yard , I guess the 42 probably was reduced by 20 , is my guess . It looks like the 69 must have been the other side , so the 42 would become approximately 22 ? Does that seem right Andy? Mr. Frost — I guess I would say at being corrected at R-30 the side lot line of parcel " B" maybe less that an inch to the new property line , which would make it less than a 40 foot setback . Mr. Gould —So that would increase from 130 feet to 148 feet . 18 feet . Chairperson Sigel — I think we have some approximate measures that we can use . Mr. Frost — The depth of parcel "A" is definitely deficient . So you need a variance for the depth of the new lot "A" . Chairperson Sigel — Okay, but not the rear yard setback? Mr. Frost — No , the rear yard setback looks fine . The side yard setback of parcel "B" now looks like it's still 42 feet? Chairperson Sigel — No , I think the 42 was reduced . I think the 42 was reduced by 18 . Mr. Frost — My guess is it's probably somewhat accurate I ' m getting about just over a half inch on the measurement of the map . So , I ' d say about 24 or 25 for side yard setbacks at 154 '/2 of lot " B" 125 + feet as opposed to the required 40 . Mr. Ellsworth — I would move on your approving this appeal that it be made pending Ms . Gould and Andy Frost working out the precise measurements because we ' re guessing Mr. Frost — This is measuring close , but not exact . It looks like the 148 for the depth of parcel "A" is close to 148 , whereas 200 square foot's required . Chairperson Sigel — I think we ' re pretty close and I think we ' re setting sort of boundaries on the house , if we ' re off too large , then actually they' ll need to come back . There 's a chart on page 2 of the Planning Department Memorandum , dated May 29th , 2002 from Jonathan Kanter that lists all of the setbacks . There are two errors , one of them is the rear yard of parcel "A" is 52 feet instead of 34 feet and the side yard setbacks for parcel " B" are 24 feet and 69 instead of 42 feet and 69 feet . ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-047 — Nancy Gould , 154 Indian Creek Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-2-6 . 1 . 26 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Nancy Gould, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article V, Sections 20, 21 , and 23 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to subdivide a parcel of land, containing two existing non-conforming buildings, resulting in two new parcels with area and building setback deficiencies, at 154 Indian Creek Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 22-2-6. 1 . Both new lots will be less than 30, 000 square feet in area, with substandard building setbacks and lot area dimensions, including widths and depths. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been met. CONDITIONS: a . All conditions set by Planning Board be met, including the Planning Board final subdivision approval. b. All of the setbacks and lot sizes that are presently on the site are continued. c. The only permitted deficient measurements are as follows: Parcel A : Lot size not less than 15000 square feet. Width at setback not less than 99 feet. Depth not less than 149 feet. East and west side yard setbacks not less than 25 feet. Parcel B: Lot size not less than 23000 square feet. Width at setback not less than 100 feet. South side yard setback not less than 23 feet. Rear yard setback not less than 44 feet. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 27 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED APPEAL : Peter Newell , Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter non-conforming buildings on a non-conforming building lot located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-15 , Residence District R-15 . Said parcel contains three residential buildings with said alterations resulting in the creation of two residential buildings and one garage . A variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 may also be requested to allow a building height to exceed 36 feet. Robin Masson , 308 N . Tioga St - Peter asked me for some help with his presentation today . While he 's setting up , I want to explain to you what Peter's just passed out to you are letters that he 's obtained from all of the neighbors . Thirteen properties to the north and ten properties to the south of the property for the appeal . Ten owners in each direction . He went and contacted all of his neighbors and all of these letters show support . You may remember that the issue before you back in September he came before you with a proposal to change this property, you turned him down . The only letter that was submitted with regard to that previous application was Carolyn Greenwald and Adam Shea , who live at 891 Taughannock Blvd , that' s right next door to the subjects property and they objected because the building proposed would bring it nearer to the end of their property and would increase the developed land more than 20% required by law, raise the roof line and obstruct their view of the lake . What' s notable is included in this packet tonight is a letter from Carolyn Greenwald and Adam Shea , it' s letter number 10 in your packet , we've arranged the packet going from south to north , in which they say all four structures on this property are viewable from their property . Mr. Newell intends to improve them . They've seen other houses designed by Mr. Newell and they think he is extremely capable of designing and building a visually appealing house . After reviewing his plans , that we present to you tonight , " We believe he would do an excellent job at creating a nice home for himself and his family and we look forward being his neighbor for years to come. " There are similar comments from the other letters . Mr. Ellsworth — I think we get the point . You ' re a good listener Peter. Peter Newell - I ' m showing you my personal yard . This is a house that I did not do , but is extremely relevant to this project . Everything is very similar. Flat roof , two story, modest wood frame structure , that enters on the second floor across a bridge . Where this concrete is exposed , I will have stone there . This is a smooth , cut stone , I would go for rocks . ( inaudible speaking away from microphone ) This shows every inch of the property. This shows from the road , all of the construction , everything . We can discuss anything you want about the property , I ' m leaving it up to you . This is the original survey . This is the new , updated survey. Neighbor, neighbor, neighbor, building , building , building , garage , roofs . This is the old survey that I had presented the last time and you guys had said , basically that this was way too big . You said that it was much too big as seen from the road . You said it was too large from 28 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED the lake and I would block the neighbor's view . The number of residential units is currently four and you said that was too many . I 've taken it down and I 've basically tried to do exactly what you said . What we ' re trying to do now is . . . I want to show you the size of the old residence , which was 24 + and I 've brought it down to about 1600 square feet . Mr. Ellsworth — That's down how much from before? Mr. Newell — This has 2 1/2 stories and is about 5000 square feet . Now we ' re down to 2200 , but the 900 that' s down here is incorporated , but it's still less than before . Chairperson Sigel — You ' re still down 200 square feet . Mr. Newell — I basically bury it under the gardens . The impact is very little from the lake . Mr. Frost — So , the chart in yellow is showing the existing down below. Mr. Newell — I ' m trying to basically eliminate the three roofs and the trusses . I 've taken three different roofs and combined the two into one . Mr. Ellsworth — And that ' s the one that has lawn on the roof or something like that . Mr. Newell — It' s a lawn garden . Mr. Frost — Peter, if you look on the middle where the blue is showing . Now , on your parcel , you ' re looking at three , four blue rectangular shapes which are what you would see from an aerial plane . When you go down to what you are proposing , you really see one . So , physically , at least from an aerial , you ' re not seeing three things now . Mr. Newell — If you notice , as a person looking from Route 89 you seeing clearly over all of this . So it 's all under view . The inside is less than nine feet wide . It 's very narrow. Chairperson Sigel — That' s the top floor you are talking about? Mr. Ellsworth — Along the waterfront . He ' s just putting a wall . Mr. Newell — We would plan to move into this while we are constructing the rest . You can see the existing area we are trying to eliminate the whole box effect . ( inaudible , too far from microphone ) I misunderstood , I understood that it came from the ground as 18 foot . Mr. Frost — But you ' re not looking at a height variance . Mr. Newell — I think I was because this is buried totally in the ground . 29 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Frost — Going up to the next thing in blue , on the line further up , not your house ? That is someone else ' s property? Mr. Newell — This is a neighbor, this is a neighbor and this is a neighbor. Mr. Frost — So it should be clear to the Board that some of those things that you are seeing are not your property . Mr. Newell — If there ' s anything else that I can answer for you , I ' d be more than happy . Ms . Masson — So basically what we ' re doing is taking four structures and turning them into two living areas , really one house and a guest house . Chairperson Sigel — So the guest house is a rental or it' s going to be personal . Mr. Newell — It' s going to be our house right now , in the long term we ' d like it to be a guest house . Mr. Frost — But , when you say "guest" and I don 't think it's that important to the Board , but maybe it is , but that guest house could be a rental or is going to be ? When you say guest , you envision the old mom and dad . Mr. Ellsworth — You ' re talking about short term ? Mr. Newell — Yes . would like to go back and show you that where this building is located as you walk around , that continues and the roof line of the building in question . At the peak of the building I made the angle 45 feet and that 's the one we are looking at here . Mr. Ellsworth — Andy , does this need a height variance even though that one is buried there? Chairperson Sigel — I would have assumed , and without a strong argument I will continue to assume that with one contiguous building , the height measures from the lowest level to the highest . Mr. Frost — But the definition is finished grade . If I 've got finished grade on the roof, that' s finished grade . Chairperson Sigel — That would invite a lot of people to scatter some seeds on their roof . Mr. Frost — That's not easily accomplished from a building standpoint . I think that what Peter' s proposing is going to be consistent with proper building construction . I ' m not trying to defend it , I ' m just saying that I ' d have to say that the finished grade is the roof . We may have to have the attorney look at this , but it would be my presumption that if I ' m saying finished grade , which happens to be the .roof of a building and that grade is consistent to the grade adjoining it , which is not part of the building , that' s finished grade . 30 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Newell — Is there a chance that the length is ten feet , I can 't put a fire door so it ' s got to be kept open , but it' s as minimal as possible in this direction ( inaudible) . Chairperson Sigel — To say that you would measure from the roof of the lower portion would be , to make the nonsensical statement , that the lower portion had a negative height because you ' re saying that the grade starts at the roof . Mr. Ellsworth — I ' ll try to save you some time Peter, I don 't need anymore explanation . I don 't know about the other Board Members . Chairperson Sigel — I think what we' re first trying to establish is whether to consider a height variance here . Mr. Ellsworth — Well , that ' s what I was getting at so that we can take care of this in one session . We don 't make Mr. Newell come back again , I don 't want him to spend his life . . . Chairperson Sigel — For the other Board Member's benefit , we ' re just looking at the first page of Article 1 , which defines height from interior grade . Trying to determine how we measure the height of this . Mr. Frost — I think what bothers me is that when you go to page 2 , it says the contact with the ground surface . Chairperson Sigel — The height from lowest interior grade , I would assume is pretty clear how that would be measured ? Ms . Masson — Well , when you have a basement how does that get incorporated ? Mr. Frost — Really , that' s almost a moot point because a basement could be a cellar or a cellar could be a basement . Chairperson Sigel — You can choose two heights right? You can either choose from the lowest interior or exterior. Mr. Frost — That's correct , I think we did that . I think what we 've never seen before is the application of one the way it is . The lowest interior and exterior grade we have ground surface and contact with ground surface . As used in the definition of interior grade and we have exterior finish grade used in the definition of exterior height and in both cases , we have a ground level or a grade level that happens to be improved . I don 't think we envisioned when we drafted the language for this definition having a ground surface becoming part of the roof . Chairperson Sigel — So , this is R - 15 ? Mr. Frost — Yes . Well the height requirements and definitions are the same for R- 15 , R -30 or any residential zone . 31 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel — Okay . What is the height? Ms . Masson — The problem is that it is a step into the side of the hill . Mr. Frost — So , where you base the highest point is the dilemma that I see because you have that high point or low point broken up with the grade . So , in my mind you are really taking two measurements . One for the lowest level to be viewed from the ground surface that' s going to be the top of the roof and then from that point up the next part of the structure as the highest point . I think in either event they are still going to be under 36 feet . Otherwise , what you ' re proposing could theoretically be 72 feet in height . Is the proposed roof lawn running flush with the ground level to each side of the structure itself? Mr. Newell — Yes . Chairperson Sigel — What is currently the middle structure will still have exterior facing in the proposal , right? Mr. Newell — Yes , it's made out of . . . . Chairperson Sigel — I don 't care what the material is , for this discussion . I do care , however. So there is a clearly defined lowest exterior grade to the lower portion of the building . Ms . Masson — In that section , you won 't see the 36 feet . In no individual section will you see 36 feet . Chairperson Sigel — But the definition is the vertical distance from the lowest point of the exterior finished grade adjacent to the wall of the building to the highest point of the roof . And you ' re saying , for the purposes of your proposal , that that' s all one building . You can 't have it being one building for one purpose and two for another. Ms . Masson — Would you like to give us a variance for the height? Chairperson Sigel — Well , how high would that be ? Mr. Ellsworth — Make it on the safe side Peter. The bottom of the lowest footer. Ms . Masson — From the bottom of the lowest footer to the top of the highest roof would be slightly over 42 feet . Chairperson Sigel — You can either do an interior measurement, which would be the level of the lowest finished area , which would include the basement to the roof . Mr. Frost— Kirk , I might see your argument for the exterior grade . For the interior grade the wording that they use is in contact with the ground surface to the highest point of the roof . I think "contact with the ground surface" is different than exterior finished grade in the context of that sentence . So , as far 32 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED as a height variance , I guess I have to believe that it was okay on the interior grade measurement but , perhaps not okay on the exterior grade . Chairperson Sigel — Measure from the surface of the lowest floor level in contact with the ground surface . The lowest level in contact with the ground surface is the lowest level of the middle structure . There might be other surfaces that contact the ground , with your reading , you would invite people to just stick mud on parts of their house . Mr. Frost — I can see that because what I ' m arguing here is not necessarily the lowest level . Chairperson Sigel — It' s a level that is in contact with the ground . Have you figured out approximately what the height is then ? Mr. Frost — 40 feet . Mr. Niefer — If this is not a photo static reduction , if the scale on this is true scale of 20 feet to the inch . Mr. Ellsworth — I think Peter spent a good share of a lifetime on this . He was very sensitive to our comments from before and I ' m set . Mr. Frost — I 've had conversations with several of the people who have written letters and I guess the thing that impresses me most is the people who just signed the letters last night . For instance the Greenwalds , I 've talked to them several times and I ' m kind of surprised about all these letters here . I know a lot of these people and they are all very opinionated . Mr. Ellsworth — Well , this is the second time and Dr. Lamb was the first so congratulations . That ' s why I said earlier, good listener. Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 9 : 19 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 9 : 20 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , any comments or any aspects of your Environmental Assessment that you ' d like to point out . Mr. Smith — I can answer any questions on an issue that wasn 't discussed yet, the parking issue . If it' s going to be used as a home office , is there adequate parking for additional people besides residents living there and possibly a rental . Chairperson Sigel — I think it was stated before , I assume you would anticipate at most one visitor at a time ? How many parking spaces are there ? Mr. Newell — If you parallel park , you have upwards of six. Plus , we have two garages . They do one right now , two , they put three and four. One here , two here , a third here and a fourth here , then they put a fifth , sixth and seventh . So that ' s seven right now . We have two cars . 33 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-048 — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT— Peter Newell , 891 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 15 , Residence District R- 15 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Peter Newell, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter non- conforming buildings on a non-conforming building lot located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 15, Residence District R- 15. Said parcel contains three residential buildings with said alterations resulting in the creation of two residential buildings and one garage. A variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 is also requested to allow a building height to exceed 36 feet. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Ellsworth — Do we need a height variance ? Chairperson Sigel — Yes . Mr. Frost — I think it would be better to be safe than sorry . Mr. Ellsworth — Is that okay because it wasn 't advertised ? Mr. Frost — It was . Ms . Masson — It said may need height variance . Mr. Ellsworth — Is it 43 feet ? 48 , less than that? Chairperson Sigel — It' s up to Mr. Newell , but I would suggest maybe 47. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-049 - Peter Newell , 891 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25=2-15, Residence District R-15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. 34 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Peter Newell, Appellant, requesting an area variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 , to allow a building to be 48 feet in height (where a maximum of 36 feet is allowed), located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 15, Residence District R- 15. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. b. Affected neighbors have submitted letters of approval. c. There are mitigating circumstances with regard to the steep slope of the lot. CONDITIONS: a . The height of the building not exceed 48 feet. b. The buildings be modified as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: Kirk Sigel The motion was declared to be carried. ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2002-050 - Peter Newell , 891 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 15 , Residence District R- 15 . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Peter Newell, Appellant, requesting special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter non-conforming buildings on a non -conforming building lot located at 891 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2- 15, Residence District R- 15. Said parcel contains three residential buildings with said alterations resulting in the creation of two residential buildings and one garage. 35 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS July 15 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED FINDINGS: a . All of the requirements for a special approval have been satisfied. b. Affected neighbors have submitted letters of approval. CONDITIONS: a. The buildings be modified as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: Sigel The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 35 p . m . e Kirk Sigel , Chairperson Lori Quigley , Deputy Town Clerk 36 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, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Mondav, Julv 15, 2002, commencing at 7 : 00 P.M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tiova Street. Date of posting: July 3 , 2002 Date of publication: July 8, 2002 } J ' Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Dep ent Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of July 2002 , Notary Public Notary pub!c, State of New York No. 01 WH6052877 Commission Expires es December 26,