Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2009-09-21 FILE DATETi iO �� b ® ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 21 , 2009 7 : 00 P. M . Continuation -- Appeal of Kui Chen , 147 Whitetail Dr, Area Variances to keep Domestic Animals ( Racing Pigeons) Medium Density Residential Zone Kui Chen was present with an interpreter. Chairman Sigel recapped that at the applicant' s last appearance , the Board was not clear on whether or not to grant a variance for the keeping of the domestic animals . No additional information had been received . The area variance form from the previous meeting was shared . The lot is approximately a third of an acre and the minimum required is two acres . He would also need a setback variance if he was leaving the coop were it was . Chairman Sigel noted that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone was present for this appeal . There was one person who had spoken at a previous meeting and she wanted to know ® what the Board was thinking before she spoke . She did not want to belabor the points already made at the previous meeting . Chairman Sigel asked her to come up and remind the Board what she had said . She stated that she lived behind the applicant and knew that her neighbors were concerned and that they had written letters about the appearance of the structure and the odors from the birds . She asked whether there was any precedent for this type of variance that the Board depended upon to make their rulings . She was concerned about the unsightliness of the coop and would like to see it buffered . Chairman Sigel said he could not recall another appeal in his ten years where the Board was asked to make a determination on whether an animal was a domestic animal and then lot size variances as well . Board Member Mountin stated that he was in favor of granting the variance because he did not get a sense that an undesirable change would happen because no one was here saying that . Chairman Sigel responded that the letters that they had received and the person at the original hearing were opposed to it. The deed restrictions were discussed and it had been determined that they were not enforced by the Town . ® Board Member Krantz thought the variance from the two acres was very large and asked if it would be possible to limit the number of birds to six . Susan Brock answered that the Board could impose reasonable conditions . ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 2 of 12 Board Member Mann stated that she recalled more of the comments against the pigeons to be of a visual nature . Ms . Brock added that odor and droppings were also mentioned and Board Member Mann responded that there are deer and wild birds that are not controlled . She felt that most people really didn't mind the pigeons themselves , but wanted the coop to be changed . Chairman Sigel stated that his inclination was to not grant the approval because it is so large . It is a well defined neighborhood with the similar size lots and there is a reasonable expectation that you won 't have animals that fall under the definition of domestic animals . This particular appeal was not like one that may come where the lot in question is slightly smaller and needs a variance for domestic animals but the surrounding lots are large and the effect muted . He believed it was out of character with the established neighborhood . Board Member Mann said that she would agree except that they were not considering large domestic animals but a small number or birds . Unlike larger domestic animals such as pigs or horses that would require a large amount of space , they are talking about a relatively small coop . Board Member Mountin asked if the DEC or the Town or who would monitor whether or ® not they became a nuisance and Ms . Brock responded that no one on the Town would . If he complied with the ZBA conditions , that would be it. Chairman Sigel reiterated that if the Board granted this variance , it would go with the lot . Board Member Mann wanted to know if the variance could be limited to expire with Mr. Chen because she felt it was a very personal use and Ms . Brock responded that the placement and appearance of a coop and allowing limited lot size is not personal and could not be limited that way . Chairman Sigel added that if they were to set out standards and others could meet those same standards , then one could argue that they should be allowed the right also . Board Member Mountin asked if Mr. Chen had any thoughts and through his interpreter he stated that he did not understand the problem . He stated that many neighbors have dogs and cats who come onto his property and leave droppings and make much more noise than his pigeons and yet they are allowed and his are not. There is much more disturbance from the other animals than his . One of the cats ate three of his pigeons. There are also wild birds that neighbors feed and attract to their yards , and that' s not an issue , but his are . Chairman Sigel said he sympathizes with Mr. Chen but dogs and cats are generally kept in the house and if he were to keep the pigeons in his house , there would be nothing to deny . Chairman Sigel asked Ms . Brock procedural questions regarding whether SEQR were ® needed if the appeal were to be denied and she responded that SEQR was not needed and the Board could reopen the public hearing if the denial was not carried . ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 3 of 12 ® Chairman Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 45 p . m , and moved to deny the appeal of Kui Chen , requesting an appeal from Chapter 270 -69 (c1 ) , Accessory Buildings , to allow domestic animals to be kept at 147 Whitetail Dr , Tax Parcel ----- - - --- - MDR with the following findings : That the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh the detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , specifically : 1 . That an undesirable change to the neighborhood character would occur given that this is a neighborhood of relatively small lots similar to the applicant' s , none of which would be allowed to have domestic animals and the presence of domestic animals in this neighborhood would change its character. Also , the structure in which the birds are housed outdoors is readily visible from the neighbors and noise and odor from the birds have been reported by the neighbors , and 2 . That the request is substantial , given that the variance would need to be for a lot approximately one sixth the minimum lot size for the keeping of domestic animals , and 3 . That the difficulty is self created , given that Mr. Chen purchased this property and then sought to and did keep domestic animals on the property. ® There was no second on the motion and the motion failed for lack of a second . Procedurally , SEQR would now be needed and Chairman Sigel went over the SEAR Part 2 prepared by Staff . Board Member Mountin discussed the conditions he would like to see such as limited number of birds . Board Member Krantz agreed and sketched out other conditions such as setback being no greater than 20 feet and that adequate disposal of their solid waste happen . He thought if they listed these conditions , it would be fine . Ms Brock explained to the Board that making a negative determination on SEQR in anticipation of conditions they want to put on the variance would be considered a neg- dec and there are procedural steps that need to be followed for that which are not met here . She suggested that the Board instead look at the application where he states that he has 6 birds currently at the property and make their SEQR determination based on the application and impose further conditions if they feel they should impose them . Board Member Mann asked if they had to make a negative determination to grant the variance and Ms . Brock responded that she was hearing the board talk about making a negative environmental impact because they were imposing these conditions and that is a condition- negative declaration . Instead , if the Board felt that based on the application where he says he only has six pigeon and look at that alone then base SEQR on that and then place conditions on the variance . The Board can not rely on conditions they ® are imposing to mitigate the SEQR determination . There is either no potential , there are no potential impacts with conditions or there are potential impacts . Mr. Bates reminded ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 4 of 12 the Board that this whole appeal process started because of complaints received by the Town from neighbors regarding odor. Board Member Krantz asked what Ms . Brock would advise . Ms . Brock stated that it was the Board' s decision but they should decide whether there was the potential of a significant environmental impact . Board Member Mann suggested that the potential for an environmental impact is not significant due to A) the number of birds , B) the fact that this stuff happens anyway through pets , through bird feeders attracting birds to the area , this is a natural process and this is not significantly adding to the environmental impact due primarily to the number of birds being requested . So the Board is not saying that there is no environmental impact, but it is not a significant impact . Chairman Sigel clarified by asking Board Member Mann if she was replacing c) 1 which talks about air quality and such on the SEQR form with " little or no impact anticipated . " ? She replied "due to the limited number of birds , the impact can be managed and does not create a significant negative environmental impact. " The SEQR form was changed to read "due to the limited number of birds , there will be no significant additional impact created . " And Town Staff recommended etc . was struck. ® Part I had minor clarifying changes made to it . Motion made by Susan Mann ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION N0. 2009 — 041 Environmental Assessment Kul Chen 147 Whitetail Dr Tax Parcel No. 44.= 1 -132 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by Susan Mann , Seconded by David Mountin . RESOLVED , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental impact for the reasons set forth in the Part II Form as amended at tonight' s meeting . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann NAYS : Sigel Motion was carried 3 to 1 . Chairman Sigel reopened the public hearing and the neighbor who spoke before addressed the Board again . She asked how the bird waste was disposed of and approximately how much there was in a weeks' time . The applicant answered that it was used at fertilizer and less than a 5-gallon pail was filled monthly in the winter. She was concerned that this variance would be in perpetuity and then the next owner could ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 5 of 12 do the same or some other domestic animal . She also wondered what the recourse for the neighbors was if the conditions the Board set were not followed . Who enforced them . She was concerned about health issues from keeping these birds in a closed in place as opposed to wild birds and bird -flu and the like . She also cautioned the Board that just because the other neighbors were not here , they had been before and also written letters or emails to the Board so tonight' s representation is not the same . Chairman Sigel answered that the Town Code Enforcement Office would enforce the conditions . He closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Board . Motion made by David Mountin . There was some discussion about the conditions to be placed on the variance and they were discussed and modified to make them specific enough to help the Code Enforcement Department be able to enforce them . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 — 042 Area Variance Kul Chen 147 Whitetail Dr Tax Parcel No. 44.- 1 -132 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by David Mountin , seconded by Susan Mann . ® RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Kui Chen from Chapter 270-69 ( C) 1 & 2 "Accessory Buildings" , to be allowed to keep domestic racing pigeons at 147 Whitetail Drive with the following conditions : CONDITIONS : 1 . That there is to be no more than six (6) racing pigeons be housed in this structure , and 2 . That no other animal is housed in the structure , and 3 . That the variance be no more than 25 feet from the setback, and 4 . That the base of the structure which is currently composed of clapwood be replaced with siding or be sided so as to mirror the architectural style and aesthetics of the house , and 5 . That the height and footprint of the structure shall not be increased , and 6 . That the solid waste is removed from the pigeon house at least once a week removed from the property, composted or spread in the garden . There should not be an accumulation that causes and odor and any application to the yard or garden shall be worked into the soil to minimize odors . ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 6 of 12 FINDINGS : The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , specifically ; 1 . That the benefit can not be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant because the applicant can not change the size of his lot to meet the requirements and his lot width is not large enough to accommodate the structure the pigeons are housed in without violating the setback requirements , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , because of the conditions set forth above that require the structure to conform with the architectural and aesthetic appearance of the house and to the limited or small number of birds that are permitted and the conditions that will control the odors , and 3 . That the request is substantial as to the size of the lot reduction that is required ; from 2 acres to approximately 1 /3 of an acre , but , that the number of the birds is small and mitigates that, and the request is not substantial as to the setback requirement in that the required setback is 30 feet and this variance is requiring no less than 25 feet , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical and environmental effects because of the conditions of the structure to be maintained and the removal of solid waste , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann NAYS : Sigel Motion was carried 3 to 1 . Chairman Sigel stated for the applicant and his interpreter that the appeal had been granted with conditions about how far the coop could be from the edge of the property, some improvements to the coop , and how solid waste should be dealt with . APPEAL of Donn Carroll , requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270 , Section ® 60(C) of the Town Code to be permitted to rebuild a deck and stairs that will encroach into the side yard setback located at 651 Five Mile Dr. , Tax Parcel # 31 .- 2=25 . 2, Low Density Residential Zone. ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 7 of 12 Donn Carroll was present to answer the Board ' s questions . Chairman Sigel summarized the appeal by stating that he had removed the deck and stairs and had not rebuilt in within a year. Mr. Carroll stated that the stairs were removed but the deck was left there . The history was not clear in the application . The order of events was that he had bought the house and applied for the first permit in 1994 and it was a slow permit process because he was living there and doing the major work inside . During that process , it became obvious that the landing from the stairs to the porch were failing and he moved the stairs to the back temporarily which lasted longer than he expected . He left the porch deck but the roof was removed . The porch deck was left until it failed in the last few years , and he thought that that preserved his grandfathered rights to it. The stairs though were definitely in a different location for several years . Chairman Sigel stated that the Board did not receive real plans for what he intended to do . Mr. Carroll stated that the permit had the plans and he is simply planning on replacing the stairs in their former location . The deck was just removed to be replaced because it rotted and that was covered under the present building permit . He thought the survey was confusing because it shows a rectangle extending from the south of the house and that was just the stairs , and there is no indication of the deck at the time of the survey because it was under a roof . Therefore , the survey shows the footprint of the house with the deck and the rectangle is the stairs which he is asking to build there again . Chairman Sigel restated it by saying that it was his intention that he only needs an approval for the stairs because the deck was just removed and is being rebuilt . Mr . Carroll responded that that was his understanding . Board Member Mann asked if he was extending the footprint at all and he responded that he was not , or by inches maybe . Ms . Brock asked when the house was built and he responded that the house was built in 1934 and the porches were built at that time . When he got the permit in 1994 , he removed the roof of the porch , making it a deck without a roof. Ms . Brock asked Mr. Bates if that was a prior nonconforming portion of the structure and Mr. Bates responded that it was , up until he removed the deck. Once that happened , it is a rebuild as opposed to a repair and he thought that was the question . He thought the Board needed to rule on the deck because of the difference between a rebuild and a repair. A repair is board for board , when you remove it, you are rebuilding it . It was Codes determination that it was no longer grandfathered because it was completely removed and is now being rebuilt. So you are building a new deck even though there was a deck there before and that new deck would fall within the setback requirements . Mr. Carroll added that in 1994 , under the original permit, the footings and the posts were replaced underneath the porch deck so those were taken out and replaced . Chairman Sigel asked if the deck was fully contained within the outer box of the house , filling in the concave area and then the steps extend beyond that? Mr . Carroll stated that was accurate . You could make a long line the full length of the house and it would include the porch on the front which still has a roof on it and the porch on the back which was recently replaced with a deck. He stated that the stairs and landing are the ZBA 9/21 /2009 ® Page 8 of 12 only things that extended south a little over 3 feet, give or take a few inches . He stated that it would result in an approximate 28 foot setback, returning it to exactly what it was when he bought the house . He stated that the measurements were not exact . Board Member Mann asked when the deck was demolished and Mr. Carroll stated that he spoke to Mr . Williams in Code Enforcement who told him that he could issue the demo permit right away but he needed more specifications for the replacement of the deck so they went ahead and did the demolition while waiting for the building permit . Chairman Sigel said that it was obvious that there was an existing concrete foundation which forms the landing of the steps so he was not in doubt that the structures did exist and the setback is the same . Chairman Sigel opened the public hearing . There was no one wishing to address the Board and the public hearing was closed . Motion made . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 — 043 Area Variance Donn Carroll 651 Five Mile Dr Tax Parcel No. 31 .-2-25 . 2 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Susan Mann . ® RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Donn Carroll , requesting and Area Variance from Chapter 270 Section 60 (C ) of the Town Code to be permitted to rebuild a deck and stairs that will encroach into the sideyard setback located at 651 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel # 31 . -2-25 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone , with the following CONDITIONS : 7 . That the deck and stairs be built as shown in the plans submitted by the applicant to the Building Department in Building Permit # 8407 , and 8 . That the sideyard setback be no less than 25 feet, and 9 . That no further structures beyond what is indicated on the applicant's plans be built within the required sideyard setback, and FINDINGS : The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , specifically ; 6 . That while there may be other means with which the applicant could have access to his house , that the means proposed are very reasonable and restores what has been there for many decades , and ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 9 of 12 ® 7 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , given that the applicant' s plans are to restore the property to the state it was in for many decades , and 8 . That the request is not substantial , and 9 . That the request will not have any adverse physical and environmental effects given that it is a restoration of an existing condition , and 10 . That the alleged difficulty is not self-created , that it has existed in this state for many years and the applicant is just trying to rebuild a dilapidated structure . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann and Sigel NAYS : No Motion was carried unanimously . APPEAL of Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy, requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270-62( B)(C) ; insufficient width at street line and setback line, and Section 270=59 Height Limitations as well as a Use Variance from Chapter, 270=54 Principle Use, of the Town Code ; to be allowed to build a garage prior to building a primary dwelling located at 103 Grove Place, Tax Parcel #23.-1 - 11 .7 , Low Density Residential Zone. Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy were present to answer the Board ' s questions . Mr. Parsons gave his reasons for the request starting with the setback lines for the street. He stated that he was given a plot plan for the original subdivision from 1954 and he assumed that it was a legal lot . As far as the height variance , they are asking for 5 additional feet so they can store a motorhome in the garage and the last part is because they plan to build a home there after the sale of their current home that would then go with the garage . Board Member Krantz thought that the Board had granted something similar in the past with a 6month timeframe . Chairman Sigel was more concerned about the size of the garage in relation to the size of the house and lot . He thought it was out of character to have an accessory building that is more than twice what is allowed by Code , being the same size of the house . Mr. Parsons wondered why he was calling it an accessory building because once the house was there , it would be a garage . Mr. Bates confirmed that there is no limit on a garage and a garage is defined as a building that holds automobiles . Chairman Sigel then said that that would mean there would be no variance needed if it was deemed a garage for the square footage , just for the height and being built before the house . Board Member Mann asked if the cupola was included in the height and Mr. Parsons stated that it was not included in the ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 10 of 12 measurement and could be omitted . Board Member Mann asked if the Bostwick appeal had a time limit on it and Chairman Sigel stated that he recalled that there were more definitive plans for review . Mr. Parsons stated that he was working on plans with an architect but his house needs to sell first and it will be listed in the spring . Chairman Sigel said the problem facing the Board is the open endedness of the plan . They would want a timeframe for building the house and what would happen if their house did not sell and so on . It is difficult for the Board to grant it with no real assurance that the house will sell next year and the new house be built . Board Member Mann asked what the rush was and he responded that he needed a place to store his personal things and his motorhome and a base to work out of while building the new house . Chairman Sigel added that he assumed Morton Buildings could erect this type of thing very quickly and he would feel more comfortable if this was just a part of an overall building project that was final and ready to go . This way it is using a residential lot for storage which is expressly not allowed . Discussion followed with the timeline of a building permit. There should be some progress on the house before the garage is approved and started . It is somewhat of a judgment call . Chairman Sigel opened the public hearing . Bob Parish spoke as a neighbor to the property and his concern is what the building would be used for and its size . He was concerned that something commercial may be going in there and he was concerned with truck traffic . Mr. Parsons stated that it is only for his use and storage . Chairman Sigel also reassured the neighbor that the Town has restrictions on home-based businesses . Another neighbor spoke noting that she was not aware of anything happening there until the trees were taken down and her main question was the height and/or square footage now that the trees are gone . Mr. Parsons gave the dimensions of the garage and stated that she would probably not be able to see the garage once the house was built . The Board shared the applicants drawings with the speaker. Mr . Parsons asked if he attached the garage to the house , if the height variance would not be needed . Chairman Sigel said that was correct. Another neighbor spoke stating that given the neighborhood , this structure would actually not be out of character and in fact would be a nice transition from his larger, agricultural buildings to the smaller residential town buildings . He also stated that Mr. Parsons is a great builder and the Board should not be concerned about the house being completed . There was no one else wishing to address the Board and the public hearing was closed . Board Member Krantz asked if they could place a time limit on the building of the house . Chairman Sigel was still concerned about the lack of plans and the uncertainty of being able to sell their house and start on this one . Board Member Mountin agreed , saying that the Board needs to have plans . ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 11 of 12 A woman wanted to speak and Chairman Sigel reopened the public hearing . The lady stated that Mr. Parsons built her house and he started April 15 , 2003 and she moved in August 15 , 2003 . He is speedy , working 14- 16 hour days and the speed of the house being built will not be an issue . Chairman Sigel responded that he is not questioning his efficiency as a builder, but having the resources to start the project within a short period of time from when the building goes up . He felt that the Board would be much more receptive if he was ready to start the house almost immediately after the garage was to be erected . The public hearing was closed again . Chairman Sigel stated that the options were that the Board could move to deny the appeal or move to adjourn the appeal to such a time as when he could come back to the Board with more concrete plans and timetable . Mr. Parsons replied that he would approach it differently now but he still questioned the insufficient street width . Chairman Sigel stated that the Board could act on that now and the front yard setback. Motion made . ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION 2009 — 044 Area Variance Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy 103 Grove Place Tax Parcel #23. - 1 - 11 .7 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Susan Mann . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy, requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270-62( B ) (C) ; insufficient width at street line and setback line , of the Town Code ; for a lot located at 103 Grove Place , Tax Parcel #23 . - 1 - 11 . 7 , Low Density Residential Zone , with the following CONDITIONS : 1 . That the width at the street line as measured along the arc of the street line , be no less than 65 feet, and 2 . That the width at the required front yard setback be no less than 135 feet. FINDINGS : The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community, specifically ; 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of building anything on this lot , can not be achieved by any other means feasible , and ZBA 9/21 /2009 Page 12 of 12 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , given that this development has been laid out for quite some time and this is an existing lot , and 3 . That the request is not substantial , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical and environmental effects , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is not self-created , given that the applicant purchased the lot under the reasonable assumption that an approved subdivision would have laid out legally buildable lots . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann and Sigel NAYS : No Motion was carried unanimously. For the record , Mr. Parsons withdrew his application for the garage . Meeting was adjourned . Kirk Sigel , Chairman FILE DATE 6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION N0 . 2009 - 041 Environmental Assessment Area Variance Kui Chen 147 Whitetail Dr Tax Parcel No. 44.-1 -132 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by Susan Mann , Seconded by David Mountin . RESOLVED , that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental impact for the reasons set forth in the Part II Form as amended at tonight' s meeting . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann NAYS : Sigel Motion was carried 3 to 1 . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regula a ting on the 21 st day of September, 2009 . i Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca RUIZ) DATE /o , ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 = 042 Area Variance Kul Chen 147 Whitetail Dr Tax Parcel No. 44.=1 -132 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by David Mountin , seconded by Susan Mann . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Kui Chen from Chapter 270-69 (C) 1 & 2 "Accessory Buildings" , to be allowed to keep domestic racing pigeons at 147 Whitetail Drive with the following conditions : CONDITIONS : 1 . That there is to be no more than six (6) racing pigeons housed in this structure , and 2 . That no other animal is housed in the structure , and 3 . That the variance be no more than 25 feet from the setback, and 4 . That the base of the structure which is currently composed of clapwood be replaced with siding or be sided so as to mirror the architectural style and aesthetics of the house , and 5 . That the height and footprint of the structure shall not be increased , and 6 . That the solid waste is removed from the pigeon house at least once a week and removed from the property , composted or spread in the garden . There should not be an accumulation that causes and odor and any application to the yard or garden shall be worked into the soil to minimize odors . FINDINGS : The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , specifically; 1 . That the benefit can not be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant because the applicant can not change the size of his lot to meet the requirements and his lot width is not large enough to accommodate the structure the pigeons are housed in without violating the setback requirements , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to ® nearby properties , because of the conditions set forth above that require the structure to conform with the architectural and aesthetic appearance of the house and to the limited or small number of birds that are permitted and the conditions that will control the odors , and 3 . That the request is substantial as to the size of the lot reduction that is required ; from 2 acres to approximately 1 /3 of an acre , but, that the number of the birds is small and mitigates that , and the request is not substantial as to the setback requirement in that the required setback is 30 feet and this variance is requiring no less than 25 feet , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical and environmental effects because of the conditions of the structure to be maintained and the removal of solid waste , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is self-created , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant outweighs the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : ® AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann NAYS : Sigel Motion was carried 3 to 1 . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of th same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regulat m eti on the 21 st day of September, 2009 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE ///, �n4 DATE , 79 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 - 043 ® Area Variance Donn Carroll 651 Five Mile Dr Tax Parcel No. 31 . -2-25 . 2 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Susan Mann . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Donn Carroll , requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270 Section 60 ( C ) of the Town Code to be permitted to rebuild a deck and stairs that will encroach into the side yard setback located at 651 Five Mile Dr, Tax Parcel # 31 . -2-25 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone , with the following CONDITIONS : 1 . That the deck and stairs be built as shown in the plans submitted by the applicant to the Building Department in Building Permit #8407 , and 2 . That the side yard setback be no less than 25 feet, and 3 . That no further structures beyond what is indicated on the applicant' s plans be built within the required side yard setback, and FINDINGS : The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , specifically ; 1 . That while there may be other means with which the applicant could have access to his house , that the means proposed are very reasonable and restores what has been there for many decades , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , given that the applicant's plans are to restore the property to the state it was in for many decades , and 3 . That the request is not substantial , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical and environmental effects given that it is a restoration of an existing condition , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is not self-created , that it has existed in this state for many years and the applicant is just trying to rebuild a dilapidated structure . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann and Sigel NAYS : No Motion was carried unanimously . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at Vreg r meeting on the 21 st day of September, 2009 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca F ! '_ E DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2009 = 044 Area Variance Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy 103 Grove Place Tax Parcel #23 .- 1 - 11 .7 September 21 , 2009 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Susan Mann . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeal of Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy , requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270 -62 ( B) ( C) ; insufficient width at street line and setback line , of the Town Code ; for a lot located at 103 Grove Place , Tax Parcel #23 . - 1 - 11 . 7 , Low Density Residential Zone , with the following CONDITIONS : 1 . That the width at the street line as measured along the arc of the street line , be no less than 65 feet , and 2 . That the width at the required front yard setback be no less than 135 feet. FINDINGS : The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community , specifically ; 1 . That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of building anything on this lot , can not be achieved by any other means feasible , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties , given that this development has been laid out for quite some time and this is an existing lot , and 3 . That the request is not substantial , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical and environmental effects , and 5 . That the alleged difficulty is not self-created , given that the applicant purchased the lot under the reasonable assumption that an approved subdivision would have laid out legally buildable lots . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Mountin and Mann and Sigel NAYS : No Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca ata regul meeting on the 21 st day of September, 2009 . -miz Deputy Town Cler Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA ® AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , PauletteTerwilliger, being duly sworn , say that I a Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper , Ithaca Journal: ADVERTISEMENT : PUBLIC HEARING TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY , SEPTEMBER 21 , 2009 7 : 00 P . M . Date of Publication : Monday , September 14 , 2009 Location of Sign Board Used for Posting : Town Hall Lobby Public Notices Board 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 ® Date of Posting : September 11 , 2009 ulette Terwilliger Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of September, 2009 . Notar ublic JUDITH C . DRAKE NotaryNob01 Rt608435ate of 8wYork Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 212041E TOWN OF ITHACA117797 1 7117 ZONING B �9a�S' �5� LS NOTICE OFOF PUBLIC j%ed for individuals with spe cial needs, upon request; HEARINGS requests should be made MONDAY, not less than 48 hour's pri- SEPTMBE or to the public hearings. 2009 t 215 North Tioga Bruce W. Bates Street, Ithaca Director of Code Enforce- 7:00 P.M. ment Continuation -- Appeal of 607-273- 1783 Kul Chen, 147 Whitetail Dated: 9/ 11 /2009 Dr, Medium Density Resi- published 9/14/2009 dential Zone APPEAL of Donn Carroll, — requesting an Area Var- iance from Chapter 270, Section 60(C) of the Town Code to be permit- ted to rebuild a deck and stairs that will encroach in- to the side yard setback located at 651 Five Mile Dr., Tax . Parcel 4 31 .-2- 25.2, Low Density Resi- dential Zone. APPEAL of Michael Par- sons and Bernadette Ed- dy, requesting an Area f Variance from Chapter 270-62(B)(C); insufficient width at street line and j setback line, and Section 1 270-59 Height Limitations as well as a Use Variance from Chapter, 270-54 Principle Use, of the Town Code; to be allowed to build a garage prior to building a primary dwelling located at 103 Grove O Place, Tax Parcel 423.- 1 - 11 .7 , Low Density Resi- dential Zone. Assistance will be provid: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I , Paulette Terwilliger , being duly sworn , deposes and says , that deponent is not a party to the actions , is over 21 years of age and whose professional address is 215 N . Tioga St , Ithaca , NY . That the deponent served the within Notice of Public Hearings upon the attached list of interested parties on September 14 , 2009 , By depositing same enclosed in a postage - paid , addressed wrapper, in a post office under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department withi a State of New York. Paulette Terwilliger Sworn to before me this 14th day of September 2009 , Notary Public JUDITH C . DRAKE Notary Public : State of New York No . 01 DR6084358 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 2 , 20 �U TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 , 2001. . 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M. Continuation -- Appeal of Kui Chen , 147 Whitetail Dr, Medium Density Residential Zone APPEAL of Donn Carroll , requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270 , Section 60(C) of the Town Code to be permitted to rebuild a deck and stairs that will encroach into the side yard setback located at 651 Five Mile Dr. , Tax Parcel # 31 . -2-25 . 2 , Low Density Residential Zone . APPEAL of Michael Parsons and Bernadette Eddy, requesting an Area Variance from Chapter 270-62 ( B) (C ) ; insufficient width at street line and setback line , and Section 270- 59 Height Limitations as well as a Use Variance from Chapter, 270-54 Principle Use , of the Town Code ; to be allowed to build a garage prior to building a primary dwelling located at 103 Grove Place , Tax Parcel #23 . - 1 - 11 . 7 , Low Density Residential Zone . Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request; requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings . ® Bruce W . Bates ® Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : 9/ 11 /2009 Published : 9/ 14/2009 Bennett, Richard D & Elsie Bishop , Rick J & Louanne Brutsaert, Wilfried H 104 Woolf Ln 102 Grove PI 220 Comstock Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Carberry, John & Claudia Ciaschi , Timothy & Robin Fendrick, Robert L & Ernesta Attn : 1489 Trumansburg Rd 120 Grove Rd Shane & Jennifer Jaynes Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 1481 Trumansburg Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Freeman , Petrina Hagaman , Jack Harris , Robert D & Linda S 106 Grove Rd 1485 Trumansburg Rd 101 Grove Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Kirby, Robert J & Susan C Kisner, Sandra Lucatelli , Giuliano & Sharon 103 Grove Rd 104 Grove Rd 106 Grove PI Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Oehler, Ronald Wheeler, Mark B & Ellen R je ccL,/ S ✓ASO- ^ 1487 Trumansburg Rd 102 Woolf Ln _ V Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 3DO Carroll. Donn K Catholic Cemetery Immaculate City of Ithaca 651 Five Mile Dr Concep Church 108 E Green St Ithaca, NY 14850 113 N Geneva St Ithaca, NY 14850 4 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca City School District Attn : Jenks , Theo Mallsion , Melanie Claire Business Manager 655 Five Mile Dr 658 Five Mile Dr 400 Lake St Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Pennsylvania Lines LLC Norfolk People of State of New York Shipman , Edward J & Brigid Southern Rail Cc Commissioner of Parks & Rec 681 Five Mile Dr 110 Franklin Road SE Agency Bldg#1 Emp St Plaz Ithaca, NY 14850 Roanoke, VA 240420028 Albany, NY 12238 Snyder, Alice M State Of New York Terpening , Timothy T 662 Five Mile Dr Finger Lakes Park 1524 Slaterville Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Trumansburg , NY 14886 Ithaca, NY 14850 Town of Ithaca Wright , Stacy 215 N Tioga St 6045 Stillwell Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Trumansburg , NY 14886 Bertoia, Roberto & Lynn M Chen , Kui & Zheng , Jinmei Driscoll , Jennifer S & Daniel 143 Whitetail Dr 147 Whitetail Dr 14 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Exposite , Ernest C/O Exposite , Francis Family Trust Garcia, David Hastings , Victoria Michele 155 Whitetail Dr 153 Whitetail Dr 873 Coddington Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Gerding , William & Andrea Heritage Park Townhouses Hodges, Kenneth & Kristine 146 Whitetail Dr 680 Ridge Rd 16 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Lansing , NY 14882 Ithaca, NY 14850 Hsu , Tony Hsin-Tao Ching-Chi Fang , Iles , David & Amy Lucarelli , C & Arellano, M Jenny 148 Whitetail Dr 145 Whitetail Dr 152 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Massicci, Michael & Jolie Massicci , Peter & Nancy McCullough , Laura F 12 Saunders Rd 18 Saunders Rd 149 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 001inari , F & Barseghyan , L Muscente , Paul & Maria Petrillose , William J Jr 154 Whitetail Dr 20 Saunders Rd 22 Saunders Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Romantic, Thomas & Penny L Rosenthal , Edward & Mindy S Thompson , Mark & Bethany 10 Marcy Ct 150 Whitetail Dr 144 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850 Welton- Lair, Walter & Lisa Wise , Frank W 141 Whitetail Dr 142 Whitetail Dr Ithaca, NY 14850 Ithaca, NY 14850