Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2012-08-20 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, August 20 , 2012 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P . M . Appeal of Mathew Clark and Virginia Augusta , owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-46 A , B , C , "Yard Regulations" , Section 270- 47 " Building area" and Section 270-48 A , B and C "size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to combine two parcels and build a new structure with insufficient yard setbacks , exceeding lot coverage , and insufficient lot size located at 936A and 938 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5-7 and 18 . -5-8 , Lakefront Residential zone ( LR) . Continuation of the adjourned Appeal of Robert Harner, owner/applicant, requesting variances form the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46C "Side Yards" and Section 270-47 " Building Area " of the Town of Ithaca Code, and modification of the variance granted April 12, 1989, and modified November 15, 1989, by the Zoning Board of Appeals to be permitted to construct a second story addition located at 934B East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5-9, Lakefront Residential zone ( LR) . Appeal of Cornell University, Maria Maynard , agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 - 5 C ( 1 ) ( b) "exempt signs ", and Section 221 - 6 B ( 2) ( b) [ 1] " Regulated signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to exceed the size of an exempt sign and have two wall mounted signs located on the P&C Building at 315 Pine Tree Rd . Tax Parcel No . 62 . - 2- 1 . 121 . Appeal of Dan and Mari Mitchell , owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-62 B "Size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to subdivide a property with insufficient lot width at the street line located at Fidler Rd , Tax Parcel No . 33 . -3-2 . 2 , Low Density Residential zone ( LDR ) . Appeal of Ithaca College , Rich Couture , agent , owner requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter, 270 , Section 270- 70 " height limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate a building to exceed the height limitations of the Medium Density zone ( MDR) located at 134 Conservatory Drive , Tax Parcel No . 41 . - 1 - 30 . 2 . -2- 13 . Appeal of Marie Sirakes and Sam Trechter, owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-82 A "yard regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to demolish a garage and build an addition with the front yard set back at 137 Kendall Ave . , Tax Parcel No . 54 . -4-33 , High Density Residential zone ( HDR) . Appeal of Andrew Yale , owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270- 219 . 5 D ( 11 ) (a ) "Stream Setback" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be • permitted to build an addition within the required set back area at 1095 Taughannock Blvd . , Tax Parcel No . 21 . -2- 1 , Lakefront Residential zone ( LR) . Continuation of the adjourned Appeal of Valentina Yashchenko, owner, Gennady Yashchenko, agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 54 "Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd , Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -34 . 30, Low Density Residential . 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 : August 8 , 2012 Published : August 10 , 2012 • ZBA Resolution No 2012 -040 Area Variance, 934b East Shore Drive, TP# 18. -5 -9, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin That this Board grants the appeal of Robert Harner requesting variances from the requirements of . Chapter 270, Section 270 -46C " Side Yards" and Section 270-47 "Building Area" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a second story addition located at 934B East Shore •Dr;0• , . . Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5 -9 , Lakefront Residential zone (LR) with the following: Conditions : 1 . That the front- yard setback be no less than .5 ft and 2 . That the side - yard setbacks be no less than 3 ft on the north side and on the south side no less than 3 .5 ft and 3 . That the lot coverage not exceed 50 % and 4 . That there be no new construction within any required setback and 5 . That the loft area, including the dormer which is allowed to remain, only be used as uninhabited space so that it will meet the requirements of building codes . With the following ® Findings : That this board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community , specifically : 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve , which is to allow the existing house to remain as is, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this property has existed there for many years without any complaints about the state of the property and the deficiencies are similar to those in the neighborhood , and 3 . That while the request is substantial, being substantial encroachments into the setbacks and a substantial amount over the allowed lot coverage , nevertheless , given the small size of the lot, the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects given that there is no new construction involved and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the property in its noncompliant state , again , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin , Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None ® Motion passed unanimously . , hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by of the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York, on the day of 20 _ g 1 SEAL Town Clerk/ Date • ® ZBA Resolution No. 2012-041, SEQR Determination, Sign Variance, Cornell University, P& C Building, 315 Pine Tree Rd, TP# 62. -2 - 1 . 121, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and for the reasons stated in Part 11 of the environmental assessment form . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . I , yV� tlqe47 hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the (*& d4 AQX54&f the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York, on the ( day of 6(6 20 SEAL Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk Date ® ZBA Resolution No 2012-042, Sign Variance, Cornell University, P& C Building, 315 Pine Tree Rd, TP# 62. -24 . 121 , August 20,. 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Maria Maynard, , agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 -5 C (1)40) exempt signs" , and Section 221 - 6 B (2) (b) [ 1 ] "Regulated signs" of the Town " 6f Ithaca Code to be permitted to exceed the size of an exempt sign and have two wall, amounted signs located on the P&C Building at 315 Pine Tree Rd . Tax Parcel No . 62:-2- 1-. 121with the following: Conditions 1 . That the signs be placed and be of the size as indicated on the plans the applicant submitted to this board , and 2. That the light output be no greater than 125 % of what the applicant has stated the signs will output, but no greater than what is allowed by Town Code , and 3 . That the signs indicated to be removed are removed and the fagade returned to its proper condition . With the following : ® Findings That this board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically : 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve , which is to install new signage for a business with a new name and also to increase the visibility to the west, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the applicant is actually reducing the square footage of signage on their store , and 3 . That while the request is substantial , seeking an additional large wall sign where only one would be allowed , that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in Part 1I of the environmental assessment form , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the store and needs to change the signage, that again , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . I, � , hereb ertify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Sof the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York, on the ay of tr6 20 SEAL Town Clerk Date • ® ZBA Resolution No 2012 -043, SEAR Determination, Area Variance, Ithaca College, 134 Conservatory Drive, TP# 41 . - 1 -30.2, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information stated in Part I and for the reasons stated in the Part 1I of the environmental impact statement forms . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 20 p . m . There was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . hereb certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the ` 11 , of the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , ® New York, on the y of 20 ]� SEAL, Town Clerk/Bep tt j Date ® ZBA Resolution No 2012-044, Area Variance, Ithaca College, 134 Conservatory Drive, TP# 41 . 4 -30.2, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz That this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College , owner, Rick Couture , agent;' requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter, 270, Section 270- "70 "height ; f limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate a building to_ exceed the height limitations of the Medium Density Residential zone (MDR) located I' at 134 Conservatory Drive, Tax Parcel No . 41 . - 1 -30 . 2 with the following: Conditions 1 . That the height of the proposed new structure be no higher than 51 feet, and 2. That it be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant at this meeting and date stamped by the Town August 20, 2012 With the following: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically : Findings ® 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of enhancing the look of one of the buildings on campus , cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given its location in the central area of the Ithaca College campus and the fact that there are no other properties nearby that will be significantly impacted by any change to this location of the campus, and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being 14 feet over what is allowed, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in Part 11 of the environmental assessment form , and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created , that again , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . W Q , hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by theme (L� q&f the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , • New York, on thq� e of4t, 13`b 20 �� �SE. I ITown Clerk/RehatpmTowrreterk Date • ® ZBA Resolution No. 2012-045, Area Variance, 137 Kendall Ave, TP# 54. 4-33, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board grants the appeal of Marie Sirakes and Sam Trechter, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-82 A " yard regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to demolish a garage and build an addition within the front yard setback at 137 Kendall Ave . , Tax Parcel No . 54 . 4-33 , High Density Residential zone ' (HDR) with the following: . . Conditions f 1 . That the front yard setback be no less than 9 feet, and - 2. That the new structure be built no further towards the street or westerly lot line than the existing footprint and no further east than the existing side of the house, and 3 . That the structure be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, and 4 . That the roof be no higher than the highest point of the existing roof, and 5 . That the residence remain as a two-family structure With the following ® Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community , specifically : 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the slope of the property makes it difficult to add space to the upper level in a cost effective way as well as the fact that the applicant could technically renovate the garage to add living space without requiring a variance , but the applicant simply wishes to demolish and rebuild, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the fact that other houses nearby have similar setbacks and being a replacement of an existing structure , the footprint is not increasing substantially , just the use of the structure, and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being approximately 10 feet proposed where 25 feet is required , that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community and is mitigated by the fact that neighboring houses have similar setbacks, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None ® Motion passed unanimously . • I, ill k Rr , here y certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the f the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York, on the &day of Oj 5+ 20 a SEAL Town Clerk/Depntyw =vrr —lerk Date • ® ZBA Resolution No. 2012-047, Use Variance, 120 Drew Rd, TP# 28. - 1 -34.30, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin That this Board denies the appeal of Valentina Yashchenko , owner, Gennady Yashchenko , agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-54 "Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd , Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -34 .30 , Low Density Residential with the Findings That the applicant has not demonstrated unnecessary hardship, specifically : 1 . That the applicant has not shown that they cannot realize a reasonable return from the property as shown by competent financial evidence for every permitted use, and 2. That the alleged hardship is not unique and in fact could apply to any number of people building new homes and wishing to store materials and tools in sheds while the home is being built, and 3 . That the alleged hardship has been self-created by the applicant ' s purchase of the property and installation of the sheds before the permitted principal use is completed . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin , King and Rosen . Nays — Fogarty Abstention — Krantz Motion passed with one abstention, alternate voting resulting in a 4 to 1 decision in favor of denying the appeal . I, 1"I Yk � , hereb certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted b the f of the Town of Ithaca Tompkins Count P Y P Y , New York, on th ay of J1 . 20 SEAL _ To n Clerk/ y Date ® ZBA Resolution No. 2012-048, Area Variance, Fidler Road , TP# 33 . -3 -2.2, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz That this Board grants the appeal of Dan and Mari Mitchell , owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-62 B " Size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to subdivide a property with insufficient lot width at the street line located at Fidler Rd , Tax Parcel No . 33 . -3 -2 .2, Low Density Residential zone (LDR) with the following: Conditions 1 . That the width at the street line be no less than 60 feet with the following: Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically : 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of creating a legal , ® buildable lot, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that this is the only location they could appear to abut the road , and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property is substantially larger than required for the zone and is well setback from most visible areas and public right-of-way so the insufficient road frontage will not be significant, 3 . That the request is substantial , being a reduction from 100 to approximately 65 , but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to health , safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects given that all other aspects of the house will need to comply with the required setbacks and such, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created that again , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . 1; L It 1 \ , hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Is, of the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York, on the day of b 0 g ® "SEAL-. _ Town Clerk/ Help k Date ® ZBA Resolution No. 2012 -039 Area Variance, 936a and 938 East Shore Drive, TP# 18. -5 -7 and 18. -5 -8, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz Grant the appeal of Mathew Clark and Virginia Augusta, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46 A, B , C, "Yard Regulations", Section 270-47 "Building area" and Section 270-48 A, B and C "size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to combine two parcels and build a new structure with insufficient yard setbacks, exceeding lot coverage, and insufficient lot size located at 936A and 938 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . 18 . -577 and 18 . -5 -8, Lakefront Residential zone (LR) with the following Conditions : 1 . That the home be built substantially as indicated on the sketches provided by hel;:;-,,. applicant to this board at tonight ' s meeting and 2. That the area of the lot be no less than 2400 sq ft and 3 . That the lot width be no less than 41 ft and r - 4 . That the lot depth be no less than 57 ft and 5 . That the rear- yard setback be no less than 14.5 ft and 6 . That the front- yard setback be no less than .5 ft and ® 7 . That the side- yard setbacks be no less than 5 .5 ft and 8 . That the lot coverage not exceed 49 % With the following Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community , specifically : 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve by combining two very small lots into one lot and building a single one-family home on that lot, that while it could be built smaller than what is proposed to be more compliant, that nevertheless , what they have proposed is reasonable to meet their goals and is probably the only feasible option for the applicant, and 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the current very deficient setbacks are being improved , the lot coverage is being reduced and the size of the lot is being increased and in all those aspects, that creates a positive change in the neighborhood and similar deficiencies currently exist in terms of setbacks and lot size in the neighborhood , and 3 . That while the request is substantial , many of the requested variances are reducing ® by more than half of the required setbacks , nevertheless the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical of environmental effects and • will in fact improve the physical and environmental situation on the lot given that at least one of the current buildings is condemned, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the property in its current state, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously . herpby certify that the above is a true copy of a resolution adopted by th , of the Town of Ithaca Tompkins County , New York, on the da of Att LYA 20 L - SEAL Town Clerk =lerk Date TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SI&WIN SHEET DATE : August 20 , 2012 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS / AFFILIATION Sar,o%% Tar' (2- r � cjc (A, G r1 ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES Monday, August 20, 2012 Present : Kirk Sigel , Chair; Ron Krantz, Bill King, David Mountin and Rob Rosen Alternate Yvonne Fogarty Absent : Andrew Dixon Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Lori Koiford, Deputy Town Clerk and Paulette Terwilliger, Town Clerk Chairman Sigel opened the meeting at 7 : 08 p . m . Appeal of Mathew Clark and Virginia Augusta, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46 A, B , C, "Yard Regulations", Section 270-47 "Building area" and Section 270-48 A, B and C "size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to combine two parcels and build a new structure with insufficient yard setbacks , exceeding lot coverage , and insufficient lot size located at 936A and 938 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No . 18 . - 5 -7 and 18 . - 5 - 8 , Lakefront Residential zone (LR) . Mr. Clark and Ms . Augusta were present Ms . Augusta gave an overview of the issue explaining that they are a family of 5 and want to combine both small lots and build a home for themselves that is similar to the neighborhood . They have lived in Ithaca area for 20 years and have renovated other residences and landmark properties . Mr. Sigel agreed that it would be an improvement and asked if other board members had any initial questions . The board discussed the height of the proposed house and its possible impact on neighbors . The applicants noted that there are a lot of trees blocking any potential view right now and the one house across the street is a rental . Mr. Sigel also noted that it is a conforming height but is somewhat high compared to the neighboring houses . Mr. Sigel asked if they had spoken to their neighbors and Ms . Augusta stated that they have spoken only to their immediate neighbors because they didn ' t want to invest more time and effort in this proposal until after this meeting. Ms . Terwilliger noted that notice of this appeal was sent to the owner of the rental as well as all neighbors . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 17 p . m . Mr. Harper addressed the board as a neighbor of the applicants and stated that they have done a lot already to help to clean up the eyesore and in his opinion , there is only the one small house with windows that are not conducive to looking at the view anyway. There was no one else wishing to address the board on this appeal and the public hearing was closed at 7 : 21 p . m . Mr. Sigel brought the matter back to the board and discussion focused on the sketch plans of the ® house as submitted and whether there was enough detail for Mr. Bates to enforce conditions on ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 2 of 15 what the board was ruling on tonight. Mr. Bates said if there were particulars such as no dormers or a flat roof that the board wished to impose, they should indicate that and if the applicants • changed the plan to include that type of substantial change, they would have to come back to the board for approval . Mr. Sigel said he would be concerned about basic roof lines, enclosing the back porch etc. and he would like to condition the approval on what was presented . Ms . Augusta said the plans submitted are conceptually what they are planning, Victorian stick built . Mr. Sigel asked Mr. Bates if the plans were sufficient and Mr. Bates responded that as far as dormers and roof lines but an enclosed deck would be a significant change. Mr. Sigel agreed . ZBA Resolution No. 2012-039 Area Variance, 936a and 938 East Shore Drive, TP# 18.-5-7 and 18.-5-8, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz Grant the appeal of Mathew Clark and Virginia Augusta, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-46 A, B , C , "Yard Regulations", Section 270-47 "Building area" and Section 270-48 Al B and C "size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to combine two parcels and build a new structure with insufficient yard setbacks, exceeding lot coverage, and insufficient lot size located at 936A and 938 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5 - 7 and 18 . -5 - 8 , Lakefront Residential zone (LR) with the following Conditions : 1 . That the home be built substantially as indicated on the sketches provided by the applicant to this board at tonight ' s meeting and 2 . That the area of the lot be no less than 2400 sq ft and 3 . That the lot width be no less than 41 ft and 4 . That the lot depth be no less than 57 ft and 5 . That the rear-yard setback be no less than 14 . 5 ft and 6 . That the front-yard setback be no less than . 5 ft and 7 . That the side-yard setbacks be no less than 5 . 5 ft and 8 . That the lot coverage not exceed 49 % With the following Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve by combining two very small lots into one lot and building a single one-family home on that lot, that while it could be built smaller than what is proposed to be more compliant, that nevertheless , what they have proposed is reasonable to meet their goals and is probably the only feasible option for the applicant, and • ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 3 of 15 ® 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the current very deficient setbacks are being improved, the lot coverage is being reduced and the size of the lot is being increased and in all those aspects , that creates a positive change in the neighborhood and similar deficiencies currently exist in terms of setbacks and lot size in the neighborhood, and 3 . That while the request is substantial , many of the requested variances are reducing by more than half of the required setbacks , nevertheless the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical of environmental effects and will in fact improve the physical and environmental situation on the lot given that at least one of the current buildings is condemned, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the property in its current state, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Continuation of the adjourned Appeal of Robert Harper, owner/applicant, requesting variances form the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46C "Side Yards" and Section 270- 47 "Building Area" of the Town of Ithaca Code, and modification of the variance granted April 12 , 1989 , and modified November 15 , 19895 by the Zoning Board of Appeals to be permitted to ® construct a second story addition located at 934B East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No . 18 . - 5 -9 , Lakefront Residential zone (LR) . Mr. Sigel reminded the board that this appeal was adjourned from the last meeting to consider leaving the residence as is and granting the variances needed to obtain a certificate of occupancy as it is . Mr. Hamer was present and reiterated that he would prefer to leave the residence as is and not convert the loft to habitable space if he could obtain a certificate of occupancy as it is . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 34 p . m. Ms . Augusta addressed the board stating that as his next door neighbor, they were in favor of either option . Mr. Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 35 p . m . Discussion on how to treat the application and Ms . Brock noted that due to the change of circumstances it would be treated as a new application. The changed circumstance is that the neighboring property is now different and therefore this is a new application. ZBA Resolution No . 2012-040 Area Variance, 934b East Shore Drive, TP# 18.-5-9, August ® 2042012 ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 4 of 15 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin • That this Board grants the appeal of Robert Hamer requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-46C " Side Yards" and Section 270-47 "Building Area" of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a second story addition located at 934B East Shore Dr, Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5 -9 , Lakefront Residential zone (LR) with the following : Conditions : 1 . That the front-yard setback be no less than . 5 ft and 2 . That the side-yard setbacks be no less than 3 ft on the north side and on the south side no less than 3 . 5 ft and 3 . That the lot coverage not exceed 50% and 4 . That there be no new construction within any required setback and 5 . That the loft area, including the dormer which is allowed to remain, only be used as uninhabited space so that it will meet the requirements of building codes . With the following Findings : That this board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to allow the existing house to remain as is, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that this property has existed there for many years without any complaints about the state of the property and the deficiencies are similar to those in the neighborhood , and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being substantial encroachments into the setbacks and a substantial amount over the allowed lot coverage, nevertheless, given the small size of the lot, the benefit does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects given that there is no new construction involved and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the property in its noncompliant state, again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 5 of 15 ® Appeal of Cornell University, Maria Maynard, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 - 5 C ( 1 ) (b) "exempt signs", and Section 221 - 6 B (2 ) (b) [ 1 ] "Regulated signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to exceed the size of an exempt sign and have two wall mounted signs located on the P&C Building at 315 Pine Tree Rd . Tax Parcel No . 62 . -2 - 1 . 121 . Maria Maynard, Agent and Greg Young and another gentleman were available for questions . Ms . Maynard reviewed the proposal stating that they are replacing old, outdated signage with new , contemporary signs . Mr. Sigel noted that they are actually reducing the number of signs and he had no problem with the proposal . The board agreed and discussion turned to the exact details of the signs and what the variance(s) being sought were given the size and placement of the signs and our sign law . Some of the signs were exempt at their initial placement, but now are not . Ms . Brock discussed the former code officer ' s reasoning for exemption(s) and suggested that the board consider the variance for both the size and 2 wall signs where they are requesting more than one. That would avoid any confusion in the future regarding exemptions and precedent for setting them . ZBA Resolution No. 2012-041 , SEAR Determination, Sign Variance, Cornell University, P& C Building, 315 Pine Tree Rd, TP# 62 .-2- 1 . 121 , August 20, 2012 ® Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in Part I and for the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 00 p . m . , there was no one wishing to address the board on this appeal and the hearing was closed at 8 : 01 p .m . ZBA Resolution No 2012-042 , Sign Variance, Cornell University, P& C Building, 315 Pine Tree Rd, TP# 62 .-2- 1 . 121 , August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board grants the appeal of Cornell University, Maria Maynard, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221 , Section 221 - 5 C ( 1 ) (b) "exempt signs", and Section 221 - 6 B (2 ) (b) [ 1 ] "Regulated signs" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to exceed the size of an exempt sign and have two wall mounted signs located on the P&C Building at 315 Pine Tree Rd . Tax Parcel No . 62 . -2 - 1 . 121 with the following : ® Conditions ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 6 of 15 1 . That the signs be placed and be of the size as indicated on the plans the applicant • submitted to this board , and 2 . That the light output be no greater than 125 % of what the applicant has stated the signs will output, but no greater than what is allowed by Town Code, and 3 . That the signs indicated to be removed are removed and the facade returned to its proper condition. With the following: Findings That this board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to install new signage for a business with a new name and also to increase the visibility to the west, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the applicant is actually reducing the square footage of signage on their store, and 3 . That while the request is substantial , seeking an additional large wall sign where only one would be allowed, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created in that the applicant purchased the store and needs to change the signage, that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen. Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Mitchell appeal moved to end . Appeal of Ithaca College, Rick Couture, agent, owner requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter, 270, Section 270- 70 "height limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate a building to exceed the height limitations of the Medium Density zone (MDR) located at 134 Conservatory Drive, Tax Parcel No . 41 . - 1 -30 . 2 . Rick Couture, Associate Vice President of Ithaca College was available for questions . Mr. Couture explained that they hope to start a renovation project of the Hill Center Building, which houses the IC Basketball arena, classrooms and administrative offices . Part of the proposal is a glass-enclosed staircase on the north side of the building which will help with circulation within the building and also . be a nice architectural design. The staircase would exceed the height limitations so we are asking for a variance to allow the staircase . ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 7 of 15 ® Mr. Sigel stated that it is a modest sized addition but noted that they allude to doing this in other places and Mr. Couture responded that they are trying to make their buildings more welcoming and as they address each building and make them more inviting, this may be an architectural detail that might be included . Mr. Sigel noted that any approval for this building would not carry to other proposed renovations in the future . Mr. Couture stated that he understood that . The board agreed that it is a small request and attractive and fits in very nicely with the surroundings and the slope. The height of the structure is approximately 7 feet higher than the existing building. The SEQR form was discussed and changes were suggested by Ms . Brock and approved by the Board . ZBA Resolution No 2012-043 , SEAR Determination, Area Variance, Ithaca College, 134 Conservatory Drive, TP# 41 .- 1 -30.2, Ausust 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information stated in Part I and for the reasons stated in the Part Il of the environmental impact statement forms . ® Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen. Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 20 p .m . There was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz , King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. ZBA Resolution No 2012-044, Area Variance, Ithaca College, 134 Conservatory Drive, TP# 41 .4 -30.2 , August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz That this board grants the appeal of Ithaca College, owner, Rick Couture, agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter, 270 , Section 270- 70 "height limitations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to renovate a building to exceed the height limitations of the Medium Density Residential zone (MDR) located at 134 Conservatory Drive, Tax Parcel No . 41 . - 1 -30 . 2 with the following : Conditions ® 1 . That the height of the proposed new structure be no higher than 51 feet, and ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 8 of 15 2 . That it be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant at this • meeting and date stamped by the Town August 20 , 2012 With the following : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: Findings 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of enhancing the look of one of the buildings on campus , cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given its location in the central area of the Ithaca College campus and the fact that there are no other properties nearby that will be significantly impacted by any change to this location of the campus , and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being 14 feet over what is allowed, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons stated in Part II of the environmental assessment form, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen. Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Appeal of Marie Sirakes and Sam Trechter, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 82 A "yard regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to demolish a garage and build an addition with the front yard set back at 137 Kendall Ave. , Tax Parcel No . 54 . 4-33 , High Density Residential zone (HDR) . Mr. Trechter explained that they bought the property because they could rent the lower half to a cousin to help with costs but that left them with only one bedroom for themselves and they would like to demolish the garage and build a two -bedroom addition in its place to accommodate a growing family. The footprint would remain the same and aesthetically it will look better. The Board discussed the slope of the lot and other options for additional living space, but anywhere else would affect setbacks, views and play yard area more. The Board felt that the neighborhood look is the same and there will be no detriment to the area. The applicant assured the board that the roof height will be the same . There is a slight jog in the house and the new addition will shift slightly from the footprint only to line the roofs up . The applicant noted that he would be allowed to remodel the garage, but by demolishing he needs a variance. Mr. Bates explained that the existing garage is an existing non-conformity so by demolishing it, he is removing the variance attached to the garage and has to get a new one to allow for the setbacks . ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 9 of 15 ® Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 29 p . m . There was no one wishing to speak and the hearing was closed . ZBA Resolution No. 2012-045, Area Variance, 137 Kendall Ave, TP# 54 .4-33, August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen That this Board grants the appeal of Marie Sirakes and Sam Trechter, owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 82 A "yard regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to demolish a garage and build an addition within the front yard setback at 137 Kendall Ave . , Tax Parcel No . 54 . 4-33 , High Density Residential zone (HDR) with the following : Conditions 1 . That the front yard setback be no less than 9 feet, and 2 . That the new structure be built no further towards the street or westerly lot line than the existing footprint and no further east than the existing side of the house, and 3 . That the structure be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant, and 4 . That the roof be no higher than the highest point of the existing roof, and 5 . That the residence remain as a two- family structure ® With the following Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that the slope of the property makes it difficult to add space to the upper level in a cost effective way as well as the fact that the applicant could technically renovate the garage to add living space without requiring a variance, but the applicant simply wishes to demolish and rebuild, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given the fact that other houses nearby have similar setbacks and being a replacement of an existing structure, the footprint is not increasing substantially, just the use of the structure, and 3 . That while the request is substantial , being approximately 10 feet proposed where 25 feet is required, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community and is mitigated by the fact that neighboring houses have similar setbacks , and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 10 of 15 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Appeal of Andrew Yale, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 219 . 5 D ( 11 ) (a) "Stream Setback" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to build an addition within the required set back area at 1095 Taughannock Blvd . , Tax Parcel No . 21 . -2 - 1 , Lakefront Residential zone (LR) . Mr. Yale explained that they just moved into the house and then 3 weeks after the stream setback law went into effect they submitted their plans for renovations needed to accommodate a wheelchair for his wife and they were told they needed a variance. The interior renovations are complete and they lost a lot of space due to those and they are proposing adding a 16 ' x 18 ' of living space along the creek- side of their house. They had to increase hallway space and install a wheelchair lift and they really need the additional space. He added that they propose a number of mitigations and brought their architects to answer any questions . There will be a net gain in pervious surface and an infiltration trench as well as plantings to help with erosion control . They also submitted letters from neighbors who are in favor of the variance. Mr. Sigel thought the proposal was reasonable given the options . Mr. Krantz added that he felt it was reasonable given the circumstances for the need and it is a family property that goes back many, many years . Mr. Rosen agreed that it seemed very reasonable given the circumstances and the encroachment of roughly 5 ' feet is not substantial . Mr. Mountin asked about the excavation that would be needed and noted thkit would be very important to have close oversight because there have been instances of excavator operators going gung-ho and making a big mess and this is in a critical area. Mr. Yale assured the board that he lives there and will be their every day overseeing the work and they have hired George VanValen to do the work and he has an excellent reputation . Michele Palmer, their architect, added that it is a slab on grade, not a basement so that will also limit the disturbance . Mr. Bates noting that engineering would also be looking at their plan for erosion and sediment control . Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 47 p . m . Ms . Yale-Myer, a next-door neighbor to the east and part of the family group of parcels spoke in favor of the variance and added that the whole family and neighboring lot owners are very partial to the creek and will ensure that it is done correctly. There was no one else wishing to address the board and the public hearing was closed . Mr. Sigel reviewed a letter written by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council which seems to oppose the variance on principal since the law is supposed to protect the streams and not allow encroachments . The County GML letter recommends a 50 ' buffer so a super-majority will be needed for the 41 ' buffer. ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 11 of 15 ® The increase in impervious surface is in the setback, but the increase in pervious surface is on the same slope and in the same watershed . Mr. Bates read a portion of the stream setback law and the guidelines for granting a variance, one of which is submitting a mitigation plan, which the applicants have done and if the board feels the mitigations are enough, they can grant the variance. ZBA Resolution No. 2012-046, Area Variance, 1095 Tau2hannock Blvd, TP# 21 .-2- 11 August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by That this Board grants the appeal of Andrew Yale, owner, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 219 . 5 D ( 11 ) (a) "Stream Setback" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to build an addition within the required set back area at 1095 Taughannock Blvd . , Tax Parcel No . 21 . -2 - 1 , Lakefront Residential zone ( LR) with the following: Conditions 1 . That the addition be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant and 2 . That all other parts of the applicant ' s proposal including sedimentation control and all ® other mitigation proposals to convert impervious surface to pervious surface also be a condition of this variance, and 3 . That the setback will be no less than 40 feet from the closest part of the addition to the edge of the stream , with the following : Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given the applicant ' s testimony as to their needs for single level expansion given the applicant ' s handicap needs and also the general layout of the site limits the applicant ' s ability to put an addition on other portions of the house, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that it is a relatively modest addition to the road-side of the house and will not be readily visible from the road and will not obstruct anyone ' s view of the lake, and, 3 . That while the request is substantial as it is a significant encroachment into the required stream setback, that nevertheless that is mitigated by the extensive erosion and ® environmental procedures that the applicant proposes, and ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 12 of 15 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects for the reasons already stated above and their proposed sedimentation and erosion control plan will minimize any effects on the stream, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created by the applicant ' s desire to add this addition, that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community, and 6 . Specific to the stream setback buffer variance, this board finds that the applicant has provided a sufficient mitigation plan that will offset the proposed encroachment into the required stream setback . Vote : Ayes - Sigel, Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Continuation of the adjourned Appeal of Valentina Yashchenko, owner, Gennady Yashchenko , agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-54 "Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 - 34 . 30, Low Density Residential . Mr. Yashchenko stated that he purchased the property and is building a house and he is using the sheds to store building equipment during that process . He lives in Cortland and a storage unit would cost $ 75 a month plus the added time to go there before and after each time he works on the house and an enclosed trailer is $ 3 , 000 which he is not willing to do . He stated that there are r sheds on the neighboring properties . Mr. Sigel asked him how long he anticipated it would be before the house would be up and enclosed. Mr. Yahschenko responded that he would have the basement done in the next 2 weeks but did not think he would have the shell by the end of this year but a year seems reasonable. Mr. Sigel asked Mr. Bates what would happen if the sheds were placed on the basement footprint. Mr. Bates asked if that would be considered a use for the house and if so he would not have a certificate of occupancy. He added that the reason he has the sheds there now is because they did not require a building permit due to their size but if the house was there they would be considered accessory structures . Mr. Bates understood what Mr. Sigel was asking but thought that it would be pushing to the extreme. Mr. Yahschenko stated that he could move the tools into the basement once it was finished , but he would still have to destroy the sheds which he spent money building and once the structure is up they will be legal . Mr. Bates gave the history of this appeal noting that this process started well before the sheds were built and has been going on for well over a year. The appeal was adjourned to allow the applicant to submit more information that is necessary for a use variance . Mr. Sigel explained the difference for a use variance and how hard it is to meet the criteria, which he read for Mr. Yashchenko ' s benefit . Mr. Yashchenko stated that he would not buy a trailer and register it that would cost him over $ 3 ,000 and Mr. Sigel agreed that there is a cost to working around the need for a variance such as buying a trailer or using a storage shed, but there are the other criteria that • ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 13 of 15 ® all have to be met. The alleged difficulty is not unique, it is self created, etc and obviously you can argue some of these points more than others , and although I am sympathetic to your situation, it does not meet the criteria for a use variance . Mr. Rosen asked about the camper and living in that and whether that was why it was adjourned . Ms . Brock stated that the adjournment was made for the applicant to submit additional information in support of his application for a use variance such as costs . The applicant submitted website quotes for storage units in the area and 3 pictures of sheds in neighboring yards . Mr. Mountin noted that you can rent a temporary storage trailer and discussion followed on the definition of temporary and our code is silent on that so it is not allowed . A trailer on wheels is not a structure . Discussion continued, with Mr. Yashchenko arguing that the principal structure could be the shell with the accessory sheds in the back and Mr. Mountin noted that at the last meeting he said the shell would be up by this meeting. Mr. Yashchenko disagreed but said he would have the basement done in two weeks , give or take . Mr. Rosen asked what the neighbors think and asked Mr. Bates if he had received phone calls about the property. The caller did not want to put a complaint in writing. Basically it was about the slow pace of construction and erosion and sedimentation issues as well as parties on the property. The only issue the Board has authority over is the sheds and callers have asked why this applicant is being allowed to use this property as they are such as the camper and the sheds beyond what is allowed by code . He is only non- compliant with having the accessory structures ® on the parcel ; that was the original complaint which was followed by other complaints regarding campers, bonfires , etc . Those are enforced by other departments or entities . Mr. Sigel agreed and read from the code in that zone and the permitted principle uses . He stated that while it may seem to be a fairly minor issue, nonetheless , it is a use variance and is a very difficult variance to grant . This is maybe something the Town Board should address and he felt that it would make sense to have some kind of leeway, but the code is the code as it stands right now . This hardship is encountered by anybody building a house so it is not unique, the character is not really changed, the financial hardship threshold is not met because it is defined as a reasonable return on the property and the hardship is self-created . The board agreed that although it seems like a reasonable request, their hands are tied due to the fact that it is a use variance and does not meet the criteria. Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 9 : 35 p . m . There was no one wishing to address the board and the hearing was closed . Mr. Yashchenko asked if he could have a month to move the materials into the basement and Mr. Sigel noted that that would be up to Codes and Mr. Bates stated that the code gives 14 days . Mr. Sigel thought that if Codes saw that he was making significant progress towards compliance, there might be some leeway given, but there is nothing the Zoning Board can do . ZBA Resolution No. 2012-047, Use Variance, 120 Drew Rd, TP# 28.- 1 -34.30, August 20, ® 2012 ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 14 of 15 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Dave Mountin • That this Board denies the appeal of Valentina Yashchenko , owner, Gennady Yashchenko , agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 54 "Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No . 28 . - 1 -34 . 30, Low Density Residential with the Findings That the applicant has not demonstrated unnecessary hardship, specifically: 1 . That the applicant has not shown that they cannot realize a reasonable return from the property as shown by competent financial evidence for every permitted use, and 2 . That the alleged hardship is not unique and in fact could apply to any number of people building new homes and wishing to store materials and tools in sheds while the home is being built, and 3 . That the alleged hardship has been self-created by the applicant ' s purchase of the property and installation of the sheds before the permitted principal use is completed . Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, King and Rosen . Nays — Fogarty Abstention — Krantz Motion passed with one abstention, alternate voting resulting in a 4 to 1 decision in favor of denying the appeal . Appeal of Dan and Mari Mitchell , owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270 -62 B "Size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to subdivide a property with insufficient lot width at the street line located at Fidler Rd, Tax Parcel No . 33 . - 3 -2 . 2 , Low Density Residential zone (LDR) . Mr. Bates explained that Mr. Mitchell is basically dividing a section of his property off to build his home on so it is not tied to his business and he needs road frontage to do so and the portion off of Fidler Road is his frontage and it will be a very long driveway, but satisfy the requirement. Mr. Sigel opened the public hearing at 9 : 52 p . m . There was no one present to address the Board and the hearing was closed . ZBA Resolution No . 2012-048, Area Variance, Fidler Road, TP# 33 .-3-2 .2 , August 20, 2012 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ron Krantz That this Board grants the appeal of Dan and Mari Mitchell , owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-62 B "Size and area of lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to subdivide a property with insufficient lot width at the street line located at Fidler Rd, Tax Parcel No . 33 . -3 -2 . 2 , Low Density Residential zone (LDR) with the following: ZBA 8/20/2012 Page 15 of 15 ® Conditions 1 . That the width at the street line be no less than 60 feet with the following : Findings That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of creating a legal , buildable lot, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that this is the only location they could appear to abut the road, and 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property is substantially larger than required for the zone and is well setback from most visible areas and public right-of-way so the insufficient road frontage will not be significant, 3 . That the request is substantial , being a reduction from 100 to approximately 65 , but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community, and 4 . That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects given that all other aspects of the house will need to comply with the required setbacks and such, and 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created that again, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health safety and welfare of the community. Vote : Ayes - Sigel , Mountin, Krantz, King and Rosen . Nays — None Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 9 : 55 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chai Submitted by Paulette Terwilliger Friday,-August 10, 2012 THE ITHACA JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA 1 _ ZONING BOARD - I OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC , HEARINGS Mondey, August 20, 2012 215 North Tioga Street, . . Ithaca 7:00 P.M. i Appeal of Mathew Clark and Virginia Augusta, ovin- ' er, requesting variances 1 from .the requirements of I Chapter 270, Section 270- ' 46 A, B, C, "Yard Regula- tions", Section 270-47 i 'Building area" and Section 1 270-48 A, B and C "size) and area of lot" of the Town; ^ -------- I of Ithaca Code to be per- ', 'height limitations' of the I .mitted to combine two par- 1 . Town of Ithaca Code to be I cels and build a new struc- i ' permitted to renovate a ture with insufficient -yard building to exceed the I I setbacks, exceeding lot height limitations of r the i coverage , and insufficient Medium Density zone lot size located at 936A l (MDR) located at 134 Con- and 938 East Shore Drive. I1 servatory Drive, Tax Parcel Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-7 and No. 41 .-I -30,2:2- 13. 18.-5=8, Lakefront , Residen- , Appeal of Marie Shakes 1` 1 tial zone (LR). and Sam Trechter, owners.. ! Continuation 'of the ad-� requesting variances from joumed Appeal of Robert the requirements of Chap- Hamer, owner/applicant,( ter 270. Section 270-82 A '. requesting variances form, *yard regulations' of the the ' requirements of Chap-i ( Town of Ithaca Code to be ter 270, Section 270-46C permitted to demolish a ga- 'Side Yards' and Section I rage and build an addition 270-47 "Building Area" of 1 with the front yard set back i the Town of Ithaca Code! at 137 Kendall Ave., Tax and modification of the vary parcel No. 54.4-33, High I iance granted April 12Density Residential zone 1 1 1969, and modified Novem I (HDR). ' .I bar 15, 1989, by the Zoni Appeal of Andrew Yale, i ing Board of Appeals to be I owner, requesting varian- permitted to construct a ces from the requirements second story addition local i of Chapter 270. Section ed at 934B East Shore Dr.f 270- 219.5 D (11 ) (a) Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-9,1 •Stream Setback' of the ; Lakefront Residential zone Town of Ithaca Code to be Appeal of Cornell Universipermitted to build an addi- tion within the required set I ty, Maria Maynard, agent, back area at 1095 requesting variances from, Taughannock Blvd., Tax the requirements of Chap- . parcel No. 21 .-2-11 ter 221 , Section 221 -5 CLakefront Residential zone ' (1 ) (b) "exempt signs". and (LR). �( Section 221 - 6 B (2) (b) 1 I I Continuation of the ad- 'Regulated signs" of the 1 journed Appeal of Valentina Town of Ithaca Code to be Yashchenko, owner, + permitted to exceed the .. Gennady. Yashchenko, � size of an exempt sign and agent, requesting a var- have two wall mountedi iance from the require- signs located on the PBC( ments of Chapter 270, I Building at 315 Pine Tree, , Section 270-54 'Permitted Rd. Tax Parcel No. 62.-2- 1 Principal Uses" of the Town 1 . 121 . I of Ithaca Code to be .per- i 1 Appeal of Dan and Mari mitted to use two sheds as Mitchell, owners, request- the primary building on the ing variances from the re- i lot until a home is con- 1 quirements of Chapter 270, structed located at 1201 Section 270-62 B "Size and Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No. area of lot' of the .Town of 1 28.-1-34.30, Low Density .I Ithaca Code to be permit- I Residential. 1 ted to subdivide a property (Assistance will be provided with insufficient lot width' at for individuals with special ine ' the street llocated i at needs, upon request. Re- ' Fidler Rd, Tax Parcel No. I quests should be made not 133.-3-2.2. Low Density ) less than 48 hours prior to 1 Residential zone (LDR). ! the public hearings. 1 Appeal of Ithaca College. Bruce W. Bates Rich Couture, agent, owner Director of Code requesting variances from r Enforcement the requirements of Chap-1 607-273-1783 j ter, 270, Section 270 70' Dated: August 8, 2012 8/ 10/2012 '