HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (2)
Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 25.-2-25
869 Taughannock Blvd
Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 869 Taughannock Blvd 25.-2-25
with no subdivision or readdressing.
History:
1998 – Area Variance for addition - Approved
1993 – Area Variance for deck expansion - Approved
1984 – Area Variance for addition - Approved
FINAL FtL®
TOWN
OF ITHACA
,,
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS q 14�
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998 aerilTh k-1n1-Cord
7:00 P.M.
• The following appeals were heard the Board as follows:
APPEAL of Lee W. Schruben, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zooning Board of Appeals
under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non-
conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25, Residence
District R-15. Said enlargement consists of a modification to an existing single-family home with the addition of
new first and second story space. Said building/lot is non-conforming, in part, as the house is currently ovr the
south side yard property line (15 foot setback required) and 9 +/- feet from the north side lot line. A building
height variance under Article IV, Section I I , Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also'te required as said
proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48 +/- feet(36 foot height limitation).
APPEAL GRANTED
APPEAL fo Cornell University, Owner/Appellent, Ann Shumate, Agent, requesting modificatio of a previously
granted Special Approval from April 19, 1989, under Article III, Section 4, Subparagraph 3(b), of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy graduate student housing units by persons of post graduate
and graduate student age and above, who are short-term university affiliated visitors and participants, located at
Maplewood Park, 201 Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63-2-1, -2, -3, - 10.2, and -14,
Residence District R-9.
APPEAL GRANTED
APPEAL of the Paleontological Research Institute, Appellant, Warren Allmon and Anton Egner, RA, Agents,
requesting a modification of a previously granted Special Approval from February 12, 1997, under Article V,
Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to alter site plans and floor plans in
conjunction with a recent 6,000 +/- square foot building additiion at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 24-3-3. 1 , Residence District R-30. Said modifications include interior wall partitions, handicap
accessibility provisions, and automobile parking spaces.
• APPEAL GRANTED
APPEAL of the Montessori School, Owner/Appellant, Andrea Riddle and Peter Demjanec, RA, Agents,
requesting variances from Section 4.01(a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to have a 20 square
foot freestanding sign at the main school building (4 Square feet maximum allowed) and a 10.5 square foot
freestanding sign at the annex building (4 square feet maximum allowed) at 120 and 117 East King Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 43-1-3.5 and 43-2-7, Residence District R-15.
(Main Building) APPEAL GRANTED
(Annex) APPEAL DENIED
b
FINAL FLED
toNal [Ma
� Iglga _
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS -
WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 1998
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman David Stotz, Harry Ellsworth, Ronald Krantz,James Niefer, Kirk Sigel, Andrew Frost, Director
of Building and Zoning,John Barney, Attorney of the Town, Christine Balestra, Planner.
OTHERS: Ann Shumate, Shirley Egan, Anton Agner, Joseph Westbrook, Lee Schruben, Donna Schruben, Mark
Ladd, Warren Allmon, Male Signature Unidentifiable.
Chairman David Stotz called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m., stating that all posting, publication, and
notification of the public hearing had been completed and the same were in order. .
Chairman Stotz introduced Carrie L. Coates as the new Minutes Secretary.
The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows:
APPEAL of Lee W. Schruben, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under
Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming •
building lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25, Residence District R-15.
Said enlargement consists of a modification to an existing single-family home with the addition of new first and
second story space. Said building/lot is non-conforming, in part, as the house is currently over the south side
yard property line (15 foot setback required) and 9 +/- feet from the north side lot line. A building height
variance under Article IV, Section I I, Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also be required as said proposal
may approach a building height of approximately 48 +/- feet (36 foot height limitation).
Mr. Ellsworth asked the Schrubens what the height of the roof would be.
Donna Schruben, 869 Taughannock Boulevard, responded the roof was going to be thirty-four feet, the
deck would be fourteen feet, for a total of forty feet in height.
Lee Schruben, 869 Taughannock Boulevard, present photographs of the house to the board. He explained
from the lakeside, longest corner is the thirteen foot corner which is the front, right post facing from the lake. The
other side of the house is below grade.
Mr. Ellsworth asked if he had talked to his neighbor on the creek side.
Mr. Schruben replied after the last meeting they had a conversation with his creek side neighbor, and also
talked to his other neighbors.
Mr. Ellsworth asked Director of Building and Zoning Frost if the height of the roof and the concerns of the
neighbors were the only two issues.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated there was another issue of the enlargement in the southerly
direction of the building, but the plan has changed as seen in the sketches provided.
1
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
PAGE 2
Mr. Schruben stated the deck was staying within the current deck boundary with the exception of a post in
the corner. He presented the sketch of the post which was not in the boundary.
Mr. Ellsworth stated the foot prints were going to stay the same.
Mr. Schruben stated before the foot print was extended two or three feet to the other side.
Chairman Stotz stated what he saw from the plan was the second story addition was going to stay in bounds
of the first floor. It is not going to extend out over the deck.
Mrs. Schruben stated it would be built on the deck. •
Mr. Schruben stated on the third page there was a stairway within the deck. A foundation will be built
underneath the current deck on the far north side, for the stairway.
Chairman Stotz stated the pitch on the roof was quite steep, and asked if it was for additional living space.
Mr. Schruben responded it was a fourteen twelve pitch. He stated with the pitched roof the house looked
better. The pitched roof also helped in the,maintenance of the roof.. Mr. Schruben stated the roofs were nearly flat.
The leaves build up, causing them to have to shovel. It also had resulted in the Schrubens replacing the roof a
couple of times.
Mr. Ellsworth asked if the pitch was making the height.
Mr. Schruben said the pitch and the aesthetics.
Chairman Stotz asked what Mr. Schruben envisioned people would see from Taughannock Boulevard.
Mr. Schruben stated the house was seventy feet below the road level. He explained the reason they did not
have their plans at the last meeting was because the architects canceled their meeting for that morning. The
architects called the height into them, and it was not exact enough.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated in the original plans the building was moving in a southerly
direction. The Town of Ithaca had a concern about the building encroaching on the neighboring property.
Mr. Schruben stated he wanted to be able to retain the ability to sell the property to the south.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated since the last meeting, the Schrubens 'have made an attempt to
compromise the project somewhat from the original plans.
Mr. Ellsworth asked if there were any problems with his neighbors.
9
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
PAGE 3
Mr. Schruben stated he has talked to his neighbors and they would love to see the property values increase.
His neighbor to the south was present and could speak for himself.
Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone from the public wished to be heard.
Mark Ladd, 871 Taughannock Road, stated his wife owned the property south of the Schrubens. His only
concerns about the project are the creek side that runs between the properties. Mr. Ladd presented photographs of
the creek, but was referred to as a drainage ditch. He stated his yard is directly below the creek and deposits into his
yard. The concern is silt, construction, and anything that falls over the bank of the construction_site will fall into the
creek and falls onto his property. There is a beam which lays across the creek to make a wall The wall does not
look stable and he presented and explained pictures of the creek.
Mr. Ellsworth asked if it was a railroad tie bank.
Mr. Ladd responded it was a railroad tie bank, and has been present a long time.
Chairman Stotz asked what Mr. Ladd's specific concerns were.
Mr. Ladd replied the silt, or anything that could fall into the creek from the construction.
Mr. Ellsworth stated the structure was straddling the existing structure. He asked if only footers would be
constructed on that side.
Mr. Schruben answered the deck would actually be three feet within the current deck. He stated a footer
and a post would be present.
Mr. Ladd stated he was not opposed to the Schrubens building, he is just concerned the ditch is maintained.
Chairman Stotz stated Mr. Ladd was concerned with silt during construction. His other concern about any
way the flow of the creek would divert, and flow onto his property.
Mr. Schruben stated there was a recommendation for a erosion and sediment control plan because it is a
steep slope.
Mr. Ellsworth stated if there was a problem of sediment and construction waste falling onto Mr. Ladd's
property, Mr. Ladd should call Director of Building and Zoning Frost.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost stated the plan must be approved by the Town Engineer.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
PAGE 4
Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. With no one present to be hear,
Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Chairman Stotz asked if there was a discussion of the Environmental Impact.
•
Planner Balestra stated the staff did have some concerns with erosion and sediment control. She would like
to state for the record the Planning Department from a long range land use planning perspective, the Planning
Department does not support the continuation of development and the granting of variances.along Taughannock
Boulevard. It is stated in the Comprehensive Plan, Taughannock Boulevard is an area to be preserved for esthetic
beauty and character. Taughannock Boulevard has changed significantly since then. It is stated in the EAF. The
Planning Staff feels it needs to be dealt with on a larger scale.
Chairman Stotz asked if there was any consideration given to view shed from the lake.
Planner Balestra stated from the pictures the applicant provided, it is clearly shown how the view shed is
broken up by development of large houses. These are houses which need variances for height and area. As a result
of all the variances which have been granted, the view shed is significantly being changed along with the character of
the area.
Director of Building and,Zoning Frost stated the twelve years he had been with Town, he thinks they have
only issued a couple of variances for height along the lake.
Planner Balestra stated the Planning Staff was currently studying the issues of Taughannock Boulevard and the
development. They are reviewing the past files.
Mr. Schruben stated he and his wife were proud of the fact they have left the trees around their property.
Unfortunately, it is unusual around the lake and there is no intent of cutting trees down.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Neifer.
RESOLVED, the board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Lee
and Donna Schruben, requesting a special approval at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
25-2-5, Residence District R-15, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel.
NAYS - None.
ABSTENTION - Stotz.
The motion was carried.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
PAGE 5
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz:
RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Lee Schruben, requesting a special approval from Article XII,
Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
25-2-5, Residence District R-15, be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building to add a second story.
The building lot is non-conforming as the house is currently over the south property line, and applicants own
the lot on the side which the house is over the property line. There is a fifteen foot set back required, and the
building is nine feet from the north side south line. The special approval would allow a building height that will
be approximately forty-nine feet, where as thirty-six feet is the height limitation based on the following
findings:
I . The finding are in keeping with Article XIV, Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub-paragraphs a-h of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, and
2. That a recommendation be made to the Planning Department for sedimentation control.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel.
NAYS - None.
ABSTENTION - Stotz.
The motion was carried.
MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz
RESOLVED, this board grant the appeal of Lee Schruben that a building height variance, Article IV, Section
I I, Sub-paragraph 6 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the construction of a house to a height no
more than 49 feet, at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-5, Residence District R-15
based on the findings:
I . It is not out of character with the rest of the homes in the area,
2. The applicant owns the property immediately adjacent to the south, and
3. Denying the variance is a greater detriment to the community than granting the variance.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel.
NAYS - None.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
PAGE 6
ABSTENTION - Stotz.
The motion was carried.
The second appeal to be heard by the board was as follows:
APPEAL of Cornell University, Owner/Appellant, Ann Shumate, Agent, requesting a modification of a
previously granted Special Approval from April 19, 1989, under Article III, Section 4, Subparagraph 3(b), of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy graduate student housing units,by persons of post
graduate and graduate student age and above, who are short-term university affiliated visitors and participants,
located at Maplewood Park, 20I Maple Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 63-2-I; -2, -3, -10.2, and -
14, Residence District R-9.
Ann Shumate, Associate Director of Campus Life, stated the Maplewood Apartments were built about ten
years ago to replace the Cornell Quarters. This is a residential community for single graduate student and graduate
student families, with domestic units. Cornell has some vacancies there, Maplewood has not been totally occupied.
The number of vacancies varies from time to time. Cornell has recently has been experiencing some reduction in
the number of enrolled graduate students, particularly international graduate students.
The University has a need for some short term housing. It is an increasing need for people who come to the
University for short periods of time to either join a research project, take a special course, affiliate internship, or
consult with faculty. These are not people who stay at Cornell for only a few days, or a week, they are at Cornell for
several weeks, a month, six weeks, or even several months. Cornell has great difficulty finding furnished housing for
their guest. There are vacancies in Maplewood and Cornell would like to incorporate these people into the
Maplewood Community. Maplewood would still be a priority for housing graduate students and their families.
Cornell would be able to make these vacant units available. Cornell is asking for a modification of the restriction of
graduate students and their families only.
•
Chairman Stotz stated the matter had been brought before the Planning Board on May 5, 1998. The last
page has recommendations by the Planning Board to the Zoning Board.
Attorney Barney stated the resolution stated it be Alimited to persons twenty-one years of age or older,
temporarily affiliated with the University as visiting researchers, academic fellows, faculty, scholars, or other similar
academic or professional association and their families.
Mr. Ellsworth asked if these people were currently present at Maplewood.
Ms. Shumate stated there was a restriction.
Mr. Ellsworth asked Ms. Shumate what the restriction was.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED
PAGE 7
Ms. Shumate responded the restriction is for graduate students and their families only. Cornell is asking for
modification of the restriction.
Chairman Stotz stated a faculty member was considered an employee. So Cornell would be providing
temporary employee housing.
Ms. Shumate replied the people might be employed, and then they might not be. A visiting faculty person
would not necessarily be an employee.
Chairman Stotz asked if the modification would be for visiting faculty only. •
Ms. Shumate stated it would only be short term.
Chairman Stotz asked about faculty that would be short term or paid by the University.
Ms. Shumate said they might possibly consider it.
Mr. Ellsworth asked what the definition of short term was, less than a year.
Ms. Shumate stated people who come to Cornell for a significant period of time, find some kind of housing.
It is very difficult to find space for six weeks, two or three months.
Board Member Kenerson stated he would hate to see the University find a young protjggJ and would not have
a place for them to stay because they are under age.
Attorney Barney stated Cornell had other space for undergraduates.
Chairman Stotz asked if Cornell had a faculty member arrive and is looking for a place to live in the
community, would be eligible to live in the Maplewood Community.
Ms. Shumate stated Cornell would consider that.
Attorney Barney stated that in 1989 Cornell originally applied to get an approval to build these neighborhood
housing, under the representation the students would be graduate students. There were neighborhood meetings
and discussions, the neighbors were not enamored with the construction of any buildings, but were alleviated at
some part, by the assurance the apartments would be limited to graduate students. Unfortunately, Cornell, once
they got into it, discovered they could not fill the apartments with graduate students. Cornell asked for an elimination
of the restriction. The Board denied the request because of the concerns. It has been that way since 1989. The
Planning Board was sympathetic with the plight Cornell found himself in, and at the same time wanted to maintain the
integrity of the apartments. The Planning Board was not prepared to remove the restriction entirely. This was
language negotiated at the Planning Board meeting to prevent the removal of the restriction entirely.
REVISED PLAN Nir 6 1998
Special Approval Appeal
to the TOWN OF ITHACA
BUILDING/ZONING
Town of Ithaca Zoning Enforcement Officer&
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Lee W. Schruben
869 Taughannock Blvd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-0320
Revised Request:
We would like to request authorization to add on to a one-story house on a non-
conforming building lot. We would also like to request a height variance, since the total
height of the remodeled house and the longest deck support will be 48 feet.
Construction will involve building a two-story entry/stairway/storage area on
current deck space (north side of house) and adding second story space over the
kitchen/dining/living area.
Background:
This small house is located on the west side of Cayuga Lake.
The house is built on a steep wooded lot, halfway down the hillside between the
Taughannock Blvd. and the lake.
The east and west property lines adjoin the lake and the highway. No houses are situated
above or below the house. We own the property to the south. Our neighbors to the north
have their house located at the water's edge; we will not obstruct their view of the lake.
Many houses in the neighborhood are at least two stories high, some are three or four
stories high.
Modifications to Previous Request:
The size of the addition has been reduced significantly.
The addition will only be over the kitchen/living/dining area and the current decking on the
north side of the house. It will no longer be above the bedrooms/offices on the south side
of the house.
The revised plan will have the steel framework (to support the second floor addition)
running through the living room and deck and not outside the south bedrooms/offices as
before.
The height of the remodeled house will be 34 feet facing the road. With the supports for
the deck, the height will be 48 feet.
OFFICE STORAGE/OFFICE BATH BEDROOM
HALL
EAST WEST
DECK LIVING DINING KITCHEN
CURRENT HOUSE AND DECK SPACE
SCHICKEL
ARC:-ITECTJRC
m
\ Ma N••limb la
II n rn-mal
■ a ICvi-m
11
rip r
11
iiii
1
o.. III I�rtj
l' :)r..1 2.%
mg
0 1J1
ri- --
N Sill
1 ID
= lic-- k... ,/
I _
SCHRUBEN
c.c. HOUSE AMMON
I
I
®
�L PROJECT NO. 88108
so a a a
r r r.r•I
PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PI AN
O O PROPOSED
FLOOR PLANS
r _ w• '. D34
sCa ._
_.S w
SNOLLYA313
O SOdDed
NOLLVA313o-HlaON O NOIltlA3 13 15V3 0
VOIDS t an -1
ID31'Otld _I-II�• iliii\Iib.
NOWOOV grHusl lia-
11 CI ; 1111111S—
N3BfItl"1" ll O ❑ 1 1 .itl����� § d 1I.■�'I�raiiiiII /
'V NV,
NOIltlA313 H1f OS ® NOLLVA313.1S3M
'
PriiIIIN
B a m m CO -sip_
"lit'..
• Y
-. _ ..aI 1
NM0•11-M.MO Pt m A ❑
781. 1.: 711-.i9':
1])IOI1-IDS .
„R 635 PEr.E 72
�aenler I+�e ��-
• �� AV I edge of nvel 'k ._
AUGHACK VAR� �ULE --- . men
qa•
i‘
o, °verneaa utility _ olre { I — — _
m — - _ _ —---
— _0
I+ • I _N 65.00
0.
82•
°well 5001 1.YlS�. 8.62 y K . I I 1
�' N o
5863 total 0 ' \\ Dac r
m- CO_ ,` �culre+l'i II 1 11 IS
1 '1 w • ••1 � C)
I N 22° p4 40.68 :I I
)1 1
�I
'M' 13,948 SO. FT. g\I I . .
I� ! z
I PARCEL 26 PARCEL 25 II I — r
:1 1 I u
II 1 I+ m
l•
I _ - rn
u rn z
o - CT \
to A m_• \ .. y 71
m I l+ nIld- O
•
i 9zcK
g • I
\ +
.COTTAGE\ `, . 2 .7. _ _ I a
•• ' :_9 �a I o
__ _
to_ N I
♦ I N I 1
CD.
5-15°-I I'-E chord Ile I+
Page of wale• '. ' IGO.00' `:< 130 00'
- .. _— _ — ��� r
1 .1 _
c ”
CAYUGA LAKE I " p ri refoining Boll
, o ' :✓
11 = ,
[ N I: ° ;c'L'TY POLE .E•
OEN. TES C"YC°ETE MONUMENT Li U'`L.:_'E FEBRUARY 25, 1988 _._._ .. ..- _ ..
2.5_3 .?5 8 26 I HAP SHOWING LANDS OF
+ LAWRFNCE P YOUNG __. -
N L • PAR.^ OF MIL. TOT 87 TOWN OF ITHACA
c
•Y • •:� .. t_G7'.TY GF TOMPKI95 >' y . _ � ti° vti •:�•
' i (�� f cid' .i-.>• . ss S_C G_LE In - 20 =EET 047E .IDLY 24, 1979
I ,a4
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY,APRIL 8, 1998
7:00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday,April 8,
1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance,WEST Side), Ithaca,N.Y.,
COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M.,on the following matters:
APPEAL of Lisa and Michael Wittmer,Appellants,requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of
Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,to be permitted to add a
dwelling unit in the basement of an existing non-conforming single-family residence at 11 Renwick Heights
Road,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-20, Residence District R-15. Said property is non-conforming
since it is less than the required 100-foot lot width(having 75 feet)and less than the required 15,000 square
feet lot area(having approximately 11,232 square feet). Additionally, a variance from the requirements of
Article XIII, Section 57 of the Zoning Ordinance is also requested since said section limits non-conforming
building lots to only single-family residences.
APPEAL of Ithaca College,Appellant,Robert J. O'Brien,Agent,requesting a special approval from the
Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11, Paragraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance,to be permitted to construct a 30,238+square foot fitness center on the Ithaca College Campus,
at 953 Danby Road,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.41-1-30.2,42-1-13.1,Residence District R-15. A
variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11,Subparagraph 6 is also being requested as the
proposed building will be 45±feet high(38-foot height limit).
APPEAL of Lee W. Schruben,Appellant,requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals
under Article XII,Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,to be permitted to enlarge a non-
conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25, Residence
District R-15. Said enlargement consists of modification to an existing single-family home with the
addition of new first and second story space. Said building/lot is non-conforming,in part,as the house is
currently over the south side yard property line(15 foot setback required)and 9±feet from the north side
lot line. A building height variance under Article IV, Section 11, Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may
also be required as said proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48+feet(38 foot height
limitation).
APPEAL of the Montessori School,Owner,Peter Demjanec,RA,Agent,requesting a special approval from
the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be
permitted to enlarge a school located at 117 East King Road,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.43-2-7,
Residence District R-15. A variance from the requirements of Article XIII, Section 69 of said ordinance is
also requested as additional automobile parking spaces will be located within the required front yard(25
feet from the road right-of-way line). Additionally, 5 parking spaces will be provided,while 10 are
required.
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time,7:00 p.m.,and said place,hear all persons in support of
such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or
hearing impairments or other special needs,as appropriate,will be provided with assistance,as necessary,
upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time
of the public hearing.
Andrew S. Frost
Director of Building and Zoning
273-1783
Dated: April 1, 1998
Publish: April 3, 1998
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8, 1998 PAGE 7
APPROVED-APRIL 30, 1998
appeal meets the findings required by Article XIV, Section 77, Paragraph 7,
Subparagraphs a-h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES - Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel.
NAYS - None.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows:
APPEAL of Lee W. Schruben, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning
Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot at 869 Taughannock
Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25, Residence District R-15. Said
enlargement consists of modification to an existing single-family home with the
addition of new first and second story space. Said building/lot is non-conforming, in
part, as the house is currently over the south side yard property line (15 foot setback ,
required) and 9 +/- feet from the north side lot line. A building height variance under
Article IV, Section 11, Subparagraph 6 of said ordinance may also be required as said
proposal may approach a building height of approximately 48 +/- feet (38 foot height
limitation).
Lee Schruben, 869 Taughannock Boulevard, said when he and his wife first moved to
the neighborhood that their neighbors have up graded their homes more than they realized.
The house was built in the 1930's, and it is pretty small. The house has several little sheds
that are attached to the small gable center. The previous owners added on over the years.
The house has some deficiencies. The house is fairly small 1,150 square feet. There is no
dry storage. There is a small bathroom with a washer and dryer with closet space.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked the Schrubens if they would be living at this site full
time.
Mr. Schruben said they have been living at this resident full time since they purchased
the property in 1988. The roof is unattractive looking down the hill. There is no entry way at
this point, so they need to go through glass doors on the deck. Mr. Schruben said they talked
to construction engineers and architect builder who came up with the design of setting steel
piers and build over the existing living space.
Mr. Sigel said the house in the picture shows a very steep slope line. The house itself
is approximately four feet off the ground where there is a deck that drops off on one corner.
That corner is approximately 13 feet from the lowest point to the deck.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8, 1998 PAGE 8
APPROVED-APRIL 30, 1998
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said from the picture it shows the existing single
story house and the Schrubens want to add another story. From the road people would not
see the house unless they stood on the edge of the road and looked down hill.
Mr. Niefer asked if the peak of the roof would be below the Taughannock Boulevard
elevation.
Mr. Schruben responded, yes.
Attorney for the Town John Barney asked if the house would be visible from the lake.
Mr. Schruben said it would not be visible. The front roof could not support the second
story, so the second story would be behind the front roof line.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost asked the Schrubens if they have any additional
sketches that they would be able to show the Zoning Board of Appeals of the exact height.
Donna Schruben, 869 Taughannock Boulevard, said this would be a one story addition
. that sets back toward the road. They would have a hip or a gable root
Director of Building and Zoning Frost tried to explain to the Schrubens prior to the
meeting that this Board would need to know what the exact height will be.
Mr. Schruben said they were suppose to meet with their architect earlier today, but he
was too busy to meet with them.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth said if the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to accept this
appeal, they would need a safe roof height to go by. Otherwise the Schrubens would need to
return.
Planner Balestra said by looking at the west of the proposed addition, to notice that this
area is pretty tight going into the hill site, and asked if there would be any regrading of the site
to be able to build the second story.
Ms. Schruben said their plan was not touch the wesr side grading.
Attorney Barney asked if the second story will be built on steel piers.
Mr. Schruben said they would be installing three foot square cement blocks and then
steel piers will be placed. There are some posts along the back. The advice from the architect
was to make it as big as we could possibly imagine it being. The architect said they would
need to have two to three feet out from the side for the south lot.
Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Schruben if they would need to blast the bedrock.
Mr. Schruben said there has been no mention of doing that.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8, 1998 PAGE 9
APPROVED -APRIL 30, 1998
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Schruben if he knows how they would be setting the
concrete for the steel piers.
Mr. Schruben said he does not know at this point. They would be hitting bedrock pretty
quickly there.
•
Mr. Sigel asked if these steel piers be visible or will the be incorporated within a new
wall.
Mr. Schruben said he hopes the steel piers will not be visible. Hopefully the deck will
extend over the south side piers.
Ms. Schruben said they do not have a cosmetic solution at this point. Right now they
are visualizing it will hang over the first floor.
Mr. Sigel asked if the beams will be visible. Mr. Sigel also asked if they were planning
to make the first floor is as large as the second floor.
Mr. Schruben responded, no.
Mr. Sigel asked the Schrubens if they have investigated the possibility of extending the
house further to the.south.
Ms. Schruben said they are trying to keep it small. It is going to be expensive to build.
The house is not very attractive right now. They would like some visual height. Right now the
views are not as nice as they would like.
Mr. Schruben said the photographs that Mr. Frost taken of the site shows a good feeling
of what the site looks like.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth asked if the Schrubens have talked to their neighbors about
blocking any views of the lake.
Mr. Schruben said they are not blocking anyone's views of the lake.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said it is 13 feet from the ground to the deck for
the one post. Mr. Frost asked what is the height from the deck level to the top of the existing
roof.
Ms. Schruben said it is approximately 12 feet.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said it would be approximately 25 feet at that
point. By adding the second floor and a roof that would be getting close to 16 feet between the
first floor and the roof peak.
Ms. Schruben said that is not fair because the house is not over where it is 13 feet.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8, 1998 PAGE 10
APPROVED APRIL 30, 1998
Mr. Sigel said the house is below grade on the west side.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said if there is 25 feet now and adding 16 feet that
comes to approximately 41 feet.
Attorney Barney said 16 feet would a little light because they want to add storage space
above the second story.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said he was hoping the Schrubens would bring in
the plans from the architect to see the actual roof line and give better dimensions of the
addition.
Ms. Schruben asked if it would be unreasonable to keep the 48 feet as the maximum.
They are not planning to go that high.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth said the Zoning Board of Appeals likes to have a number that
they would be below or they would need to come back again.
Ms. Schruben said they would below that number.
Mr. Sigel said the Zoning Board, of Appeals likes to have a number that is pretty close.
The board does not want to give a variance that is eight feet more than they could use.
Mr. Schruben said this is the best guess right now primarily because the 13 foot post of
the deck. The other posts are under 4 feet.
- Attorney Barney said he does not think the Schrubens have thorough designed what
they are actually going to the house.
Mr. Schruben said the 48 foot height would be a maximum.
Attorney Barney said the Schrubens should have drawings done for a building permit
application.
Mr. Schruben said he was hoping to have those drawings for tonight, but the architect
canceled the meeting earlier today. They would like to have the 48 feet maximum.
Attorney Barney said the theory of a variance is the minimal variance necessary to
accomplish what they legitimately need to accomplish. To ask this board to have 48 feet when
looking at the diagram it does not show if 48 feet is close or not. Typically what this board
does when they grant a variance, they have drawing and tack on a foot or so to allow for
incremental.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8, 1998 PAGE 11
APPROVED-APRIL 30, 1998
Vice Chairman Ellsworth said the Schrubens need a feeling from the board to see
whether this appeal will be approved or not because they are working a deal with the
contractor to proceed.
Mr. Schruben said the architect was not able to meet with them today like they wanted.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth said the Schrubens would need to get more accurate hieght
numbers to proceed.
Ms. Schruben said they want to start building as soon as they received this variance.
Attorney Barney stated that in order to get a building permit the Schrubens need to
have drawings with specifics. Mr. Frost will be able to do that.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth opened the public hearing, and asked if anyone from the
public wished to be heard.
Kim Snow, 871 Taughannock Boulevard, said she owns the property just to the north of
the Schrubens. She is just here to gain information because she did not know this project was
coming along. Her and her husband wanted to look at the plans and review them.
Mr. Schruben said Ms. Snow and her husband only live in the house to the north in the
summer time.
Ms. Snow said she has owned the property for approximately 30 years, and she and
her husband have lived at that property in the past, but it was to small so they built another
house. Ms. Snow said they are not against the project, but they are here to gather information
such as how close would the project come to their property line and if it would change the
course of the creek that runs down.
Mr. Schruben said there would not be any change by the creek to the north.
Ms. Schruben said they do not plan to change the footprint to the north. The posts will
be visible from the south side.
Ms. Snow said they were also concerned about the north side setbacks. The notice of
public hearings for the Zoning Board of Appeals is the only information that they received. It is
stamped "final". Ms. Snow asked if they were notified before this appeal.
Deputy Town Clerk Debby Kelley said the words final on the notice is for internal
purposes opposed to draft copy.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth said the notices have to be mailed ahead of time for legal
purposes.
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8, 1998 PAGE 12
APPROVED-APRIL 30, 1998
Ms. Snow said their only concerns are for the existing creek and how dose the new
building would come to the lot lines.
Mr. Schruben said there will not be any changes to the existing creek, and the new
addition would not effect the views of the Snows.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said they would be concerned about the creek
during the construction for erosion. He is under the impression that there will not be any
construction on the north side of the property.
Ms. Schruben said they plan to build a stairways on the north side to get to the upper
level.
Ms. Snow asked Ms. Schruben if they would be constructing on the north side.
Ms. Schruben said they would only be constructing the stairways on the north side, but
they would not be going over the footprint of the deck.
Director of Building and Zoning Frost said there will be another meeting on the
footprints with more formal drawings to look at.
Mr. Sigel said the height drawings supplied shows approximately 48 feet.
Mr. Krantz asked the Schrubens and the Snow if they have ever met before this
meeting.
Ms. Snow said they see the Schrubens in the summertime, and feel that they have a
good relationship.
Attorney Barney said this board normally grants variances upon formal plans and
drawings. The Schrubens should acquire with the immediate neighbors to see if there are
any objections, and if there are no problems the Schrubens should have the plans drawn and
come back to the board. The Schrubens should supply the plans to the Building and Zoning
Department for Mr. Frost to review for the building permit application.
Vice Chairman Ellsworth closed the public hearing.
The Zoning Board of Appeals decided to adjourn this appeal to the May 13th meeting in
order for the Schrubens of obtain more information for the board.
The last appeal to be heard by the board was as follows:
APPEAL of Montessori School, Owner, Peter Demjanec, RA, Agent, requesting a
special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article IV, Section 11 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a school located on 117
East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-2-7, Residence District R-15. A
o cod [11
BARNEY. GROSSMAN. DUBOW & MARCUS
5 I'�8
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JOHN C. BARNEY SENECA BUILDING WEST
PETER G. GROSSMAN SUITE 400 TOWN OF ITHACA
DAVID A. DUBOW BUILDING/ZONING
RANDALL B. MARCUS 119 EAST SENECA STREET
WILLIAM J. TROY III ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 FACSIMILE
KRISTIN E HAZLITT' (607) 273-6841 (607)ORSERVICE OF06
(NOT FOR PAPERS)
'ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND
&WASHINGTON, D.C.
April 14, 1998
Mr. Andrew Frost
Director of Building and Zoning
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
hn Appeal �'�"
Re: Sc rm an u ��
Dear Andy:
Paul Tavelli called me regarding the above appeal (I am not sure I have spelled the
applicant's name correctly - it was the appeal to build a second story on a lake front cottage
requiring both the height variance and an encroachment of the addition further on to another lot
owned by the applicant). I indicated to him that I did not think the Board of Zoning Appeals had
authority to grant a variance allowing a building that already encroached off site to enlarge that
encroachment. We discussed the possibility of consolidating the two lots. He asked what the
chances of a variance would be if that was done and I indicated that I thought the chances were
quite good that the height variance and related special approval would all be granted. We also
discussed the possibility of having the cottage on the other lot occupied. I pointed out that the
zoning ordinance precludes two principal buildings being on the same lot but that in the past
variances had been granted for that activity as well. While I was less able to estimate the
probabilities of a variance allowing both the cottage and the original camp to be occupied if they
were both on the same lot, I indicated to him that I thought it likely a variance would be granted,
particularly if it was done as a part of the overall package that is presently under consideration.
Paul was going to have his clients come in and give him more information and would get
back to me or they would get back to you prior to the next BZA meeting on May 13th.
I could have called and told you all of this, but I thought I would make a note of it both
for your file and mine so that we could refer back to this discussion if it became necessary to
do so.
With best regards.
Sin 1 yours,
JCB:sls
TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $100.00 Q �
g
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: `� I`((�� ) I (,
Ithaca, New York 14850
CASH - (
(607) 273-1783
CHECK - ( )
SPECIAL APPROVAL
ZONING:
APPEAL
For Office Use Only
to the
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been informed that authorization is required to: Add Q G(t; 6 Dn i •i4; 41c.4.ffeat C-
1-o home on f on(em 6or)i u-t l�i ni lot.
at 86q
Ta t harm O ck 81 vd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 503 og9 ,2 5;
as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The
Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to:
Article(s) / -2- , Section(s) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the
UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization.
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary. )
, °/ tz Se See /7 tfhzh-d
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application.
Signature of Owner/Appellant: � 'a �� Date: f/ 7/ QO
Signature of Appellant/Agent: " � �^ Date:
r-,E _
Print Name Here: L W - c> C/IrCni. /3-N
Home Telephone Number: 02- 7 - C 3 .2_0 Work Telephone Number: oo - C /3 3
NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within
18 months, the approval will expire.
Special Approval Appeal
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Lee W. Schruben
869 Taughannock Blvd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 272-0320
Request:
We would like to request authorization to add a second story to a one story house on a
non-conforming building lot.
Background:
The house at 869 Taughannock Blvd. was built in the 1930's as a fish camp. Previous
owners enclosed porches and added small rooms to the structure. Today the house is still
relatively small (approximately 1150 sq. ft.) and has five, poorly integrated roofs.
While we like the location, the house has several, serious deficiencies:
Clean, dry storage space is lacking.
There is only one small bathroom.
Inadequate laundry facilities.
The multiple roofs are not attractive, and four will require replacement soon.
No airlock at entry way and no outdoor closet.
Inadequate floor space.
Solution:
We hope to address these problems by building a second story over the current house as
well as a stairwelUentry way over an existing deck. We would like to keep the current
living space intact.
Since the house was not built as one unit, different portions of the house have different
foundations. As is, the various walls and foundations will not support an additional story;
structural reinforcement will be needed.. After consulting a structural engineer, architect,
and builder, it appears that the optimal solution would be to build a steel framework set on
concrete piers that will surround the current house and support the second story weight.
On the south and west sides of the house, the steel posts will be set as close to the house
as possible and still allow room for an adequate foundation to be poured (2 1/2 to 3 ft.).
Here the second floor will extend over the first floor. On the north and east sides of the
house, the steel posts will extend through current deck space.
Upon completion of the project, we hope to have an entry and stairwell with storage and
mechanical space in the north portion of the house and a bedroom, bath, dressing room,
and plant room on the second floor. We also want to convert a small office on the first
floor into a laundry room.
OF
TOWN OF ITHACA
��0441 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
A -t
TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783
FAX(607)273-1704
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals di_ s
FROM: Christine Balestra,Planne
DATE: April 2, 1998
RE: 869 Taughannock Boulevard-Special Approval and Variances
The proposed second story addition to the property on 869 Taughannock Boulevard
raised some concerns among planning staff with regards to erosion,drainage, and
flooding. As the EAF states, the property is located on a significant slope, with a drainage
ditch along the south side of the existing home that extends and empties into Cayuga
Lake. The applicant has not submitted any drainage, erosion, or sediment control plan to
address the potential negative environmental effects associated with construction on such
a slope,especially construction that will double the size of the existing structure. Further,
it is not mentioned in the application materials if there will be any blasting of bedrock to
set the proposed steel posts for the second story. Protection of the lake from negative
environmental impacts is important to planning staff, as the water quality of the lake has
shown signs of deterioration in recent years (due to many sources).
Planning staff would like to recommend that the Board require a sediment control and
erosion plan for this project, in order to ensure the protection of the sensitive shoreline on
Taughannock Boulevard. This plan should be submitted and approved by the Town
Engineer prior to any building permit.
If you have any questions,please contact me at 273-1747.
TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Conservation Board
DATE: April 6, 1998
RE: Development of Cayuga Lake Shore
The Conservation Board feels that the issue of aesthetic change along the
shore of Cayuga Lake,Ithaca's premier recreational resource,is very
important and that actions which affect this aesthetic resource should be
carefully considered. More specifically,we feel that the pros and cons
of granting height variances for buildings along the lakeshore should be
carefully weighed in each case.
The CB recently discussed the application by Lee Schmben to add a second
story onto the structure at 869 Taughannock Blvd. We found it difficult
to adequately weigh the pros and cons of this action because the
application packet we were shown did not include an elevation drawing
from the perspective of Cayuga Lake,and because the elevation drawings
that were included did not show dimensions.
We suggest that the Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to request such an
elevation,and also information which would_indicate-how well the new
addition would blend into the landscape..
We further suggest that the Zoning Board of Appeals explore with the
applicant how/whether the plans might be altered so that a smaller height
variance would be needed,and also consider requiring that the applicant
employ measures to appropriately blend the new addition into the landscape.
<^- UP
I I
OFFICE STORAGE/OFFFICE BATH BEDROOM
Closet [l 1
Closet
Civet II
HALL Closet
\\.
DECK DINING KITCHEN
UP
ENTRY
MECHANICAL&STORAGE
164- `C1oo1 --���� J
c-11/4--
G- UP I`'^I '
I
ClosetIn
OFFICE I J STORAGE/OFFICE BATH C1OSet BEDROOM
I
Cibset
I r =
HALL Closet
DECK 1 LIVING DINING KITCHEN
DECK
•
p^n &C&
w&a tzu c6L
1
3 0° fT7T
___--) -.N. ri
BALCONY \ MASTER I
-1r)
DRESSING
DECK \ BATH
/CLOSET
/ o \
\ 1
MASTER BEDROOM
L
DECK
BELOW
L
I n
STORAGE I
Er)
N _....._ I ,
, . , ,
a v._ck ._ i.0 a OW co 4"(--
ki, q T c A.A..,v,,to c..`
I010 n 0 J T] BB J10 I 9'1
OFFICE STORAGE/OFFICE BATH BEDROOM
HALL
EAST WEST
I
DECK LIVING DINING KITCHEN
B9 e'J 147 In
4 n 2r4 e� YII
srlo
I I
•
CURRENT HOUSE AND DECK SPACE
•
•
•
il
OFFICE STORAGE/OFJ _il
TH BEDROOM !I
i
HALL
EAST - aWEST
\ ITimi I
I 1
DECK LIVING DINING KITCHEN
J f
I
U
I MECHANICAL ENTRY
r \ - STORAGE U
CURRENT HOUSE AND DECK-BLACK LINES
NEW SPACE-DOUBLE LINES
/
BALCONY PLANT ROOM MASTER BATH DRESSING
EAST WEST
'c.
11
' DECK BELOW MASTER
BEDROOM
I
1
// u-OPEN I W D.
IIj LANDING OPEN BELOW �I
I j
SECOND FLOOR
- L2Ee 635 au 72 1
__
' •
nter Uwe C I edge.of Pavement 1( .—
EVARD
I TAUGHA=UL._ —
qds1 b
overhead utilittli--- ne 1 _7_ volve— I________ —{— — . -up
w _ - c 65.00'
! 1 I.
\ \ N 16° 55-`A' --t I -
. z I
8.6 \ 1 1
.� o.en 50n1 'd\�, 2 � ...\
5863 to al O . ° \ boa r 1
m A culvert
-
I '
- m
)
j115
mN-22° p4 -W
, 40.68111
I •
MI 13,948 SO. FT. \'"\11\
I II Z •
—
PARCEL 26 PARCEL 25 1 UI -4
— A
•
W o
: 1
t \
I :!
y
m _� . IRRiIPJ !.
ko``�nin. illy o
E o \ t ,�r [\\§§1n 1
Z§411 tt;k44 j011111 j ` i nap deckf j ?V
�\\\\�\\\;gn 1 is J
\\\ •
-COT IAGEN
\
_I,
� . \; DECK 10 ;A
I• • _I
___ ___ i1
N I 1
t I NI
`
o
-- S-15°-III-E chord tie 1�
edge of rater -I, I 100.00 �V 130 00'
. CAYUGA LAKE i I✓retaining .oil
O IIa >>
x '777[Cr
y., l
DEN.IIS UTILITY POLE e Ur'CuTE. FEBRUARY 25, 19H9
DEMOTES C,•NCPETE MONUMENT L] Un_ -'— "- '
MAP SHOWING LANDS OF
gg-z_zs a z6 I UAWRP NCE P YOUNG
y L , .PART OF MIL. EAT 87 TOWN OF ITHACA 1
r . LNEh. o 0
4I c.`- f '.,v • °., LOUNTY OF TOMPKINS -3F All ' c N Y
(� _ 1 r y-A s SCALE I' - 20 rEET DATE ._ .. -24r 1979 I
JULY
•
•
GRADE MEASUREMENTS
2nd. Story
Q Corner
8 Ft. Abov V - AT GRADE Approx. at
4 Ft. Below grade.
IIOpen below
4 Ft. BelovP
DECK
V -AT GRADE
,,,,,2 Ft. Below
6 Ft. Above
12 Ft. Above
(fad e. Jt V
',.kV$ ,\ ••NNNN\'' ZN,\ N\s*.\\,\".'\- tal ,\\\'\ \ \N '; ,-N,
\\.\N\•\.,\\ \ \\N\\\\.\:\\s*s\ \\ N‘ "+4.** .‘\ \\\\\ \\\.s..:.‘,... \\\.s.k % \ \\.\\\F.4Ft,,,,,
■. r :::::=: . .: .........
® � ;:yii:v::;::: ::'::::.':':ii^:�i:..... � ��....::::d.....:�:.::..::'.. i:i :::
F
F �
. ........ `� ^;:ii;� :;:;:; .:Y:;::;3Ji:c%'<i:'i%�%i':i`:.:o:.A%�f :.::i% i.'m `:i :` . .
11
�::;:_% <:. :[ : :eft ': .; [ .
CrccuArru1C
cud 4- N d Side fiv td-� �'`.. ./
:.. • • .
„.„,,,,.,„:„:::::„:„...:,:::::::::::,:,:::::::.. ........,..„:„:„
::':::!'.:.*::';',..,.,',:::',..:.„..,::..„:::„.:',:::.„..:.,:',.:.,:......,.,':.:.::'...:,:.',:::',„,:,:,,',:-,:,:,.'„::::,..,,'„::'„:.:•:,.:..„:„.,..„','...,,...„'„.„':.
.,.,...:.,....:......,.,...•....v.,.,...,:,,.:.:.,:„.,,......„..............
:,,,..,„„„„......„...„......:::,,:::::::„..:::::::: „......:„.::
...., " ....„:,:::::::::::::::::::::,•::,:,::........,...,•,...„:„,,,,,„,,..,„:,,•,:::,:,:,:„:„:„.
4 ?
.......,.......................:_ . ..... ...„.......................„.,......................„...„,...
... .•................................ .............................
.......„,;.„,„.„,„,:_= ::,„,„,,...„,:::,,,:::,,,,::,:„:,:::,:,:,:,:,::,.::.,:„".„:"„.:,,,:::..::::.:,..,:,:,:,::::.....,„,....:::::::,. ,
.:".....::,:::::,,,:,..,,,,... _,..,,,,...:::::::,....,,,„,,,„,.:,,:,:,,:.:,,::,.,.:•,.:.:.:•,.,...:,*.,..,,,..,,,.:,.,::::::::::: ::.
.................:,.....„..................,„............................,:....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..:.:::::..„:„...„.:::::::::::„::::::„„:::.::::„.„:::::::::::::::::: :::::
....-,::-..-..--...,--:.:,.......,.. ,:„..„.65,„,,,,,..„:„..,..,:,...,.,..,„:„,„„„,:„,,,:,:,:,:::::::::::::„:„:„:„:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,:,: ::,:,..
...::,:::::::::::::::„:„:::,:::.::::::: :
••••.....••••••••.•• ....................... ..,...
.............:„........................ ,...„,"„,":,.........:.:.:.......:.:.:.:.:.:.:„.:.:....:::::::::,....,.,„.:„....:.:„...„„„ ....:.:
, :....... ., . .........
,.:,,:,„„:„:„„„:„..,:„„,,,,,„„„„„,„„„„,„,,,:::::,::::,:,::::::,:,,,,,,:„:„.,,:,,,,, .........,:,:
, T
....,,...„:„.„..„:....„..„:::„.„,„..,..„.....„,,..,„„,...„...,..,...„..„.....:..„:,:„...:...„ .
,..,::.„.„.„.,,...:,..,..•,..,.....,„,.:,,...„:„..,..„.,::„.:,,,..:.,..........:„... :,.....:,:„.:.::::::::::::::,,,:,:„.„,,,,,„,,,,,,,„,„,„,:::::::::::::,„„„:„.„„„„„„„„„: ,„::::
l y [:
•
:.
y
O
C
....W _
q,}
k
0
::':k:•i:::>:it tt•ti't ii:>i?i,-...q ,___ ••;
••1Ei4 ; t;:i;
F
i
}
- . :i .. •: ........ i::::::i.;:i:.:‘:::::..:.....:..:::.i.::
n
o.
oC000X5
Tompkins County MAR 2 5 i998
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
TOWN OF ITHACA
121 East Court Street BUILDING/ZONING
Ithaca,New York 14850
James W.Hanson,Jr. Telephone(607)274-5560
Commissioner of Planning FAX(607)274.5578
March 24, 1998
Mr. Andy Frost
Zoning Officer
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State
General Municipal Law
Action: Special Approval, Schruben, 869 Taughannock Boulevard,
Tax Parcel Number 25-2-25
Dear Mr. Frost:
This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and
comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the
New York State General Municipal Law.
The proposal,as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
County,or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins
County Planning Department,and you are free to act without prejudice.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
Sincerely,
9,6,444. U. -4-. btu-
James W. Hanson, Jr.
Commissioner of Planning
toRecycled paper
Rev. 10/90
I I I l I I l Town Assigned Project ID Number
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY
PART I — Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor)
1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name:
.Lee- 1A, 6U1r u..6c'i/L- 116/ 17vn
3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map):
Ca ' "Teuv 1tann0 d B/Vd S Vi-keibt. N,V
Tax Parcel Number:
4. Is Proposed Action: NEW E EXPANSION Q MODIFICATION/ALTERATION
5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other
relevant items):
E114 y /I'✓i�lce
cl � y `Cr�' y ad�� or) to ore. s�v� dive`!��
- Q( (J larvt rcJe— -res,demo At
l `
.6-4- Ye t4-4-nd -Ftc.-tLJA— cp(kn s O t ine,d.. t o Cat-old r`et u-e-4{-
(Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.)
6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) a Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres
7. How is the Land Zoned Presently?
Re..S% (HIN7"),1-.L
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions?
YES �( NOE If no, describe conflict briefly :
`` ' N
9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new:
Public Road? YES D NO 4E Public Water? YES E NO"K Public Sewer? YES Q N04
10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? N Residential 0 Commercial
El Industrial E Agriculture 0 Park/Forest/Open Space E Other
Please describe:
1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit,approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal, State, Local)? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding:
12. Does ant.' aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval? YESEl] NO 0
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE/TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): 0 e e. Vl/ , 5 CX vi 6e,u
Signature: ,C�/ stL4 Date: 1 7/94)
PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary.)
A. Does propcsed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law?
YES NC X if yes. coordinate the review process and use the full EAF.
B. Will proposed ac:icn receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in o NYCRR, Part 617.6?
YES NO X If no. a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any.
C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
(Answers may be hancwrittan, if legible)
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste
. production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage cr boating problems? Explain briefly:
See Attached
C2- Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or
neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
See Attached
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or
threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
See Attached
C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted. or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources? Explain briefly:
See Attached
CS. Growth, subsequent development, or relater activities likely to be induced by :he proposed action? Explain
briefly:
See Attached
C6. Long term, short ten;., cumulative, cr other effects not identified in Cl - CS? Explain briefly:
See Attached
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly:
See Attached
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
YES NO X If yes, explain briefly:
E. Comments of staff X C3 , other attached. (Check as acclicacle.)
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca)
Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise
significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) serng (ie. urban or rural); (b) probability of ocurring;
(c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic score; and (t) magnitude. It necessary, add attachments cr reference supporting
materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail :o show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and
adequately addressed.
Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
__ Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL. NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination.
Zoning Board of Appeals ekv:01,6,e- _ 6 ookbx.
Nacre of Lead Agency Preparers Signature (If different from Responsible Officer}
David Stotz, Chairman
Name & Title r."esp sr le Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
IrjOi-6"
\\., Cate:
Signature`,of R s onsi I Officer in Lead Acencv
PART II-Environmental Assessment
Lee W.Schruben Owner/Appellant
Height Variance/Special Approval
869 Taughannock Boulevard
Tax Parcel No. 25-02-25
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
A. Action is Unlisted
B. Action will not receive coordinated review
C. Could action result in any adverse effects on,to or arising from the following:
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity.noise levels, existing
traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal,potential for erosion,drainage or flooding
problems?
No significant adverse impacts to air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels,
existing traffic patterns,or solid waste production or disposal are anticipated.
The action is in consideration of a height variance and special approval to enlarge a non-conforming
building/lot at 869 Taughannock Boulevard,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.25-2-25,Residence
District R-15. The enlargement consists of modifying the existing single-family home with the addition
of new first and second story space. The building lot is non-conforming,in part, as the house is within
both side yard setbacks (15 foot setback required), and 9+/-feet from the north side lot line. A
building height variance is required as proposal may approach the building height of approximately
48+/-feet(36 foot height limitation).
Upon a site visit,planning staff noticed the presence of a drainage ditch along the south side of the
home. The existing home is placed on a significant slope(approximately 45 degrees); and the ditch
runs the entire slope down to Cayuga Lake. The soil types for this area include Hudson and Dunkirk
Soils, which are outlined in the Tompkins County Soil Survey as being erodible and unstable for
building foundations. There is also some exposed bedrock near the shoreline area of the property.
Therefore,due to these existing environmental conditions,construction on this property has the
potential to cause significant erosion problems,especially if there is any blasting of the bedrock in
order to set the new posts. However,with the proper erosion and sediment controls in place, the
potential environmental hazards to the lake can be mitigated.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural. archeological.historic,or other natural or cultural resources, or
community or neighborhood character?
No significant adverse impacts with regard to agricultural, archeological,historic, or other natural or
culturalresources are anticipated as a result of the proposed action.
Lee W.Schruben Owner/Appellant
Height Variance/Special Approval
869 Taughannock Boulevard
Tax Parcel No. 25-02-25
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
There is the potential for adverse impacts to aesthetic and natural scenic resources, as well as
neighborhood character, should the requested height variance be granted. There are very few trees or
other vegetation existing on the east side of this property,facing Cayuga Lake. The home currently
has a visual and aesthetic impact on the lake due to this lack of shoreline vegetation. The construction
of a second story on this property would bring the height of the structure to at least 40 feet tall,
thereby increasing its visibility and visual impact on the lake and lake users.
Further, the height of the proposed second story would create a structure that is out of proportion with
the existing medium sized homes and cottages on either side of this property, as well as along the west
shore of Cayuga Lake. This would alter the existing community and neighborhood character along this
portion of Taughannock Boulevard.
C3. Vegetation or fauna,fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened
or endangered species?
None anticipated. No rare or endangered vegetation or fauna,fish, shellfish or wildlife species,
significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species are known to exist on the site, or are expected
to be otherwise affected.
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or
intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
The proposed structure exceeds the allowable height requirements set forth by the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance; and does not meet the minimum sideyard requirements. Granting the requested
height variance may have a potential adverse impact on the community's plans and goals as officially
adopted. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan emphasizes minimizing adverse impacts from
development to existing residential neighborhoods and the natural environment. The Goals and
Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan specifically calls for"...maintain[ing] the character of the
Town..."(p.B1-4), and"...site designs that minimize impacts to the natural environment,impacts of...
erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater runoff" (p.B1-7).
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the
proposed action?
The requested special approval and variances are similar to others in the west shore area that have
been granted by the ZBA in the past 5 years. The granting of the requested variance may encourage
future applications for variances of this nature or for larger structures. This would have long-term
consequences regarding the community and neighborhood character by reducing the aesthetic quality
of the lakeshore area.
•
Lee W.Schruben Owner/Appellant
Height Variance/Special Approval
869 Taughannock Boulevard
Tax Parcel No. 25-02-25
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
C6. Long term, short term,cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-05?
The continual increase in development along the lakefront may have a cumulative negative impact on
the erodible soils found on most of the lakefront properties, which could lead to increased erosion and
sedimentation from properties into the fragile Cayuga Lake ecosystem. Although this particular
proposal may not increase the erodibility of the area in and of itself,the long term or cumulative effects
associated with consistent construction on the lakefront(loss of vegetation,possible building of
structures too large for the soil to handle)would be detrimental to the health of the lake, which has
already been in decline for some time.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)?
None anticipated.
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental
impacts? -
None anticipated.
PART III- Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance
Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the existing character of the area,
the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental
significance is recommended for the action as proposed.
Although the area along the western shore of Cayuga Lake is characterized by a number of small to
medium sized cottages located on lots that do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed
addition to an existing cottage would nearly double the size of the building, and would be located only
9 feet from the adjacent property line. While the expansion of one such non-conforming building may
only result in minor impacts,the cumulative effects of such expansions may irreversibly alter the
character of the western shore. Planning staff therefore respectfully recommends that the Board of
Appeals give consideration to the potential cumulative effects from such applications, and whether this
apparent trend is one that should continue in this area.
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer: Christine Balestra,Planner
Review Date: April 2, 1998
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS -
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
7:00 P.H.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday,
September 1, 1993, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST
Side), Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , on the following matters:
APPEAL OF KENNETH A. FOYER, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE
IV, SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH' 6, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO
CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT (30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED)
AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 22-1-1.26, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15.
APPEAL OF CHRISTEN E. AND MAURICE HALTOM, APPELLANTS, DON CRITTENDEN, ESQUIRE, AGENT, REQUESTING
A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING
SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 22.6 + FEET (25 FOOT SETBACK
REQUIRED) LOCATED AT 121 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 57-1-8.116,
-- RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15.
APPEAL OF LEE W. SCHRUBEN, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO
CONSTRUCT AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT
LOCATED AT 869 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 25-2-25, RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R-15. SAID DECK WILL BE LOCATED 9 FEET 4 INCHES + TO THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ON
A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS 50 + FEET WIDE (100 FOOT LOT WIDTHS REQUIRED) AND IS APPROXIMATELY
7,250 SQUARE FEET IN AREA (15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AREAS REQUIRED) .
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7:00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons
in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Andrew S. Frost
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
273-1783
Dated: August 23, 1993
Publish: August 27, 1993
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 1, 1993
taken over his office, thus updating the map. Mr. Crittenden said he has a copy of the old
map which is really the same thing. Attorney Barney wanted to know if it shows the dimension
of the front yard, specifically, and Mr. Crittenden said it shows the 22.6 feet. General
discussion followed relative to the cost of moving the house.
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. No one appeared to address the Board.
Chairman Austen closed the public hearing.
MOTION
By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth:
RESOLVED, that the Board grant to Christen and Maurice Haltom the requested variance being
in the depth from 22.6 feet setback as now exists and as approved by permitting to
maintain an existing two family residence with a building setback from the front yard road
right-of-way line of 22.6 + feet, for the property located at 121 Eastern Heights Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57-1-8. 116, Residence District R-15, with the following
findings:
1) That the house was constructed over 20 years ago.
2) That the house is situated on a curve in the road.
3) That it might possibly have some problem in determining exactly where the 25 foot
should be measured.
4) That, in any event, it would be prohibitively expensive for the appellants to correct
the infraction by moving the house, and moving the house would not be of any
particular benefit to the Town, in fact, it might be a detriment.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
Ayes -. King, Ellsworth, Austen.
Nays - None.
The motion carried unanimously.
The third Appeal heard by the Board was the following:
APPEAL OF LEE W. SCHRUBEN, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO
BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO THE NORTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 869 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO. 25-2-25, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID DECK WILL BE LOCATED 9 FEET 4
INCHES + TO THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ON A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS 50 + fan! WIDE (100
FOOT LOT WIDTHS REQUIRED) AND IS APPROXIMATELY 7,250 SQUARE FEET IN AREA (15,000
SQUARE FOOT LOT AREAS REQUIRED) .
Chairman Austen stated that he had been to the location to look at it, and he said that
it was quite an extensive deck and stairway. Mr. Schruben submitted photographs showing the
"before" and "after", explaining the photographs and the logistics of getting to the house to
the Board. Chairman Austen asked if the ties were already there. Mr. Schruben indicated they
were, explaining that the prime motivation is to try to get the persons down to the house.
Chairman Austen stated that the letter Mr. Schruben wrote was quite informative of the job.
Chairman Austen asked Mr. Schruben as to when this was all put together, and Mr. Schruben said
that the letter was written perhaps the end of July and the job was started about July 15.
Town of Ithaca 5-
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 1, 1993
Mrs. Schruben said that the job was started in late April. Mr. Schruben said it was billed
as a two week job, but by then it was a money pit and it took longer to get finished up. Mr.
Schruben asked if the Board had a copy of the contract with Mr. Trenchard to which Mrs.
Schruben said that she had not given the Board a copy. Mr. Schruben said that the contract
shows that Mr. Trenchard was supposed to take care of all of the requirements and everything
else. He explained that, as the job went on, they started to question about the building
permit, but Mr. Trenchard explained again that he spoke to Mr. Hansen. They then had to take
the initiative themselves because Mr. Trenchard had said he had done it.
Mr. Frost said that he had called Hr. Trenchard 10 or 12 times, most recently two days
ago. Mr. Frost said that when he actually got to come out to the Schrubens and talk to Fir.
Trenchard face-to-face, Mr. Trenchard said that he would take care of it tomorrow . or
something. Mr. Frost stated that the Schrubens had filed a building permit application since
then. Mr. Frost thought the specifications for the job seemed to be very well constructed.
He said that out of 10 to 12 telephone calls, the builder returned one call early on around
noontime. Mrs. Schruben said that it had been 2-1/2 months since Mr. Trenchard said he would
give the information.
Attorney Barney asked if the Schrubens had paid him, to which they indicated yes. Mr.
Schruben said that Mr. Trenchard assured them that he would take care of it. Mr. Schruben
said that they had to watch the construction, and they got to be a little nervous about him.
Mr. Schruben said that, fortunately they followed up or they would have never known. He said
that Mr. Frost was right there one time when Mr. Trenchard said he would do it and that was
2-1/2 months ago. Fir. Schruben said that they would do whatever they would have to do because
he did not believe that Mr. Trenchard was interested in this project anymore.
General discussion followed Mr. King's question if there was any way to make the
contractor accountable. Attorney Barney said that the Board could deny the variance, thus
making the Schrubens tear the deck down, thus assuming they would have a cause of action
against the contractor because he did not get a permit to.build it in the first place. Mr.
Frost said that the contract was pretty explicit because he has seen the Schruben's contract
Which states that the contractor shall obtain,.all required permits and signed copies of the
Town of Ithaca compliance papers, as required by the zoning rules. Mr. King wanted to know
if this contractor was doing a lot of building in the Town, and Mr. Frost said that he has not
dealt with him yet, in terms of giving permits. Attorney Barney said-that he did not have any
bright ideas as to how to go directly to the contractor because the responsibility, even
though their contract delegates it to the contractor, it is really the owner's responsibility
and that is the violation. A violation proceeding could be started, but it would be against
the Schrubens. Fir. King said that if the owner were taken to court,_ he would have to pay a
$250.00 fine, and presumably have attorney's fees, etc. Mr. King said that that would
increase the amount of damages the Schrubens would be able to assert against the contractor
for breach of contract. Attorney Barney said that the step, as you know, between assertion
and collection is sometimes a large step.
General discussion followed about the legal ramifications and how the contractor may be
doing the same thing to other homeowners. Mr. Frost said he would be willing to draft a .
letter to the contractor. Chairman Austen said that he would favor a letter if this
contractor would ever think about doing construction in the Town of Ithaca, it would require
more attention to details. Mr. Frost said that he did have to add that the deck did seem to
be pretty substantial, and Chairman Austen said that he had no objection to the way in which
it was built. He said that it was well built and was a nice deck. Mr. Schruben said that the
contractor had some good people working for him and they worked very hard. He continued that
he felt that the contractor was a little cavalier about the whole thing. Chairman Austen said
that it would be rather hard to give someone a recommendation with this problem, and Mr.
Schruben said-.that he was thinking about calling the better Business Bureau about this. Mr.
Frost suggested that the Chamber of Commerce would be the ones to call.
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 1, 1993
Fir. Schruben discussed the problem he is having with the contractor when the contractor
hired Mr. Schruben's son to do some work. His 16 year old son has not yet been paid the
$80.00 the contractor has owed him for several months and the contractor said, at least 5
times, that the payment was in the mail. Attorney Barney asked if the contractor did the
construction work. Mr. Schruben said the contractor hired people to work for him. Mr.
Schruben said that the contractor personally did not have a hammer. Mr. King asked where did
Mr. Schruben find him, and Fir. Schruben said that the contractor called them in the early
spring, looking for work. The Schrubens neighbors warned them that they would have to watch
this guy because he might use inferior materials. Mr. Schruben continued as to how the
Schrubens watched over him, the warnings they received about him, and the problem with the the
money owed to his son.
Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. No one appeared to address the Board.
Chairman Austen closed the public hearing.
Environmental Assessment
Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form.
MOTION
By Chairman Edward Austen, seconded by Mr. Edward King:
RESOLVED, that the Board adopt the recommendations of Town Planner I, Louise Raimando, and
that the Board find that the construction warrants a negative determination of
environmental significance.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
Ayes - Austen, King, Ellsworth.
Nays - None.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Austen asked Mr. Schruben if the ties lining the creek were there before or if
they were put in, and Mr. Schruben indicated that they were there. Chairman Austen said that
it looked as if the ties had been there for a while, holding the creek in place. Chairman
Austen wanted to know if they were anchored back into the bank, and Mr. Schruben said that he
did not know but that he suspected so. Mr. Schruben said that, as it happens, the creek does
not even run against them. He said there were rocks betvteen the railroad ties- and the creek.
Chairman Austen read into the minutes a letter from Commissioner James Hanson, Commis-
sioner of the Tompkins County Department of Planning. Mr. King said that according to the
survey map, there is adequate access along the southern side of the property, along the south
side, to which Mr. Schruben agreed. When asked if a vehicle could be driven down there, Air.
Schruben said that that could not occur. Mr. Frost said that he would not entirely agree with •
the Planning Commissioner's statement relative to fighting a fire, to the extent that the work
may enhance the accessibility with the building for providing some areas of access through
walks or the decking that would otherwise be nonexistent, particularly given the condition of
the concrete steps that were there. Chairman Austen said that he did not see a particular
problem there himself. Chairman Austen said that there is a problem because there is a steep
slope anyway. Mr. Frost said that now one can get up and down there more quickly because of
the construction. Mr. Frost said that he has been told that the flames spread on pressure
treated wood less rapidly than on untreated wood.
Town of Ithaca c . _ 7:
Zoning Board of Appeals
September 1, 1993
General discussion followed relative to the extensive work on the stairway, and Mr. King
asked if Mr. Trenchard drew up the contract to which Mr. Schruben said that the Schrubens drew
up the contract because Mr. Trenchard wanted to have a one-line contract saying that he will
do what he wants to do when he wants to do it and tell the Schrubens what it would cost. Mr.
Schruben said he insisted that they write down what kind of materials he would use and that
type of thing. After further discussion, Mr. Schruben said that he could not fault the work
the contractor did; however, the contractor was lax on administrative details and the problems
he had with the contractor relative to his son. It was suggested that the Schrubens call the
New York State Department of Labor regarding the non-payment of his son's money. Chairman
Austen asked for any additional questions to which there were none.
MOTION
By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth:
RESOLVED, that the Board grant Special Approval to the appellant, Lee Schruben, a variance
to construct an as-built enlargement of the outside wood deck and stairs to the north side
of an existing nonconforming building/lot, located 9 feet 4 niches + to the north side lot
line on a parcel of land that is 50 + feet wide (100 foot lot widths required) and is
approximately 7,250 square feet in area (15,000 square foot lot areas required) , located
at 869 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25, and that such a
building having been nonconforming and that as previously constructed it was only 13 feet,
7 inches from the north boundary line which is the side yard, whereas 15 feet is required
in a R-15 District and that the new construction would be further nonconforming in that
it would put the north deck as close as 9 feet 4 inches to the north side yard at the
narrowest location, with the following findings:
1) That the appellants have done everything reasonable to obtain prior approval of this
construction.
2) That the construction with new deck and stairs makes the property much more assessable
and-safer.
3) That the construction would not be detrimental to the general amenities of the •
neighborhood character and is not sufficient to deny the neighboring property or to
seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants.
4) That .otherwise finding that the construction conforms to the criteria set forth in
Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub-paragraphs a-h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning .Ordinance.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
Ayes - Austen, King, Ellsworth.
Nays - None.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Austen brought the Town of Ithaca Memorandum before the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals. Chairman Austen read the proposed local law relative to codes and
ordinances. Attorney Barney led the discussion, answering questions about the•proposed law.
MOTION
By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth:
RECEIVED
AUG 11 1993 Tompkins County
T4wN OF iTHACA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
BUILDING/ZONING 121 East Court Street
Ithaca,New York 14850
James W.Hanson,Jr. Telephone(607)274-5560
Commissioner of Planning FAX(607)274-5578
August 9, 1993
Mr. Andy Frost
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239-1 and-m of the New York State General
Municipal Law
Action: Special Approval for Residential Deck Expansion--Tax Map. 25-2-25
(D IQ(A+ ar
Dear Andy:
This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by
the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1&-m of the New York State
General Municipal Law.
The proposal,as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity,
County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County
Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice.
The Planning Department would, however,like to make a few comments on this proposal. Once
the deck is installed, there may be some difficulty providing access to the lake side of the property
for firefighting purposes,particularly if there is a similar"tight"setback on the other side of the
property. Perhaps the deck could be slightly narrower to lessen the intrusion into the side yard
setback.
Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record.
Sincerely,
Jam'
James Hanson, Commissioner
toRecycled paper
Il [ I 1 II Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev. 10/90
Town of Ithaca Environmental Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY
PART I - Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor)
1 . Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name:
LE5 5C,./ 0/3 fit/ Euc-
3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map):
Tax Parcel Number: 50 _e. —a,S
4. Is Proposed Action: n NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION/ALTERATION
5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other
relevant items): /-
ea6 n(or) rj1 side d7 /DUJe aGfi fl /16(41 00/6 d I hDly(e 'fD n'!C
id;•ch e/1J Jh/i f 01-► a ' •rSe h'ides
(Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.)
6. Amount of Land Affected: Initiallyyrs)
444A- yrs) �',&&.
(0-5 ./0 Acres (6-10 rs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres
7. How is the Land Zoned Presently?
—/5
8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? •
YES NO If no, describe conflict briefly :
1700 e1ort innin)r. 6444:/dir.n.,J /o/- N
i
9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new:
Public Road? YES& NO x I Public Water? YES NO' Public Sewer? YES El NO
10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial
Industrial El Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space El 0 her
Please describe:
1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit,approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency
(Federal, State, Local)? YES NC If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding:
�dk,,a{ �` harms -.3k4cill; achttt
12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval? YES El NO
If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification.
(0 G n o E 6t -
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORM/iTION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): (AiL �_�C� v,(jc/t/
Signature: id)cfj7Date: /��
PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary.)
A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law?
YES NO )( If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF.
B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?
YES NO % If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any.
C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following:
(Answers may be handwritten, If legible)
C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste
production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
See attached .
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or
neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
See attached.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or
threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly:
See attached.
C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other
natural resources? Explain briefly:
See attached .
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain
briefly:
See attached .
CG. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 - C5? Explain briefly:
See attached.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly:
See attached .
D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
YES NO >< If yes, explain briefly:
See attached .
E. Comments of staff >< , CAC , other attached. (Check as applicable.)
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca)
Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise
significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (le. urban or rural); (b) probability cf occurring;
(c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting
materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and
adequately addressed.
Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this de rmination.
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 6t4.Se ( 64—,-4/c,
Name of Lead Agency Prep is Signature (If different from Responsible Officer)
Edward Austen , Chairman
Na "& tie of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer
46�C.Y. 4(4 at.A_41A-(--, #)//6 Date: g/0
Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency
PART II - Environmental Assessment - Request For Special Approval, 869
Taughannock Blvd., Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-25.
A. Action is Unlisted.
B. Action will not receive coordinated review.
C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following:
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise
levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,
drainage or flooding problems?
No significant adverse impacts with regard to air quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns,
solid waste production or potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problem are anticipated
as a result of this action. Proposed action is the granting of Special Approval to allow the
construction of a deck addition (already constructed without required Town approvals). The
new deck and wooden staircase will alleviate erosion from a set of crumbling steps and a dirt
and gravel pathway that was used prior to these additions.
•
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural
resources, or community or neighborhood character?
None anticipated. The location of the proposed addition is a steeply sloped area adjacent to
the home. The houses located between Taughannock Boulevard and Cayuga Lake in this
area are predominantly summer homes which have been converted to year round residences.
They are built right into the slope with little usable yard space. The deck and new wooden
stairway provide safer and more convenient access to the house. No agricultural resources
exist on the site. No aesthetic, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources
are known to exist on the site or otherwise expected to be impacted by the proposed action.
The addition is in character with the surrounding residential neighborhood. NO adverse
impacts to community or neighborhood character are expected as a result of the proposed
action.
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats,
or threatened or endangered species?
None anticipated. No significant or endangered vegetation or wildlife species, or significant
habitats, are known to exist on the site, or expected to be otherwise affected.
No significant vegetation was removed for this addition.
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in
use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?
None anticipated.
C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced
by the proposed action?
None anticipated.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-
05?
None anticipated.
C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of
energy)?
None anticipated.
D. _ Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated.
PART III Recommendation
•
Given the nature and scale of the proposed action, the location and characteristics of the site,
and the information given above, a negative determination of environmental significance is •
recommended.
Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer: Louise Raimondo, Planner 1
Review Date: August 18, 1993
'La.a 6.30 FAZE. /2
., .
\-i- cen te( L22_ __________ ___ -------
---,-.-- - . ,---
• T. it.1/4u GH A IC____ji -`1°C1K _IttiU____L.E._,V___g--W--- . - _,_ _,
.-A
_ov_____erhe_ad21flOy lir! Alvse)\)_ _______ _ _
— 4)
. ___ ___ —___,D• .:
co
i. 65.00'
\--1:\
1+
l ' \ \ N-16°-55 -W --)-
1
I
es
8 21 ...°,ae I I 5 0 0 I net-, 8.621 .`:..4 1\
- - .• I. 1
IN) :"Et '''‘ •
) to. co-P•
N culvert—
' .
Ifrl m_2 2 o _0 4 -Yi .. ''''-'-... .•••••• L.-J . .
I
40.681 1 i
\ '
,-,
•
/ 1 :
• ,
.1 I
- 13,948 SO. FT. g I . ..
1 u.
r : 1 PARCEL 26 PARCEL 2 5 Z
—I
'
. f • \ a
in o
- 1
.
I. _ co .
1 - co
• -S rn Z
7.414/. !_+.
\ a
*
31 OD -• P3
. , I , • ' . 1 <7•TI—).10.1- 1
i 0
i • . ' . 1/4 ,
„ • CAMP ' , .
I ,••,/ . f_ . \ '1 new deck-gni
. 1 :COTTAGEzt 1 \
\\ .
6.51 I\CN:::\N\ I. DECK
i ., l01511
1 .
TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $100.00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 7/ II 93
Ithaca, New York 14850
CASH - (
(607) 273-1783 �J
CHECK - ( 1..„5 Q )
SPEC I A L APPROVAL
ZONING:
APPEAL
For Office Use Only
to the
Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer
and the
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been informed that authorization is required to: � //1O' d'(,�' 07) 716i10
Side OT 7)i)i Clow&) I, bay/dI(j /t) .
at S(p9 7inj/fn fru)ck Nat , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 5503OS1 025,—.2. -2 ,
as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The
Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to:
Article(s) j/ Z , Section(s) cJ / , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the
UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization.
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary. )
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application.
1� �� Date: ID 'q3 J�
Signature of Owner/Appellant: v�
Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date:
Home Telephone Number: (7 :2— O 31 v Work Telephone Number: 02 J S q/ 33
NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within
18 months, the approval will expire.
Special Approval Appeal
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Lee W. Schruben
869 Taughannock Blvd.
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 272-0320
Request:
We would like to request authorization to extend a deck across the north side of a non-
conforming building lot.
Benefits:
• Improve safety
• Enhance the appearance of the property
• Improve access to the house and from the back of the house to the front of the house.
• Increase outdoor living space
The house at 869 Taughannock Blvd. is built on a steep slope. It is a one story
house without a basement (crawl space only). While the west side of house is at ground-
level, the east side of the house is more than six feet off the ground. When the east deck is
taken into consideration, it is more than eleven feet off the ground.
The north side of the house has a set of crumbling and buckled concrete steps. In
addition, there was an unsightly and unstable wooden porch with rotten stairs attached to
it. The only way to reach our main entry (on the east deck) from our stairs on the west
side of the house was to go down the hazardous concrete steps, walk across a level
section of dirt, walk up the rickety wooden steps, cross the porch, and step up onto the
east deck. To avoid this dangerous approach, we used the stairs to the cottage next door,
circled our house from the south side, and entered our house via the east deck.
By removing the wooden porch (and stairs) and extending the deck from the east
side of the house across the north side of the house over the concrete steps and landing,
we gain easier, safer, and quicker access from our stairs to our main doorway. We also
improve the appearance of the house by eliminating the unattractive porch and steps.
I
s.
Lee W. Schruben Page 2
869 Taughannock Blvd.
Since the house is relatively small (approximately 1100 sq. ft.), the addition of
outdoor living space is of major importance to us. Moreover, the area under the deck can
be used as additional storage space, something that is also scarce on the property.
When the east deck was built, it was 13 feet 7 inches from the northern boundary
line. The north side deck is closer to the property line (9 feet 4 inches at its narrowest
section). We hope that this will not cause a problem. Since the house is so small, we
thought the additional outdoor space was vital. The property that adjoins our northern
boundary at the north side deck is made up of a drainage ditch and a gravel path. No
houses or structures are nearby.
PLEASE NOTE:
In our written contract with our contractor, Thomas Trenchard, it stated that the
contractor would "provide all required permits and signed copies of Town of Ithaca
compliance papers as required by zoning codes." The contractor assured us repeatedly
that everything had been taken are of, that he had checked with Mr. Andy Frost, and that
no permits would be needed for the new deck. We were extremely interested in making
sure that everything was taken care of properly. Therefore, we hired a surveyor and we
called the Town's Building Office to confirm that we were following the Town's
guidelines. Just prior to the completion of the project, we invited both the Assistant
Building Inspector and the Building Inspector to look at the construction. From them we
learned that a building permit was needed for the deck and that, since the lot was "non-
conforming," we would also need approval from the zoning board.
We discovered only after making final payment to Mr. Trenchard that he had never
contacted Mr. Frost about our project nor to our knowledge had he made any attempt to
obtain the required permits. He apparently is ignoring our requests to fulfill his
contractual obligations.
Because of these circumstances, we must now obtain approval from the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board after the construction was completed. We apologize for any
problems this request may create. Our intention was to comply with all Town guidelines
before the fact, not after the fact.
Sincerely,
Lee W. Schruben
!�T, 22-141 50 SHEETS
OJT 22-142 100 SHEETS
♦MPAD 22-144 200 SHEETS
/
i 1 . ' II •
- E k I .III
<8. tr
4)
2 1 �X •
. J i•
• i
A. is
cJa hs•
��v;punia}anu•D ,. . s1,5+ ;
I.1' 1. 1:1Prl
1J
be rd / %.' g . -4
ax�Y
4• M
NN.N. .
uo -nv-P0 v0 ,
give 7bQuvmf iny_ e s .
�� 22-141 SO SHEETS • I '
•
8W0• 22-142 100 SHEETS
22-144 200 SHEETS
l
V (C
V'
•
rn
J Z
•
•
n -�
d
Printer Friendly Report - Image Mate Online Page 1 of 2
k �1 Property Description Report For: 869 Taughannock Blvd,
Municipality of Ithaca
Status: Active
-
1 K
Roll Section: Taxable
—=...Y Swis: 503089
> . ,,,, f Tax Map ID #: 25.-2-25
l w.. Property Class: 210 - 1 Family Res
'' '' ' Site: RES 1
t� m ; In Ag. District: Error
' • Site Property Class: 210 - 1 Family Res
Zoning Code: LR - Ir
Neighborhood Code: 30040
Land Assessment: 2009 - $150,000 Total Assessment: 2009 - $400,000
2008 - $150,000 2008 - $400,000
Total Acreage/Size: 100 x 150 School District: Ithaca
Full Market Value: 2009 - $400,000 Legal Property Desc:
2008 - $400,000
Deed Book: 43717 Deed Page: 8001
Grid East: 835997 Grid North: 898155
Area
Living Area: 1,238 sq. ft. First Story Area: 1,238 sq. ft.
Second Story Area: 0 sq. ft. Half Story Area: 0 sq. ft.
Additional Story Area: 0 sq. ft. 3/4 Story Area: 0 sq. ft.
Finished Basement: 0 sq. ft. Number of Stories: 1
Structure
Building Style: Ranch Bathrooms (Full - Half): 1 - 0
Bedrooms: 3 Kitchens: 1
Fireplaces: 0 Basement Type: Crawl
Porch Type: Porch-Covered Porch Area: 32.00
Basement Garage Cap: 0 Attached Garage Cap: 0.00 sq. ft.
Overall Condition: Good Overall Grade: Average
Year Built: 1952
Owners
Julie E Waters
Waters, Julie E
869 Taughannock Blvd
Ithaca NY 14850
http://asmsdg2.tompkins-co.org/report.aspx?file=V OL3/T000009/50308902500000020250... 7/21/2009
Printer Friendly Report- Image Mate Online Page 2 of 2
Sales
Property Value Arms Addl. Deed Deed
Sale Date Price Class Sale Type Prior Owner Usable Length Parcels Book Page
7/25/2003 $350,000 210 - 1 Land & Matan, Yes Yes Yes 43717 8001
Family Building Anthony J
Res
8/16/2002 $327,000 280 - Land & Peterson, Yes Yes Yes 2509 7354
Multiple Building Randall S
res
4/25/2001 $270,000 210 - 1 Land & Schruben, Yes Yes Yes 902 112
Family Building Lee W
Res
•
Utilities
Sewer Type: Comm/public Water Supply: Comm/public
Utilities: Gas &elec Heat Type: Hot wtr/stm
Fuel Type: Gas Central Air: No
Improvements
Replacement
Structure Size Grade Condition Year Cost
Porch-coverd 32 sq ft Economy Normal 1932 $0
Porch-open/deck 517 sq ft Average Good 1995 $0
Cabin/bungl 336 sq ft Economy Normal 1939 $0
Porch-open/deck 312 sq ft Average Normal 1952 $0
http://asmsdg2.tompkins-co.org/report.aspx?file=V OL3/T000009/50308902500000020250... 7/21/2009
--- T I
^' center tine ___�\ � ed 9e of Pave...-_meal -
�r
.
UA ._-__ . __ ' __.
T.AUGH _tiu. LEVRD gas �>/_ I
1
_ � volve _�
4
—over�ead dn1i1Y-Ilne � 'l _in_— m 65.00'—
Co (''�\ N a_
la \ I+
'.` \`. N-16°-55 -W —4-
. 14-.1 E 1 I•\• i
• . I I
d� ' u 5i) rll .eL� 862 14 \ I 1
8 2 well ��U -. _
'' p i ^-•� box f%
5863 total 0 \`culvert- I I II 15
\
) m N_22° p4 W
40.66 1
I
N 1 !
13,948 SO. FT. —
I "II I z
—
PARCEL 26 PARCEL 25 11 i •
I - A .
I
t A
i 1 o
_ 1
•
1‘ i If a'
° rn z 0
PP in
_ L I f
Ln \ V U
� � � ; � � .
Nli 1
o f ,H CAMPI new deCkini
tIN : \i DECK lU ci \ t
\.: 41
y� 1_ - -_ -_ -
N
i ' \
ID N I 1
l
+ Co_
rt-- S -15°-II -E chord tie • +
%
edge of water r i 100.00� ` ��y __ 130 00'
i m ('retaining wall
I , CAYUGA LAKE ./
O ;
I 1
n I N ail
r . . L ii
of N• If '. III IL ' I I POLE ie..t L lE. FEHRUARY 25 1988
DI N_ 115 C..NCPE. E MONUM:NT L] r"- ------ MAP SHOWING LANDS OF
i n ��_ 2 :2`i. B 26 .�
� •� � LAWRENCE P. YOUNG _. .__._
L I iPART OF MIL. LOT 87 TOWN OF ITHACA
1 r.nwiN I r' 'r")� ..I IGUNTY OF TOMPKINS STAI £ " F NFW YOU'-.
; A- a-s' St SCALE I EE —..._- - 29 ,- 1979
_,r .:.; . ET�,L — .� ZD ` EFT DATE JULY 1384
-ZgS) 1-/-g,9�
.::
411,E .. ' SI.:
�'. �~ 't I r r/1' r"
pea A . . : �� *��i� 1 s 4
9 �,41 _ �r
1.f ' IOAf _ y! '
F _` y, "s i► - 't7, �f f r. , j 1, i ; { sl
- • ST K: i. t - .^-!` it x Y k'•kip {.- `'� I
av
e • J 1„, Y J, ' \ti t" ,
-✓�A_/
r y / �'.
- - -,..=�"•y- '-'�°r J.p;.i ,1 n- --
_re_ADO (..\- 3 i --
.ii•' `
tt
1
tki
hi III ......... P i ..a+'!E
/;�s `+. , :r' k..'i/g Fit •
fir:_ E.'C-N, • _ '"
' (t �� }`� . .y am
+ ' I:r I - .
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1984
7: 00 P.M.
By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS
HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals
of the Town of Ithaca on Thursday, July 26, 1984, in Town Hall , 126 East
Seneca Street , (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, NY. ,
COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters:
APPEAL of Lawrence P. Young, Appellant , from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of an
addition to a non-conforming residence with side yard deficiency
at 869 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-25.
Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14, Article XII , Section
54, and Article XIV, Section 75, o:f the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL of William R. Garrison, Appellant , from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Building Permit for the renovation of a non-
conforming residence with side yard deficiencies at 979 Taughannock
Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-21-2-31. Permit is denied
under Article IV, Section 14 , Article XII , Section 54, and Article
XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
APPEAL of Alexander E. and Ruth Haswell Sidorowicz, Appellants, David B.
Gersh, Esq. , as Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector
denying a Certificate of Compliance for premises with side yard and
front yard deficiencies at 102 Spruce Way, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6--42-1-2. 1 . Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section 14,
and Article XIV, Section 76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordim .ce.
APPEAL of Tompkins Community Day Care Center, Inc. , Appellant , William Tucker
Dean, Esq. , as Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector
denying permission to operate a "Family Day Care Center" at 1285
Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-3-2. 1. Permis-
sion is denied under Article V, Section 18, of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordim:nce.
ADJOURNED APPEAL (from June 27, 1984 ) of Edith Becker, Appellant , Allen S.
Becker, as Agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector denying
permission to breed and raise fox at 661 Five Mile Drive, Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-31-2-22 . Permission is denied under Article
III , Section 5, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance.
(continued)
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JULY 26 , 1984
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on
Thursday, July 26 , 1984 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,
N.Y. , at 7 : 00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward N. Austen, Joan G. Reuning, Jack D.
Hewett, Lewis D . Cartee (Building Inspector) , Nancy M. Fuller
(Secretary) .
ALSO PRESENT: William Tucker Dean, Esq. , Lawrence P . Young, Jennifer
Young, Stephen A. Pliscio, Betsy L. Garrison, William
Garrison, Bonnie Hollenbeck, Allen S . Becker, David B.
Gersh, Esq . , Jeremy Howe (Q-104-FM News) , Jim McKinley
(WTKO News) .
Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 09 p.m. and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication
of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on
July 18 , 1984 and July 21 , 1984 , respectively, together with the
Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various
neighbors of each of the properties in question, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, and upon each of the appellants and/or agent, if
any, on July 19 , 1984 .
APPEAL OF LAWRENCE P. YOUNG , APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO
A NON-CONFORMING RESIDENCE WITH SIDE YARD DEFICIENCY AT 869 TAUGHANNOCK
BLVD. , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-25 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION
75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE.
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter
duly opened at 7 : 10 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above . Both Mr . and Mrs . Young were
present. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and
submitted by Lawrence P. Young under date of July 17 , 1984 , as follows:
" . . .Having been denied a building permit for an addition to a legal
non-conforming structure at 869 Taughannock Blvd. . . .We started an addition
of a 13 x 13 bedroom and renovation on the existing house. I was under
the impression that Novarr-Mackessey, the contractor, had gotten the
building permit. They thought I had gotten it. I have owned the property
for 5 years and didn' t realize the problem of it being two tax parcels in
regards to adding on. I would like a variance for the addition since by
tax parcels there isn 't enough side yard. In order to get financing from
the bank (TCTC) I need a building permit and Certificate of Compliance.
Since I do own both parcels and have treated it as one I would like a
variance so we can get financing and continue. "
Zoning Board of Appeals 2 July 26 , 1984 '
Chairman Aron noted that a Survey of the entire parcel, as one
parcel, was attached to the Appeal, copies of which had been received by
the Board, such Survey having been prepared by Jon D. Haight, L.L.S . , and
dated July 24, 1979 .
Chairman Aron read into the record the following letter, received
July 24 , 1984, from Frank R. Liguori, Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning:
"July 20 , 1984
To: Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law
Case: Area variance appeal of Lawrence P. Young at 869 Taughannock Blvd.
(state highway)
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section
239-m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on
intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore, no recommendation
is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act
without prejudice. "
Chairman Aron asked Mr. Young if he had anything to add to his Appeal
statement. Mr. Young noted that the Board had a copy of the Survey before
them and proceeded to explain the existence of the two parcels, both of -
which he owns, and how he thought he only had one big parcel.
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak
to the matter of the Young Appeal. No one spoke.
Mr. Austen asked Mr. Young if he had any drawings. Mr. Young stated
•
that he did and proceeded to show the Board the plans for the construction
of the 13 ' x 13 ' addition. Mrs. Reuning commented that the building is
pretty well along the way. Mr. Young stated that that was true, adding
that his wife is expecting in one month and in the confusion each of them
-- he and the contractor -- thought the other one had obtained the
building permit.
Mr. Austen wanted to make sure that there were two parcels involved
in this case, and commented that the building to which Mr. Young wishes to
add appears to be over the property line which seems to be dividing the
properties. Mr. Young stated that there certainly seems to be two
parcels, however, he purchased the land as one piece. Mr. Young stated .
: that the "cottage" shown on the "other" parcel is rented to one person
from September to June and in the summer months either his parents or his
wife' s parents come and stay in it.
MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and
hereby does grant an area variance for the 13 ' x 13 ' addition to the
building on parcel designated as 6-25-2-25 , as proposed by Lawrence P. .
Young.
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 July 26 , 1984
The MOTION failed because of lack of second.
Further discussion was held between the members of the Board and Mr.
Young wherein his plans for internal renovation and improvement were
discussed as well as the possibility of combining the two parcels.
Mr. Cartee stated that there are two separate parcels involved here
according to the Survey and according to the Tompkins County Assessment
Department, and suggested that the Board might wish to consider a side
yard variance.
MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and
hereby does grant an area variance from the requirements of Article IV,
Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance with respect to the
southerly side yard of property presently owned by Lawrence P. Young,
known as 869 Taughannock Blvd. and designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6-25-2-25 , such that the existing structure located thereon may remain
in place on said Parcel No. 6-25-2-25 .
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Austen, Reuning, Hewett .
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, pursuant
to Article XII, Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
approve and hereby does approve an addition of approximately 13 ' x 13 ' to
the southeasterly side of an existing non-conforming dwelling structure
located at 869 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-25,
presently owned by Lawrence P. Young.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Austen, Reuning, Hewett.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the
Young Appeal duly closed at 7 : 28 p.m.
APPEAL OF WILLIAM R. GARRISON, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE RENOVATION OF A
NON-CONFORMING RESIDENCE WITH SIDE YARD DEFICIENCIES AT 979 TAUGHANNOCK
BLVD. , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-21-2-31 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14 , ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION
75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE.
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 July 26 , 1984 •
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter
duly opened at 7 :28 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings
as posted and published and as noted above. Both Mr. and Mrs. Garrison
were present. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and
submitted by William R. Garrrison under date of July 17, 1984 , as follows:
" . . .Having been denied a building permit to reconstruct the house at 979
Taughannock Blvd. . . .Because of a fire in the existing structure renovation
is necessary to make it suitable for habitation. The intention is to tear
down the burnt remains and reconstruct the home on the existing
foundation. The foundation is adequate and was not harmed by fire. I
respectfully submit for a variance from the above mentioned zoning
ordinance because a portion of the north foundation wall is less than the
allowable distance from the adjoining property. "
Chairman Aron noted that the Board members each had received a copy
of a "Survey for Robert H. & Frances H. Apgar" , Town of Ithaca., County of
Tompkins, State of New York, Tax #21-2-31 , signed and sealed by George C.
Schlecht, L.P.E. & L.S. , dated 6/84 , revised: 7/3/84 , showing the "2-story
cottage" which burned, the foundation for which is 1.8 ' from the north
side lot line of the non-conforming parcel having frontage of
approximately 48 ' and a depth of approximately 322 ' .
Chairman Aron read into the record the following letter, received
July 24 , 1984, from Frank R. Liguori, Tompkins County Commissioner of
Planning:
•
"July 20 , 1984
To: Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State
General Municipal Law
Case: Area variance appeal of William R. Garrison at 979 Taughannock
Blvd. (state highway)
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section
239-m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on
intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore, no recommendation
is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act
without prejudice. "
Chairman Aron asked Mr. Garrison if he had anything to add. Mr.
Garrison stated that he had several photographs to show the Board and
proceeded to pass them around. Mr. Garrison stated that he wanted to
remove the existing "cottage-grade structure" and rebuild, as a home. Mr.
Garrison stated that there will be no expansion of the building. Chairman
Aron noted that Mr. Garrison had expressed his intention to rebuild on the
existing foundation which was not harmed by the fire. Mr. Garrison stated
that that was correct, adding that it was his intention to remove the
forty-year-old frame down to the foundation. Mr. Garrison commented that
the house was not a total loss, however, his feeling was that they can
update it and rebuild it. Chairman Aron asked Mr. Garrison if he had
consulted with any builders. Mr. Garrison replied that he had consulted
with two builders.
TOWN OF ITHACA
FEE:
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 7 /7-fp
Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( ✓)
(607) 273-1747
CHECK - ( )
APPEAL ZONING: - /_(
to the For Office Use Only
Building Inspector
and
Zoning Board of Appeals
of the
Town of Ithaca, New York
* * * * * * **
Having been denied petsnla. - iu//Q/•.vq
ia,z)i/ tirns o Gc /e a C /Uo.u- C�Oulu U s14/Luciu at rG �2 /oz 1 v� , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 40- Z - - , as shown on the accompanying
application and/or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason
that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of :
Article(s) � , Section(s)
// —
of th of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
�1
the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in
support of the appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would
impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows :
7L/ a_ /3 X /$
c/Si .021 7` -P S1 '177 ha e- P-
L GIJ / "01/-P Ssi 71-Accf /1dd�"��
j G1c/;-e /11 Ctc 4 O � Gley
/erm 7-1z_e a d „r / / zs T
ha a dc ec/ Ver-717 7720r S y-e
,24-ce4 /mil fey 4.4rd_c 7zd Q���ti �Y, Lc/ou /J
lz (I 04"/ •e .icJr-- 716 a ceM7`7 s c e /
`J 7� e,ree Z( �/ / 51-771 ,e�lDc( 5 / V •a
Dated: )4 /?/t 7 Signed:
7L-c) ef 140,1,c,/47
/G TC //ee
A-m �
i hirp‘.7
/r Gvrit C Cam. S/ � C c`
er
tz cern A- e ece_71-eci
/tee r (€
6i,f/tej G7-7'7L U-P.
� w
.... \71 TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning
Lissaitarrim.............
Ith.T.84-14
July 20, 1984
1
pi , l �Q r ", LJ�I
it , ', ? 4 1ci !
84
To: Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector L `� j
Town of Ithaca �-/
126 East Seneca Street w� �F IrHACA
Ithaca, New York 14850
Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York
State General Municipal Law.
Case: Area variance appeal of Lawrence P. Young at 869 Taughannock
Blvd. (state highway)
This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section
239-m.
The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious
impact on intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore, no
recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you
are free to act without prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
_...3.e.a.,,,,./( :.:341--f-e"""8°
'Frank R. Liguori, L�ommissioner
Tompkins County Planning Department
128 East Buffalo Street. Ithaca. New York 14850 Telephone (607) 274.5286/274.5287
—_
center hne -----
.,," •
I edge of Gov ement
TAUGHANNOC�BOULE
��VARD_- ------__
h gas /'1 - --
r volve p �1
l LAoverhead utrlrty IIne '( — ._ --.1.- `
a' 6 5.00'
11+ 1kri
+ 1 1
€ r \
N - Ib 55 -W • -
c — r--.: cn .
8.2 ()well
well 50 01 8.62 ,
i 58 63 total
iv c
O \ box !
O. t_ \culvert
1115.
j.
rn N 22°-( 4 Al
�- ,} U
40.68 1 I
i % I l
i / ! I li
1 ,„it
N i 13,948 SQ. FT. 0 i
I z
_
I PARCEL 26 PARCEL 25 ,� i 1 w
k
1 • c• °
i '
1 -
o rn z
_
! 0 A `1 . \ ' 1 0
' I+
N73 CO )\I
' \ i
_ J
19 c ° / 1
j
1" ' CAMP
a \COT7 AGE� _. _2 , 7' - o
6.5' DECK N ry
DECK I ! a
1, !n
i f
1
,
IN
c0 •
1 IY N i
-� S IS°- II -E chord tie
I+
cage nt woter ; r�"'�4070 fJFI� , - ---` I...220.00'
— - `y — - - 13 0. 0— - -�
c) D. /04/0. 0No
4) I i
tvn7 r I •
li {iLLII'•3 AYUGA LAKE Ireto nlnq wol
At- v /
c�y�Fotiq ao�'3��C� (D - oZ.�02-� -ir '.
LAND 4 x 2
,, 1
1 DENOTES UTILITY POLE ,C" •
1 DENOTES CONCRETE MONUM:T 0 I __ ___
•
25-2 -25 a 26 MAP SHOWING LANDS OF
t • . _ -- __ FIRMAN H . BROWN --. .
t FIRMAN II. BROWN L____J PART OF NIL. T,OT 87 TOWN OF ITHACA
geoL . .... '... •":.7' COUNTY OF TOMPRINS ST:,1 E A r O• .
,J. /4 • 7/179 SCALE 1" = 20 --EE i - DATE JULY 24 , 1979
.,N ! ...1,.,f1T, . , . ..