The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA History Combined (3) FR.SD • TOWN OF ITHACA Data l g I g I i "lam TOWN OF ITHACA CIarL aT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 24, 1992 THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WERE HEARD BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JUNE 24, 1992: APPEAL OF ROBERT L. KENERSON, APPELLANT, REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN. OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 1465 MECKLENBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-28-1-3.3, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY). SAID PARCEL IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT THERE IS ONLY 60 FEET OF'ROAD FRONTAGE. AT THE STREET LINE AND 60 FEET OF WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK (100 FEET AND 150 FEET BEING. REQUIRED, RESPECTIVELY) . A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 21, OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED AS THE PROPOSED ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE TO BE LOCATED 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY'S REAR LOT LINE (50-FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK BEING REQUIRED) . APPROVED ENLARGEMENT AND GRANTED VARIANCE. APPEAL OF CHARLES HENDERSON, APPELLANT, REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA:ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ENLARGE AN, EXISTING NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON.A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 839 TAUGHANNOCK-BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO: 6-25-2-34, RESIDENCE -DISTRICT R-15. ' THE EXISTING BUILDING EXTENDS BEYOND THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE (15-FOOT BUILDING .SETBACK,BEING REQUIRED) . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING' SPACE ON:THE. WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE ADDITION PROPOSED TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET. (+ OR -) OF THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE. • APPROVED. APPEAL OF ELIZABETH SANDERS, APPELLANT, ALEX BLACKMER, AGENT,. REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 16 THE BYWAY„ TOWN OF ' ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-66-1-8, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-I5. 'THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA, WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT REMAINING THE SANE. THE PARCEL IS NON-CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS THE 150 FOOT REQUIRED DEPTH AND. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS LOCATED 20 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY (25 FEET BEING REQUIRED) . APPROVED,WITH CONDITION. APPEAL OF MATTHEW WHITTEMORE AND JODIE MEYERS, APPELLANTS, REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER.ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ALTER A NON-CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 289 HAYTS ROAD, TOWN'OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-24-1-41.8; AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT' (RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY) . THE PARCEL OF LAND IS NON- CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS FRONTAGE ALONG A TOWN HIGHWAY. A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 280-A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW IS ALSO REQUIRED. THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WHICH OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. APPROVED ENLARGEMENT AND GRANTED VARIANCE. Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals June 24, 1992 The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF CHARLES HENDERSON, APPELLANT, REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON -CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 839 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 25-2-34, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE EXISTING BUILDING EXTENDS BEYOND THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE (15 -FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED). THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE ADDITION PROPOSED TO BE WITHIN 5 FEET (+ OR -) OF THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINE, Mr. Charles Henderson appeared before the Board and explained the proposed enlargement of the building. He explained the reasons why it was decided to scale back the construction to 16' x 30'. Mr. Frost commented that the density under the original proposal, which was the 27 - foot x 30 -foot addition, had been figured to be, conservatively, about 170 land coverage, with 20% being the limit, so the proposal of 27 feet x 30 feet would still be under the 20o permitted in an R-15 zone; the reduction to the smaller addition (16 feet x 30 feet) will further reduce the land coverage. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. Environmental Assessment MOTION No one appeared to address the Board. By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the request of Charles Henderson to enlarge an existing non -conforming residential building by 16 x 30 feet on a non -conforming parcel of land located at 839 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-34, as recommended by Planner Richard A. Eiken on June 18, 1992. Ayes - King, Scala, Austen, Hines. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. [The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.] Further discussion followed between Mr. Henderson and the Board regarding the proposed construction. MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 24, 1992 0 RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals hereby approves. the application, as revised, of the Appellant, Charles Henderson, to extend the existing cottage, located at 839 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2- 34, to the west by an addition which will be 16 feet x 30 feet wide, rather than the 27 feet x 30 feet as originally proposed, said Board recognizing that the north- westerly corner of the proposed addition will apparently be within approximately 6 feet of the northerly lot line, with the following findings: 1. That the proposed addition will not substantially alter the existing bank to the west. 2. That it will preserve an additional number of trees on the existing slope to the west. 3. That the cottage to the north is some 40 feet, plus or minus, away from the property line and is apparently so situated that this addition will not materially impact the visual amenities from the adjoining cottage. 4. That the proposal complies with Section 77, Paragraph 7, Sub -paragraphs a - f. 5. That the proposed use and design will be consistent with the character of the district in which it is located and shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devalue any neighboring property or seriously inconvenience any neighbors. A vote on the Motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Scala, Austen, Hines. Nays - None. The notion carried unanimously. The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF ELIZABETH SANDERS, APPELLANT, AT BLACiCMEFt, AGENT, REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO M ARGE AN EXISTING NON -CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON -CONFORMING PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED AT 16 THE BYWAY, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PAR- CEL NO. 6-66-1-8, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA, WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT REMAINING THE SAME. THE PARCEL IS NON -CONFORMING IN THAT IT LACKS THE 150 FOOT REQUIRED DEPTH AND THE EXISTING BUILDING IS LOCATED 20 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY (25 FEET BEING RE- QUIRED) . Its. Elizabeth Sanders appeared before the Board and explained that they are requesting to extend the master bedroom because they wish to put in a second bathroom and that would take up most of the rather small master bedroom so they would like to extend the master bedroom as far as the chimney over an existing one-story extension. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. Environmental Assessment MOTION No one appeared to address the Board. 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: II 2. Project Name: nn CLsrkes P. keo.clevsov1 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): 831 1T j\. .k Y i \. Tax Parcel Number: Z S� - Z - 3 y 4. Is Proposed Action: ❑ NEW EXPANSION El MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): = ,cr U t ek L ,1r,e k-e 4 a c Z 7 ' x 3 0 ' 6 e -1-t> . 1R wC,S4 SC&e o4 w.1 Lasu fre. • (Attach separate sheet(s)if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently? 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES Ej NO C If no, describe conflict briefly: 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES El NO Er Public Water? YES El NO Public Sewer? YES 111 NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? gesidential D Commercial Industrial El Agriculture ❑Park/Forest/Open Space El Other Please describe: 11. Does proposed action involve a permit,approval, or funding, now or ultimately from'any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES El NO lj If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES El NO 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): CLcur I l�S 1 • e-er,s n� v� Signature: I � Date: ( -� -7 Z C oleo f/r..,a/ersd,, ZKA Spec, PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca; 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 0 NO Fl If yes, coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF. 4 B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted.actions in 6 NYCRR,Part 617.6? YES n NO 1:21 (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 CZ. 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 related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-CS?. Explain briefly: Slab, ATTACHED C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: ' Stith ATTACHED D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES 0 NO E If yes, explain briefly: ' E. Comments of staff ®, CAC El, Other ❑ attached. (Check applicable boxes) 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 (ie. urban or rural);(b) probability of occurring; (c) duration;(d)irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and(1) 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 this box 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 this box 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 attach- ments as necessary,the reasons supporting this determination. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS X er/,,et f?Zo- . AL4er Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Ed ' N. Austen, Chairman e & Title of Responsible Off er in Led Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer )c1 nA aQ 1 Date: l/[N AIL. LP i 997� gnat a of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency i . • &A(a5(f9a D., . PART II - Environmental Assessment Charles P. Henderson Proposed Expansion of Non-Conforming Building 839 Taughannock Blvd., Residence District R-15 Zoning Board of Appeals: Special Approval Request June 18, 1992 A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not receive coordinated review • C. Could action result,in any adverse effects on. to or arisina from the following: Cl. Existing air cuality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existina traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for r . erosion, drainage or flooding problems? None anticipated. The proposal is to construct a 27'x.30' second-story addition to the west side of an existing, non-conforming residence. Presently the residence does not conform to the requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance for required side yard setback, and the proposed addition would also be within the 'required side yard, therefore, pursuant to Section 54 of the Zoning Ordinance,the applicant is petitioning . the Board of Appeals for the required special approval. The lot is characterized by moderate to steep slopes, and due to the fact that a portion of the hill behind the house will be disturbed during construction, erosion control measures such as silt fencing should be utilized at the sides of the existing residence to mitigate potential effects to Cayuga Lake. • The proposed addition will not result in air pollution, reduction in surface or groundwater quality or quantity, increased noise levels, or increased solid waste production or disposal.. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, .archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? • The addition will be generally in character with the surrounding area, which is characterized by lakefront cottages on small, non-conforming lots.. There may, however, be impacts to the property to the north, due to the fact that the proposed addition will be only five feet away from the property line, and will extend approximately 30 feet along this line. The adjacent residence to the north is less than 40 feet away from the property line. Although there is existing vegetation, including several large pine trees, along the property line which would screen the proposed addition from the adjacent residence, some visual effects would be likely. No significant adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, natural or cultural resources have been identified. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? No significant impacts anticipated. The area of proposed construction will be EAF Part II (cont.) Henderson: Special Approval Request Board of Appeals, June 18, 1992 relatively small and no significant habitats, threatened or endangered species are known on the site. Several large trees (maples) which are located in the area of the proposed addition will need to be removed, therefore, it is anticipated that there will be minor impacts to vegetation. 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. The proposed construction of an addition to a residence which does not meet the required side yard setback (15 feet) conflicts with the Town Zoning Ordinance, Section 14. The existing residence is in fact located over the adjacent property line. The nearest house to the proposed addition will be approximately 35- 40 feet away, and although there may be minor impacts due to the close proximity of the addition to the adjacent property, it is recommended that, as a condition of approval, vegetative screening be maintained along the northern property line to reduce potential impacts. Currently under the Residence District R-15 requirements, residences and accessory buildings may occupy a maximum of 20 percent of the lot area. The current proposal would be in compliance with this requirement, with approximately 17 percent development coverage. 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? The proposal involving a 27'x 30' addition to an existing cottage will nearly double the size of the cottage, which will, in effect, continue a trend that has possible future implications for the intensity of development along Cayuga Lake. There are many non-conforming lots and buildings along the western side of Cayuga Lake, and approving the proposed addition to a substantially non-conforming building may result in potential cumulative effects should other home-owners along the lake decide to expand non-conforming buildings in a similar fashion. 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? There may be controversy related to the potential visual effects from construction of an addition so close to an adjacent property line, however, a vegetative buffer would likely reduce these impacts to a level of non-significance. WdbC3c PART III - Staff Recommendation. Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the existing character of the area, and the information above, it has been determined that although minor impacts may occur, no significant impacts are anticipated, therefore 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 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 five 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: Richard A. Eiken, Planner Review Date: June 18, 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $100.00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 4-91321— Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( 1.1 53 SPECIAL APPROVAL k- 15- 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: X 10 4.11. 4 Ptivu L o-s1 LA-rvt viti�j �'F r V CA-kJ're . at 39 I0,.0 j,c. %luc , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25- ' Z - 3Ll as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant'- to: Article(s) )` \ ., 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. ) 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. Project Name: Printed Name Owner/Appellant: C tees ( . ��. c�elrt�n Date: 4. - 8 Y 2. Signature of Owner/Appellant: C.L.L.6-4-3 �/ Date: 6,- Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Home Telephone Number: Z 43" Y' 7 )3 Work Telephone Number: zsc 4/L 3 PLOT PLAN • INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN: 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimensions and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addition(s). • a. Road, 5. Naves of neighbors who bound lot. b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and number. 3. North arrow. 8'. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. • JQc lJ 44a. CCeCk • • Signature of Owner/Appellant: aera , Date: G - q Z Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: RECEIVED JUN 1 91992 TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING 839 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, NY 14850 June 18, 1992 Zoning Board Town of Ithaca To whom it may concern: Our house was originally a cottage which was gradually turned into a year-round home. After nine years of living here, we have found that the lack of closet and storage space, along with the low ceiling in the upstairs and the two bedrooms are not adequate for our needs. We would like to renovate and add onto the house to make it a more energy and space efficient home with enough room for our growing family to live in comfortably. Thank you, 1,,Ly,, Charles Henderson Barb Bassette . ' NucallaNIJoc.K _ BoULC-Ni .czi ( N •Y. •v . ROUT Er S't 5 --nowt s TO ITAALA- uL-(45ES -co•NN 1.-1NE. NAG gQ� PE el ®GAS JHV/c. ...; 80-IO3 IW ' . vwRK1 46 DRIyE I�/� ``, ARIA N20�- 11'-OW . —� %OO.. • = N1('1$4 ga(LIHC / • \ 51'! = ry e 11'-51'-'sr I45•60' `\ ' O J , 7AR{WCi 1• APPDOI4$1UH WHY APJRoPR'Rr'o.J t4ASS,' •n jp� AR4q I. An/ Iv, \ it A r R r r3 °9 a Y • A if' ACMA1 0.29AL.± • Z. rr J3 • • Ow 00 s cJ U. di i ; o Ct l ..�**** pld1: � �; cP�Ip y j I S+O - sI. SI Q1 0 O. n . )N�� T ' &d ion I. ? to Ja ' ••• C t d p (I. a 27K3o p EPi v ' A P r1 • • ;lip A • I �so n o v I x,27, nr ' i- ns Cor-r rmA 1i8%9 0I 7 AF - . '� 0 •124.D sv S I(.^_3�'_Sy. r �•�.11' AIONG TOP o BA..I1C . - SIS•-n'.ye••E IS3.00• 0 151•S') IN "4 C 0 Is Oh e. { i. .,,. I. 1 �( ( Rouc wAL �— I! % O4iNAL SHORE yE - _ I • � PILLED L1 ��._ I� ��1=P... AREq CEALR 11 `1 RETg1y1y®WELL 4•LUDE COUNTS BEr`�IEEN If CAYu(,q - —�4 ti....� N- / 00.1(iINRL SMORF. L1HC +- la La-Cc ��— — —. .. .i� wcC. F . . •�� I •RE-4uctvEY FOR d %.CCztND C. P. HEMQ6RSON ANV 6. K. BASSEt[E I • -EEV4T111(4 1R0t7 PIOE. TOWN Oc IT HACrA COUNTY OF wowwscINS 0 - SE-T %RoW1 ofµ (7/83) Sce•-re. cc Fte'eL Yoa c. 'Y : { TN..go.'`25 2:-.31{ r 1 C 2:0 • -OEEt7 VZEF. :,LS95/Pr&.14.•"'. e • MEM View from, the South Ivs 1-11-11 ree�� -•;•;•-•�• I�• • � ii `=• _�i0'••• ••O•i0•i• ••i • �.•�•p00•••4 111 I!�••�ii =I■I • View from the South with the expansion. I/ l( iI 8 View from the East. i (.1, ., ., . . H,1 :'' :t 3 it 8.1 V t,S11 ..4 . • 1 . M1; i .rt,). 1.41 l'tni; rr '41 rd. . ,4„ —alliddill ME ME .7) !Ul ‘ Y • t I?' . • k,s, sr'':.:, ;V*•• v•- 'V ""•-•-•' 1 , • • • . i 0 • 4. •1 :''S*,i •• • • •4 • 0•• • • HY •• 0 • • •4 i • •4 ','..'', • A4. •,:,. • •. ...,4 ,. • 4. V IM'A II . . •••.• • 41 • 4." , • • • 1 1. • • 4 " . . , :n . .1 (5 • P Oa _. . . . .... ...*.•1 . . , in J ,.. fi:! . • '";: • . . .,,. :',.. . \A e(.0 Prow\ (s•i; . . . . , r'" 1 If • - --; ----- -- --- • • -"i)'?' / m n):'''1)q)flr.trvi.1.-f' )11--r'''-' ..;.",t •'.` 1 - - •-'42 . i :....)'. • •• . . I. . ) I . . . . . . . . I ••6 "..... g Mr : Vr941: ••••••• . III•1. 62 . alo • -I, ,112h92 0 • 91 • , • tire 01 1 .! I . 9a1. • . . bc9j11\11 , . . , .. . .. - c ii.HO% . z 22 . . . . . 00 . 9Z . .r i a -. OILY.. 3 t 1 i 1 •II 21V, . • . ,gg,n .. . I m n ..:. 3 V V 7 . • is . • . 1 I 1 V On A ra . skci VI . . . . .....,,, , c, PA�s INI) 6� 339 Tcu)e,. No $lL - Z (.._ay-92 rO :+[ ` ` ;-+�4'� 'I} ins; Q / i :+�. is •Z. t _ I i r 4. + : =ram= ....T. --.lid • i. — -• ' � ; ': i- fr • ..' » - ` ilik, te - ` 1}(u 5 e. �� - ' ,ne• Q-.., • ..a,.a.~• i t .L ',! ppg • A ' •"r. t m .t, il •,s..,4,.';•_...4.:;..,, 7 6 AP ` li:, , - ', m�•k 12 l7:11r .'-41V-., .. • .:::' .NHS 'Wr. +� y•• ,y�. 1 ` f ) FINAL MEMO June 22, 1992 To: Edward Austin From: Candace E. Cornell and Phillip Zarriello, Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee (Eva Hoffmann is out of the country.) Subject: ERC Review of Henderson Special Approval for house expansion,-839 Taughannock Blvd., Tax parcel No. 25-2-34. The ERC was asked to comment on the proposed 27 x 30 foot house addition requiring a zoning variance on the Henderson property. The Town of Ithaca Planning Staff is concerned about establishing the precedent of allowing non-conforming additions and structures along the west shore of Cayuga Lake. The ERC based the following conclusions on review of the Henderson's completed application, site plan, and the Short Environmental Assessment Form, and site visits by both of the two members named above. Mr. Zarriello, a resident of the west shore of Cayuga Lake, also had a telephone conversation with the Gerber family (the nearest neighbor to the north) whose house will be the most potentially impacted by the proposed house expansion. The ERC suggests that the proposed addition is unacceptable because it would compound a presently non-conforming structure with a proposed non-conforming addition. The ERC feels that our zoning codes should be enforced whenever possible. The ERC suggests perpetuating the allowance of new non-conforming structures on the west shore of Cayuga Lake might severely impact the density sustainable in this sensitive section of Town. The proposed addition size could also affect the stability of the slope behind the Henderson house by the removal of a number of mature trees. The ERC therefore suggests that a more modest addition be allowed, approximately 30 feet wide x 13 feet long, if it could be designed in compliance with the existing building codes and zoning ordinances of the Town of Ithaca. It is also suggested that a smaller addition would preserve more of the mature deciduous frees that maintain the slope stability and provide screening. Respectfully submitted for the ERC, ea,tviikt L (?Or,w ( Candace E. Cornell ®� cc: Andrew Frost R C E 9 ® E Floyd Forman Richard Eiken JUN 22 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING 3 -3 Minutes of Meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Ithaca December 18 , 1956 Roy E . Seaburg , Applicant The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca was held on December 18 , 1956 at 11 : 00 A . M . at the home of Mr . Ben Boynton, Snyder Hill Road . The meeting which was originally on December 11 , 1956 advertised in the Ithaca Journal / as being called on December 15., '1956 was adjourned to December 18 , 1956 on account of a severe snow storm. The members present were : David Powers ; William Rolston, chairman; Aldus Fogelsanger ; and Constance . E . Cook, secretary. Others present were : Ben Boynton, town zoning officer and Roy E . Seaburg , applicant . The meeting was called to order by Mr . Rolston, chairman . The application of Roy E . Seaburg to build an apartment under a garage at 839 Taughannock Blvd . was considered . This is not in conformance with Section 7 of the zoning ordinance as the garage has no rear yard . After hearing testimony and after discussion, the board, upon motion duly made and seconded , unanimously adopted the following resolution : WHEREAS, the neighbors have not objected ; the highway will never be able to expand towards the lake , the purpose of this construction is for additional income ; many neighbors have done the same thing ; there are many ' apartments in the neighborhood ; no other development is possible in this area because of the sharp fall of the' land from the road to the lake ; in area other garages can not be built five feet from the street ; practical hardship woulcresult if applicant had to 34 - tear down or move his garage ; no view trould be obstructed ; the' construction may improve the appearance of the garage by improving the foundation . WHEREAS , no objections have been expressed to the board , and there are . practical . difficulties . and an unnecessary hardship in carrying out strict letter of Section 7 of the zoning ordinance and WHEREAS, the variance applied for is in general accord with the spirit of .the ordinance . ., the public safety and welfare will be served and substantial justice will: be done if said variance is granted, and consideration having been given to the promotion of the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, be it RESOLVED , that the variance applied for be and is hereby granted MM upon . the condition that the applicant continue to use the existing garages as such and does not convert them to any other use An order to said effect shall be entered in the office of the town clerk . There being no -further business the meeting . was adjourned . Respectfully submitted , Constance E . Cook, Secretary . Present: William Rolston, Chairman David Powers Aldous Vogelsanger Ben Boynton .Constance Es Cooke In the Blotter of the Application of ROY E. SEABURG To 'vary_ . the requirements ,•of the s Zoning Ordinance of the Town `of Ithaca, AT a meeting . of the Zoning Board of Appeals. of the Town 'of 'Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, held in the town barn in said town on December 18, 1956. fl:• afi. GRANTING VARIANCE An application in the above matter for a variance having been presented by ROSY E. SEABURG to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca and a Lp hearing by the said board having been duly held at the time and place .stated above, after published notice and consideration having -been given to the promotion of the health, safe pr ty, morals or general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance -of the Town of Ithaca and it having been resolved and determined following such hearing that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the -strict letter of the said ordinance and that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed"and public safety -and welfare secured and substantial justice done by the entry of this order, it is hereby ORDERED that the variance- applied -for with respect -to Section 7 of the town zoning ordinance be granted, Dated: Ithaca, New -York December _"18, 19509 l (t.no • so