Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ZBA History Combined (4)
Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 25.-2-38 829 Taughannock Blvd Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 829 Taughnnock Blvd 25.-2-38 with no subdivision or readdressing. History: 1994 – Special Approval to maintain Accessory building - Approved 1989 – Area Variance to rebuild house after fire - Approved 1982 – Special Approval Occupancy – Sent to Justice Court TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1994 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, March 9, 1994, 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 Stephen De Gloria, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit an existing single family residence to maintain side yard building setbacks of 13.9+ feet (15 foot side yard building setbacks required) . A Special Approval, under Article XII, Section 54 is also requested in order to permit the construction of an outside wood deck on the building's north side, with said deck being 13.9+ feet from the north side property line. Said building is located at 106 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59-2- 5, Residence District R-15. Appeal of David Bowlsby, Appellant, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article XII, Section 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to maintain an accessory building along Cayuga Lake, on a non-conforming building lot located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-38, Residence District R-15. Said building lot is non-conforming since it is less than 15,000 square feet in area and less than 100 feet in lot width. Appeal of James Scarpulla, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a single family residence with a 14.1+ foot west side yard building setback (15 foot setback required) at 185 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45-1-54, Residence District R-15. Appeal of John Lamb, Appellant, Richard Jump, Agent, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article IV, Section 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct a two car garage with an attached carport within the required front yard of a building lot and approximately 10+ feet from the street line, at 901 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-41, Residence District R-15. The average slope of the, land, at the front yard, exceeds an 8% fall from the street line. In addition, the appellant further requests a variance from the requirements of Section 13, to construct said garage with a building height of 28+ feet (15 foot maximum height allowed) , measured from the roof ridge to the lowest point of a supporting column at ground level. • 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: February 29, 1994 • 1 Publish: March 4, 1994 .acp { Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals March 9, 1994 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Austen, Hines, Ellsworth, Scala. NAYS - None. The last appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: Appeal of David Bowlsby, Appellant, requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, under Article %II, Section 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to maintain an accessory building along Cayuga Lake, on anon-conforming building lot located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25- 2-38, Residence District R-15. Said building lot is non-conforming since it is less than 15,000 square feet in area and less than 100 feet in lot width. Mr. Bowlsby apologized for not being on time. He explained that he had called WTKO and he was told the meeting was cancelled. Mr. Frost said the original appeal which was a year ago advertised this as being a special approval and/or use variance. At the very last meeting the board decided to have a new application made after determining that the building was not, by definition, being used as a dwelling unit, but that it was an accessory building. Since the eaf was done- for a dwelling unit, the board felt a new application and eaf for an accessory building would be necessary. Mr. Frost continued with Mr. Bowlsby has made new application and we are here tonight with a new eaf addressing the accessory building. He said the board also wanted Mr. Bowlsby to clarify exactly what each space of the building is and we have a rough sketch which he had initialed by adding a few things. On the top of the page where it says deck, the first room has a refrigerator. There is a sink but no stove. The next room down is a dining room, the next one is a living room, a bedroom, a shop, and a bathroom. Mr. Frost said Mr. Bowlsby was offering, through his attorney, to have some kind of deed restriction limiting the use of the building to an accessory. He said Mr. Bowlsby didn't want to go through that legal stuff until he knew what the board would require. He said the concern was the unit would not be rented out as a dwelling unit and that it be maintained as an accessory structure. He said the Army Corp of Engineers closed their files on this and felt that nothing was violated with regard to Mr. Bowlsby's application. Mr. Bowlsby said he had a permit to have the building there and then somebody saw something about the Army Corp that didn't look right to them. He said now he's in here to get a pump up toilet. Mr. Frost said when the Army Corp gave Mr. Bowlsby their permit, it originally said the building could not be used as living quarters. In the end when the question came up as to what they defined as being living quarters, they had no formal definition, hence they kind of said well, the building's ok and they finaled out their permit. He said they did give us a letter and that again was during the January 12, 1994 meeting. Chairman Austen read the memo from Candace Cornell, Chair of the Ithaca Conservation Board dated February 17, 1994. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mr. Scala read part III of the environmental assessment form. . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals March 9, 1994 MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala. RESOLVED, this Board make a negative determination of environmental significance and adopt as findings in support thereof the environmental assessment report of the Assistant Torn Planner, George Frantz dated March 4, 1994. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Scala, Ellsworth, Hines, Austen. NAYS - None. The motion carried unanimously. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. With no comments from the public, Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. Mr. Frost said the structure is below the high water mark on the lake. MOTION By Mr. Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala. RESOLVED, that this Board grant to the applicant, David Bowlsby, a special approval for the maintenance of an existing accessory structure to the east of his property, extending over the waters of Cayuga Lake, located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-38, as shown on the application, as well as the photos submitted in connection, with the following findings and condition: 1) That the structure is not a dwelling unit nor is it to be used as a dwelling unit. 2) That the structure has no facilities constructed as part of its operation for the preparation and cooking of food. 3) That the use is primarily a camp or recreational facility, as an adjunct to occupancy of the house. 4) That the need arises because of the rather steep bank and incline from the house to the lake and that otherwise the lake has practically no use to the applicant. 5) That the area in which the facility is located is the extreme south end of Cayuga Lake with only two houses south of the applicant. 6) That the Army Corp of Engineers has reviewed the matter and is taking no action and finds the use consistent with its regulations. 7) That it does not present any substantial aesthetic impediment to the enjoyment of the lake. soon of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals March 9, 1994 8) With the condition of the granting of this special approval, Mr. Bowlsby will prepare and file with the County Clerk of Tompkins County, a deed setting forth as a restriction and covenant running with the land, that this is a recreational facility not to be used as a dwelling unit and is in conjunction with the occupancy of the house and not rent it as a separate unit. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Ellsworth, Scala, Hines, Austen. NAYS - None. The motion carried unanimously. • Mr. Bowlsby said he originally came to have a pump up, can he have a pump up. It was left to the discretion of the building inspector. With no further business, Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting. EN. NO (Tha N../ (71k , Dani L. Holford Building/zoning Department Secretary • Bait vg Edward Austen, airman TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $100.00 - ' 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: P 0 g , q il Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1783 t 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: at ()�� \C�, (`�h CAN-v \()G l4, ( Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 0 ,) -n - `�i j , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to: Article(s) Xi f , Section(s) Sy , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization. (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary. ) Afro -' l -r bL,; IA CrG ) assessor hv, Id ;'ny - bl)(1f house or ) Cc nLDn - cvnForin1n9 boi Id;n9 1oi- L hi c\-, > L nc>P , , ;2c,A . 3} Lt. : II bP -,r 9e(SnrYY1 U .0 (--,i\ L) cAck p/'P_vio us. kJ ct c Ire & b `f e an , n 9 bO et c c1 ('o-k- -to fo P_ c-~ du--el‘ in) 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: e: 2 - Z 2.-`1`I Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Home Telephone Number: 607 - ?1 3-N L) 1 Work Telephone Number: 607' 2 7 2-6 U 16 NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months, the approval will expire. . --- 1 - IIIIIII Rev. 10/90 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review .3 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 . A( Q p�plicant/Sponsor: 2. ProjectPr Name: R. J LI,•a a. . @DLJ\% !-i usessor a., 1 I(1.1 (1Q 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections,prominent landmarks, etc. or ovide map): �j S2-9 Tc1U5hctnnvice rRIud thtt«< ( Q+ gC7) Town of' —47ia:« Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is Proposed Action: ElrEW D EXPANSION Li MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): i I • I I 1 (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 1_eSS '<n 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) ✓ Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently? • Res 1 C1(?t'1 • B. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES a...NO 0 If no, describe conflict briefly: • N 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES El NO ©' Public Water? YES 0 NO C� Public Sewer? YES ❑ NO Y 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? residential 0 Commercial Industrial D Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open Space 0 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 ErNO 111 If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: Prrn -I Cory 0+ En9inears 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES Cj.---.NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. R r m '-1 Co r P 0 4" Ens l'neer c I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): )Ctvt c, 9--, { at_g_A lu � 1 Signature: fit �) • UGL// 7 LGGe i'"� Date: - 27--9`� I ;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 NC If yes. coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. E. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? YES NO If no. a necative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if an. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be hancwritten, if legible) Ci. Existing air quality, surface cr groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached. CZ. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeciccical, historic, or other natural cr cultural resources? Community or neighbcncocc cnarac:ar? Explain briefly: See attached . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatener or endancered species? Explain briefly: See attached. C... The Town's existing plans cr goals as officially adopted, cr a change in use or intensity of use of land cr other natural resources? Explain briefly: See attached . CS. Growth, subsequent tteve;cpment, cr related activities likely to be induced by :he proposed action? Explain briefly: See attached. Ca. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Ci - CS? Explain briefly: • See attached. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: See attached. 0. 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 makable.) 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 other.vise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (le. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments cr reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adeouately 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. 2on rn' Town of Ithaca - 7— a "'.ag Board Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature (If different from Responsible Officer) 4awiz,a 445h., ehatentin 41*�� ��, Nam: : to o.Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Sinature of Cont • ' g Preparer /.t _ f1� eJ y /9/K i/. . . . , i/ _�` Date: a ignature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency • PART II - Environmental Assessment David Bowlsby Request for Special Approval 829 Taughannock Blvd., Residence District R-15 Zoning Board of Appeals March 4,'1994 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? None anticipated. The proposed action is to allow a boathouse on the property. The proposed boathouse is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts with regard to 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. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural,archeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated. The boathouse is of a scale and character consistent will others in the area. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated. 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? 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, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the above referenced action. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: George R. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner 1 Review Date: March 4, 1994 _ . • . •. , . . . . . . . . . . - pm RielN a Sh/OULPE.11 TA LIG HA /1/71/0 Ck" & VD. (NY.5. R 01./ 72.: 8 5) gi -4-- To 17H4ca - (Das OF pAVEma'n t- . SMOULDER ___ --- ..\ ' ; ; ' ! ' I _- • i 5 Teel 8rik __: pARkiNG 7-7 - Li . ii ---1 . i -pc. _ . . • . . i fi PC fgArth* f ..._.......... _ . I i • i • . I — I i . .. ...._ . . • ' q : _. _. C--- era-- ---> H . . . _ IN - —6.- . oea).ze • %).. - 4 : •• e li A. .:- , , ...2 — . , -‘, !------i . _. _ ------- i. N.. . , •t . • . •NN. C., _ \.CI . c - /7 • VAX.: 544 fl'is c D . . • ' . . Aa . . , . , A . ‘.4. . , . .... . . . .. ql . .. _ . ..1) . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . 4 , . . \..) r ._. Ds A Bow i loy %act Ta-011\\cooNte---\(,.. Bluel —26A 3—)k.) q• — 1— .. vfrAii 1111 fT,., i Ile -0,- zt•or. ,— .-.. . - fouri,~1,,,,,, - ,.......,-, it . .,. t .:,0 It ACCe i.s. on_y 1 ' 1.' • ., . , . , ,?. ,, --... ,../ . /3t)ii d .A)1 - ...ttlialet," • .4 , 1, -,......... - .1PP;aitt , / ir... ...t,w.„...,, A f if .‘pt..At- 1l ii • , '44 , S'Ol.ni-\ tasi ....../1"•%...r. -* 't i,i I 1 1./(00k, 9 • -4%lbw ;•s k • , T.P.- ;• / "": 1 • lak;—---- - If: - 1 • --- -• V A '''a • . ; • ,...1 froef•att-,„ , . . „. ., ... V. 4 iifilliltti•` 1 1/1,.1.:•,I; •,.....„A ' f t : ,H107:7••=- * 44 ..i‘ . i l' •.•.- .a "I':41:4‘W. , • ) ' N.. Lk '' if , '' i , .'• _ ...„ • ,..--- ... - . , ill So Li t 11 So 01-11 6, , i / ''• 1 -...iii ill riiii ,. —. ' III! lie I -... ....N:\k->„- - - '11"11111111111111111404 . f .. 111111/ •N '41 •,.. - , AV .., - -'"....‘•. - _ --• :4`k ... . u"2 ' 4 \ \ - • - .7'- • / r , ,• _ _ .....- --frrt • • 0 Agf•• - . • , I 7.•'..,,,i, .•4• ;:. 2 Y•,,,, - _.. ... - % .... . r . 4111111111111111110; illk• ACC)K.) ....IA. ° _ F -,... AI.IP` ." 'ilk tItriiA i • -- ,„, I ! • - s%•,4 MC2 ) [IQ A.)C.E %11 / • "4'7- ". • 1!.'...,. .. _ - ilitt / -- I i ... • I I , • - _ . • . - I adocrop, 4- - - % • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1994 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, January 12, 1994, 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 Michael Herzing, Appellant, requesting authorization by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54, of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the expansion of the gasoline dispensing facilities at Big Al's Hilltop Quikstop located at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-2-1, Business District "C". The expansion involves the installation of a canopy and fire suppression system above the gasoline dispensing pumps at said business. The business is a non-conforming use, as Business "C" zones do not permit gasoline sales stations. APPEAL of Thomas Bell, Appellant, requesting a variance.from the requirements of Article VII, Section 38 and Article VII, Section 45 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the use of a retail/light industrial building/property with 25 automobile parking spaces available (whereby 27 are required) at 612 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.8, Light Industrial Zone. APPEAL (Adjourned from June 9, 1993, May 12, 1993 and March 24, 1993) of David Bowlsby, Appellant, requesting a Special Approval under Article XII, Section 54, and/or variances from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11, and Article XIII, Section 68, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to have a second residential building on a non-conforming building lot located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-38, Residence District R-15. Said Ordinance permits only. one residential building on a parcel of land. The appellant proposes to maintain a building meeting the definition of a dwelling unit, on Cayuga Lake (between the high water and - low water mark), and use the building for personal accessory use. APPEAL (Adjourned from November 10, 1993) of Gary and Donna Hofstead Duffy, Appellants, requesting an interpretation as to the application of Article V, Section 19, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca.Zoning Ordinance to the operation of the Little Brook Farms Horse Training Facility at 340 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68-1-2, Residence District R-30. Should an interpretation be made that finds the operation in violation of said Ordinance, the Appellants then request a variance from Article V, Section 19, Paragraph 6, to be permitted to conduct a riding academy and a facility to board and train horses. 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: January 4, 1994 Publish: January 7, 1994 'Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1994 APPEAL (Adjourned from June 9, 1993, May 12, 1993 and March 24, 1993) of David Bowlsby, Appellant, requesting a Special Approval under Article XII, Section 54, and/or variances from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11, and Article XIII, Section 68, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to have a second residential building on a non-conforming building lot located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-38, Residence District R-15. Said Ordinance permits only one residential building on a parcel of land. The appellant proposes to maintain a building meeting the definition of a dwelling unit, on Cayuga Lake (between the high water and low water mark), and use the building for personal accessory use. Mr. Frost said the Board had adjourned back in May to allow time for the Army Corp of Engineers to respond to them as to whether or not there are any violations with the Army Corp permits that were issued for the construction of this building. There is a letter written in October 1993 from the Army Corp that sets forth their position. There was also a letter handed out that we just received from Mr. Bowlsby's attorney addressing these issues. Chairman Austen read the letter from the Army Corp of Engineers dated October 26, 1993 and the letter from Attorney Paul Tavelli dated January 11, 1994. Mr. Bowlsby said he built this for a camp on the lake, the house is way up on the hill. It's nice to have a little camp down there. He said the building is on stilts 8 feet high. He said it's a place down on the water to entertain. Mr. Bowlsby discussed various aspects of the rooms, some of which were a 40 foot x 13 foot room, a 10 foot x 12 foot room, a 6 foot x 6 foot room, a workshop, a counter, a deck and a pier. Mr. Hines asked about the original issue and Mr. Bowlsby said he came to get a toilet. Mr. Frost said by definition of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code, if you have a space that provides eating, cooking, sanitary or sleeping provisions, you have by definition a dwelling unit. What was built as far as the sanitary and the cooking provisions, was still provisions provided that met the definition for a dwelling unit. Fir. Hines asked if the toilet were eliminated and Mr. Bowlsby interrupted to say that there wasn't a toilet. Mr. Hines said you would just have an accessory building. Chairman Austen reaffirmed that there was electricity and water. Mr. Bowlsby said there was temporary water because there is a hose that he runs down there that he cleans his boat out with. There is no toilet, shower or anything like that. Chairman asked if there was a sink and Mr. Bowlsby responded yes that has a hose that could be attached to it and used for spraying and cleaning fish. There is also a coffee pot, anything that would be used in a camp. Mr. Hines asked if it was considered a dwelling unit if it didn't have the amenities described, it is simply an accessory building and since the lot is nonconforming, would he have to get approval for the accessory building. Mr. Frost said the lot is non- conforming. Mr. Frost said yes, the way this was advertised was a special approval and/or variance to cover both. Mr. Hines said if they granted approval for the accessory building, excluding the use of the toilet, that isn't what the appellant wants, that is what he originally applied for, but from reading the Army Corp of Engineers' letter, Mir. Hines couldn't tell what was necessary. Mr. Frost said the Army Corp had no formal definition for living quarters, which was part of the prohibition of their permit. Mr. Hines said that was complicated by the fact that this wasn't living quarters, but a dock boat house. Mr. Frost said the Corp couldn't, by definition, define living quarters as plainly as our Zoning Ordinance, so hence they would not take enforcement action. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1994 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. Mr. Frost said this Board has in the past, where we ran into situations where we had a dwelling unit that we want to eliminate, we did something to kind of eliminate the cooking provisions in someway. In fairness to Mr. Bowlsby, and also in consideration to the environment, if one does have to eliminate, it'd be better to do it in a sanitary fashion. Mr. Hines said all the amenities have to be present in order to invoke the definition of a living unit: Attorney Barney said it doesn't really talk in that specific of terms, a dwelling unit is a place where it provides living accommodations. Mr. Hines said if it said there were no cooking or eating facilities, then you could have a toilet. • Mr. King asked if a bedroom was in the back. Mr. Bowlsby said if you wanted to call it a bedroom, he has a workshop and a big room with three bunk beds in it that have not been slept in or assembled yet. It is his intent when they (fishing party of 4 to 5 guys, not family) get together, to hang out in this big room with the bunk beds. He said the large room with a deck out the end of it has kitchen counters in it and a sink that is not hooked up. The sink has a bucket underneath it that is used for cleaning the fish and dumping the coffee pot. Mr. Hines said you would have to make a conclusive finding that this is not a dwelling unit. You would have to make a factual finding to support it that there aren't certain facilities in there, sort of a negative determination that this is not a dwelling unit, because it has no facilities and none will be permitted. There is no heat in this outside structure. Chairman Austen stated there was a wood stove. Mr. Frost said the Zoning Ordinance refers to it as a living unit. Attorney Barney said a dwelling unit is a dwelling, or a portion of a dwelling, providing complete living facilities for one family. A dwelling is a building designed or used exclusively as the living quarters for one or more families. Mr. Bowlsby said nobody would live in this. Attorney Barney said he had a little difficulty with this because Mr. Bowlsby has three bunk beds, a sink, and he wants a toilet. Mr. Bowlsby said he isn't asking for a shower. He doubted anyone in their right mind would want to go down there and carry wood from 155 stairs upstairs. Attorney Barney said if you put a stove in, he assumes wood would be used. Mr. Bowlsby said the stove is in. Mr. Frost read the building code definition of a dwelling as being "one or more rooms with provisions for living, cooking, sanitary, and sleeping facilities arranged for use of one family. " Mr. Hines said he agreed with Mr. Bowlsby in that it sounds like a camp, if it stays that ;ray. Fir. Hines said there are no cooking facilities fixed to the premises. Mr. Bowlsby asked what cooking facilities meant and Mr. Hines said the site of preparation of foods. Fir. Bowlsby asked if that meant a little bunsen burner Coleman stove. Mr. Hines said he didn't know, he was trying to accommodate what Mr. Bowlsby's asking for. Mr. Bowlsby said he did not have a stove down there at all. Mr. King asked if he had any intentions of putting one in and Mr. Bowlsby answered no, not a gas, electric or any other kind of stove, except a camp stove, a pump coleman. Mr. Frost wondered if intent had anything to do with it and whether the deed restriction reinforces the intent to use it as an accessory and not a dwelling. Chairman Austen asked if it didn't have a shower or a tub, if it had just a toilet and . a wash basin, that would not constitute a bathroom as such. Mr. Frost answered no. Mr. Hines said he was going to be safe by eliminating facilities for cooking and preparation of foods for consumption on a permanent basis. Mr. Bowlsby said he would certainly be agreeable to restricting heat of any type down there to wood. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth. 'Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1994 RESOLVED, that the Board grant to the applicant, David Bowlsby, a Special Approval for the erection and maintenance of an accessory structure to the east of his property, extending over the waters of Cayuga Lake, located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-38, which structure is presently constructed and shown in the application, as well as the photos submitted, with the following findings: 1) That the structure is not a dwelling unit nor is it to be used as a dwelling unit. 2) That the structure has no facilities constructed as part of its operation for the preparation and cooking of food. 3) That the use is primarily a camp or recreational facility, as an adjunct to occupancy of the house. 4) That the need arises because of the rather steep bank and incline from the house to the lake and that otherwise the lake has practically no use to the applicant. 5) That the area in which the facility is located is the extreme south end of Cayuga Lake with only two houses south of the applicant. 6) That the Army Corp of Engineers has reviewed the matter and is taking no action and finds the use consistent with its regulations. 7) That it does not present any substantial aesthetic impediment to the enjoyment of the lake. 8) With the condition of the granting of this special approval, Mr. Bowlsby will prepare and file with the County Clerk of Tompkins County, a deed setting forth as a restriction and covenant running with the land, that this is a recreational facility not to be used as a dwelling unit and is in conjunction with the occupancy of the house and not rent it as a separate unit. Attorney Barney wondered whether a SEQR has ever been done on this appeal. Mr. Hines said they had a complete application when they started last June. Attorney Barney said the short form is here, but the question is whether this board has ever made a determination as to the environmental significance of the action. The SEQR recommended a positive declaration of environmental significance. iir. Hines said on the basis of the second dwelling unit. Attorney Barney said he thought they had adjourned it each time before they considered any motion. Mr. Hines said based on the changed character and on the report of the Corp of Engineers and on the approval which we intend to give, the vote is favorable. The review by the Town Planner is on a different set of facts. If George reviewed it on the basis that there was a living facility there, then obviously there is some different consideration if there isn't. Attorney Barney said the application states on its face that it is for a second dwelling unit. The appeal is advertised as permission to have a second residential building on a non-conforming lot. Mr. Hines asked if Andy didn't say in the ad "and/or special approval", to which Mr. Frost replied he did. Mr. Hines said they are denying a variance. Attorney Barney said read the notice of public hearing notice. He said it seems to him that if the Board is saying we're denying a certain residential dwelling, then that ought to be the initial motion, and then if we wanted to go onto the next and say we consider special approval permitting an accessory building of certain characteristics, which is what he gathers the motion as being, you are going to have to readvertise that. Sawa uL Sutav4 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1994 Mr. Hines requested that, with the unanimous consent of the Board, his motion be tabled. Mr. Frost noted the short EAF form was not signed by Chairman Austen. - NOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Edward King. RESOLVED, that the Board deny the applicant, David Bowlsby, a special approval or variance for the construction and maintenance of a second residential unit on the property located at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, as requested in his initial applica- tion. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Hines, King, Ellsworth, Scala, Austen. NAYS - None. The motion for denial of the special approval or variance was carried unanimously. Mr. Hines asked Chairman Austen to restore the motion he made for special approval. Chairman said he would do so in a moment. Mr. King asked if the Board would have to act on the SEQR. Attorney Barney said that before the Board approves of anything, it has to make a determination of environ- mental significance, and therefore the answer is "Yes". Relative to Mr. Hines' motion, Attorney Barney stated that if the Board were to approve that motion, before the Board acts on the motion, the Board should deal with the environmental significance. Mr. Hines stated that it seems hardly likely that the Board is going to make a determination of anything other than a negative determination. He said he did not remember what the Board did. Mr. Hines said that if the SEQR paper was not signed, it is presumptive, we did not vote on it. Attorney Barney said he was looking at the minutes, and he said that he did not believe that the Board had ever gotten to that point. Mr. Hines inquired as to the correct procedure-table it until the next meeting and Mr. Bowlsby would not have to come back unless he wants to. Attorney Barney said that Part I is based upon two residential units, and now the Board is looking at something else. Attorney Barney said that it would be appropriate for a revised application, spelling out exactly what is going to be there, what is not going to be there, that that be presented and reviewed for its environmental significance from someone in the Planning Department, then that review come to this Board for action and then the motion for consideration would be before the Board. Mr. Hines asked once again to have his motion be tabled and the matter adjourned for the environmental quality review board. Attorney Barney said that he believes it should be clear that the submission of a revised application indicating precisely what is going to be there is required. Mr. Hines suggested that Roberta type up the motion because it is foolish if the Board votes on one, it will vote on the other. Mr. Hines asked Mr. Bowlsby if he understands what is going on, and Mr. Bowlsby said that he was following the Board somewhat. Chairman Austen explained that the review was for a complete residential unit. Mr. Frost said that since the Board decided that it was not reviewing it as a dwelling unit, an environmental assessment has to be done for the accessory building. Attorney Barney said that the issue was a slightly different one. Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1994 He told Mr. Bowlsby he ought to bring in something that very clearly defines what's going to be in there in the way of eating, electrical, plumbing, all of the fixtures that normally go into a residential unit. Air. Bowlsby said that he would like to have it clear to him, and Mr. Hines assured him that he would because Roberta will type up this part of the minutes before she plows through the rest of them. Mr. Bowlsby said that when he sees this, he will know what he is applying again for, and the Board assured him that he would. Mr. Hines said that Mr. Bowlsby would be applying for something that does not have a kitchen in it. Mr. Bowlsby asked what was meant by a kitchen, and it was explained to him that it meant cooking facilities so that if someone walks in there, they do not see a stove, refrigerator, blenders and toasters. Mr. Frost suggested that perhaps Mr. Bowlsby might want to seek counsel. Mr. Hines said that the deed has to be prepared. Mr. Frost asked if the Board would want to see a deed restriction at the next meeting or would a letter be just as satisfactory. Mr.. Hines said that it would be nice to wrap it all up at once, but Mr. Tavelli would like to see the resolution before he did the deed. Chairman Austen said there was a motion to table. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that Mr. Hines' motion be tabled for a new environmental review based on an accessory structure on a non-conforming building lot and a clearly defined statement by Mr. Bowlsby as to what is going to be there in the way of heating, electrical, plumbing, all of the fixtures and that sort of thing that go into a residential unit and what is not going to be there. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Hines, Ellsworth, King, Scala, Austen. NAYS - None. The motion to table the motion was carried unanimously. The last appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL (Adjourned from November 10, 1993) of Gary and Donna Hofstead Duffy, Appellants, requesting an interpretation as to the application of Article V, Section 19, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to the operation of the Little Brook Farms Horse Training Facility at 340 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68-1-2, Residence District R-30. Should an interpretation be made that finds the operation in violation of said Ordinance, the Appellants then request a variance from Article V, Section 19, Paragraph 6, to be permitted to conduct a riding academy and a facility to board and train horses. Mr. King wanted the record to show that at the previous meeting this Board did adopt two resolutions, one of which was indicating that the use of the property was indeed in violation of Section 19, Paragraph 6 of the Ordinance, and the second resolution adopted was that the present use is not a customary home occupation permitted under Section 19, Paragraph 2 of the Ordinance. Mr. King said that at that point the Board is considering the application for a variance to permit the conduct of the operations as now conducted. Chairman Austen stated that the Board now has the long environmental assessment form before them. Mr. Hines asked Attorney Geldenhuys if she had seen the environmental statement and she said she reviewed the statement, as well as, the Town's evaluation of the statement. Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals January 12, 1994 Mr. King stated Part I was prepared by the applicant, and Ms. Geldenhuys responded yes. Mir. King read the contents of the long environmental assessment form. Mr. King stated he did not fully understand who did the testing of the water from the creek because there were reports from Stearns & Wheler Engineers, Buck Environmental Laboratories, and from Novelli & Co Consulting Engineers. Attorney Geldenhuys stated Buck Environmental Consultants drilled the test sites where the samples were taken from and analyzed the results from the tests and these test results were sent to Novelli and to Stearns & Wheler, two separate engineering firms to analyze. Mr. King said Buck Environmental Laboratories actually took the samples from three different points, two from upstream and one from downstream of the facility. Mr. King asked if just one sample was taken and Attorney Geldenhuys responded yes. Mr. King discussed the attachments to the environmental assessment form. tir. King said the Town Planning Department completed Parts II and III. He read their findings from the form. Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the Appellants, Gary and Donna Duffy, at 340 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68-1-2, and that the Board adopt as supportive findings: 1) The testimony of all the people who have spoken, as well as the letters which were written, that the operation of this facility is impeccable, pristine and unmatched and does not present any aesthetic or environmental impact on the community. 2) That the negligible coliform count indicated in one of the reports really is small. 3) That with the coliform count being the only negative factor of any of the evidence submitted, it not be sufficient to raise this to a level of a positive declaration or a conditional negative declaration. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Hines, Ellsworth, King, Scala, Austen. NAYS - None. The motion carried for a negative determination of environmental significance. MOTION By Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that the Board grant to the Appellants, Gary and Donna Duffy, a variance for the operation of the facility on 340 Warren Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68-1-2, as described in the testimony in the application, with the following findings and conditions: CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Nr of a� DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY /a¢4s Y 1" M BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1778 NIAGARA STREET^1 BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207-3199 \ REPLY YO ATTENTION OF October 26, 1993 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: David Bowlsby Activity, Processing Nos. 91-101-35, 92-101-13, Regional Permit Nos. 87-000-1, 79-000-3, Enforcement File No. 92-101-844 • 77 � r-rr ,i ! Mr. Andy Frost Town of Ithaca OCT 2 9 1993 Building Inspector's Office — 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 i O WN OF IT IACA 5UIw:NG/Z'CNING Dear Mr. Frost: This concerns your October. 18, 1993 telephone communication with Mr. Daniel Decker of my Regulatory Branch, Monitoring and Enforcement Section, regarding the subject David Bowlsby dock/boathouse investigation. The--activity is sited in Cayuga . Lake at the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. As a result of that conversation, you requested written confirmation that the Corps has determined that the subject Bowlsby dock/boathouse activities are in with the authorizations granted for them. - Based upon the results of my staff's site investigation, as well as other information contained in the administrative file for the actions, it has been determined that the subject activities are in compliance with Department of the Army authorization(s) which have been issued. I, therefore, am not taking any enforcement action and, as such, am closing out this enforcement case. -Thank you for your continued interest in the Corps regulatory program. Questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to Mr. Daniel Decker, who may be contacted at 716-879-4342, or by writing to the above address. • Sinc ly, Walter C eitzke G��^ Colonel, .S. Army n. Commanding TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 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, June 9, 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 CORNELL UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT/OWNER, JOHN MURRAY; D.B.A. ADVANTAGE SPORTS AND FITNESS, INC. , AGENT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.01-1 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN LAW TO BE PERMITTED TO PLACE AN EXTERIOR WALL SIGN 44 SQUARE FEET + (35 SQUARE FEET MAXIMUM PERMITTED) , AT SUITE 10B 3 & 4 EAST HILL PLAZA, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 62-2-1.121, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C". APPEAL OF SUSAN VATNICK, APPELLANT, PAMELA CLERMONT, AGENT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V, SECTION 21, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE WHICH HAS A SETBACK OF 4.4 FEET + (MINIMUM 15 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK REQUIRED) FROM THE PROPERTY'S WEST SIDE LOT LINE. THE PROPERTY IS. LOCATED AT 153 EAST KING ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 44-2-6, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. APPEAL OF FRED AND JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM, APPELLANTS, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 1122 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 37-1-19, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A TWO-STORY BUILDING ADDITION. THE ADDITION WILL BE 27 FEET + FROM THE REAR YARD PROPERTY LINE (30 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED) AND 20 FEET + FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, IN THE FRONT YARD (25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED) . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED; HOWEVER, THE EXISTING BUILDING (PRIOR TO THE ENLARGEMENT) ALREADY ENCROACHES IN THE REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. APPEAL (ADJOURNED FROM MAY 12, 1993 AND MARCH 24, 1993) OF DAVID BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, AND/OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, AND ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 68, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25-2-38, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND. THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING METING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT, ON CAYUGA LAKE (BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK) , AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE. 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: June 1, 1993 Publish: June 4, 1993 •asnoq aeoq e zo; atwaed a ;o aeya ueya atwzad ;o adA1 auaza;;Tp a ueAlb eq TTIM ATgeATaouoc szaazenb butAtT ;o satatuawe eqa anoyltM eanaonzls eqa 'waTgozd a aneq satouabe .amigo ssaTun Tetra 91EoTpuT oa pewees Hoy eqa 2eg1 paaeas aH •atwiad p1non nays butgaSue eq aou pinon bulaeeq pup butgwnTd aney pTnors mega aznaonzas a os 'szaazenb butAtT MOTTE aou pTnoM Hoy aeyl zeaTo pameas aT mega pies zegazn; asoz3 •zj( •ejeT aql uo butaq aznacnzas ;o adAa slya oa suoTloaCgo due aney pTnors Aaya zaylagM oa se aulwzaaep oa eldoed zayao ;o AaeT3eA a pup '03Q 'e;ITPTIM pue gsTa se lions satcuebe pue suoraeztuebzo auezeftp oT ob oa seM op o1 peg eq sbutga aya ;o euo asneoaq bulalin uT buTypAue aab ptnon asoz3 'an eao;eq sAep ;v-0E aetpoue eq pTnors at aeya 02EOTPuT PIP SJV woz; uewaTluab eq1 aeyl pup saaazenb buTATT euTgap aou saop goy mega PIES asoad 'an •saaazenb butAtT IT @New pTnors aEya sataruawe eqa anoyaTM anq sT se utewaz oa einacnzls aqa noTTe pinot e1genTeauoo Aaga aeya 'zananoq 'eaeotpul PIP 30y aeya paps asoz3 .an •AgsTMog 'an zo; peaTnbea eq pTnors atssued Mau a Tetra os 'Mou azayy sT mega 9zn2311i2s aya Aq pepeanxa uaaq they „asnoy aeoq„ eqa zo; aney Aega atwzad luazzno ayy mega sl uoTaeotput aqa rue (£66T 'L aunr) Aepuoll azaga ano lab PIP Soy 9111 TEya paanns zaylzn; asoaa •zjl •pauznoCpe then bulaaaw Aejj eqa Ayr: sT mega pup 'butaaaw Aejj s,paeog aqa Aq aaaqa SJy aab Tou PIP eq pies ascz3 •zf •bulaeaw gczejj s,paeog alp butznp passnostp seM yolgM alwzad eqa butaq alwzad eqa 'alsuzad alp yaps acuetTdwop uT s,al aatraagn autwaelap oa aznacnzas aqa le XooT pup quo ob uoszad luewecao;ue UP aney oa weya aab oa pain eq put („30y„) szaautbug ;o dzo0 Away eqa ylTM ajods ay pue paaeTnoaTo bureq nou aaan butaaaw yczepl aqa zo; do pe3otd aanau azars aega saznactd ayy Ares 1s0z3 •zjl '3Rn AUOSSSJJV 'IVNOSEIId EI03 ON airs 3Ha asn QNV 'OnIVH Ej3LVM MO'I QNV U2SIVM HOIH HELL MONISM SNV'i VO=AVJ NO 'ZINR ONITIEMQ V 30 NOIJSNI33Q sml ONIIS3H ONIQ'III=B V NIV.LNIVH OS sasoaoua ZNV'I'IIddV 3NS 'QN?'I 30 'IIJHVd V NO ONIQ'IIne 'IHLL -NSQISSU 3N0 L'RIO SJ NEM 3JNVNIQNO GIVE 'ST-H JJIELTSIQ 3JNmaIS3iI '8£-Z-SZ 'ON TDEIVd EVd, VJVELLI 30 NMOI 'Qx1A3'Ino8 NJONNVHOQVI 6Z8 IV QIlVJCII IOU ONIQ'IIAB ONIHNO3NOo-NON V NO ONIQ'IIne 'IVI7 30ISSEI QNOJ3s V 3AVH OS Q3,LTB'fllsd 38 OZ '3JNVNIQEIO ONINOZ VJVHSI 30 NMOS SELL 30 '89 NOIJJ=S 'IIIE STJISEV OW 'TT NOISJ=S 'AI 3'IJI.LUV 30 SSItNIIIEIIABSH SELL HOER SSJNVREVA UO/QNV 'VS NOIJJSS 'II1 3'IJI ant EIIQNn 'IVAoadav 'IVIJ3ds V ONIZSSn0aa 'INVTI33aV 'AEISIM08 QIAVQ 30 (£66T '6Z HJHVN QNV £66T 'ET AVH HOH3 Qs&anOruy) 'IV3ddV :snoTTo; se seM paeog eqa Aq papal( eq oa Tpaddy aseT agy •ATsnomTueun palzzec uolaow ayy •auou - sAejy .sautes 'yazotsTTS 't'TEos 'uaasny 'bull( - saAy 'SnoTTo; se peaTnsaz uotaow aqa uo awn y 'yfltazaga aoutrTdwoo TE2aue2sgns uT uoaaaya sauawanozdwt aya go uo;acnzasucc eqa SO; panssl eq pTnoys ar»uad bu-PTlnq t' TEya put 'peaatwgns se sutTd asoga oa peatTaz STssazdx9 st acuelzeA slyl pue aueTTeddy eqa Aq palatwgns sueTd ayy trills aouppaooze uT eq oa st uotlonzasuoc He 2e141 sauawaztnbaz aqa uo pauolatpuoc st Tencadde srq , (8 •uotllppp eqa ;o aTnsaz e se astie lybtw aega sauewtzaap Sue yblanano ze; Aazedoad aya ;o sal;auaq eq (L •zaaaew stye oa ATasaeApe pepuodsaa oqn saogg6teu SUE lou eaen aaegy (9 •setaaedozd auaceCpe ayy uo aulnez aqa put' Aaaadozd stya ;o autT yanos aqa uaanaaq aTTnq eq pTnors aanlonaas Sue aeya ATeNITun eq pinon aT 'aleznooe Sr Tetra ;T put dew %ea alp uo unogs se aurAez TTews t' st azayy (S £66T '6 aunr sTeaddy ;o paeog butu0Z toeppI ;o u%oa • Stint• vi 11.41a..4 8 Zoning Board of Appeals _ June 9, 1993 After further discussion between the Board and Mr. Bowlsby, Mr. Hines suggested that Mr. Bowlsby submit a floor plan as to what is existing and what Mr. Bowlsby would contemplate to have in the structure so that when the ACE submits its report, the Board can refer to that so the Board may make a more meaningful decision. At Mr. Barney's suggestion and with Mr. Bowlsby's agreement, it was agreed upon that an adjournment could be made for three months and if the permit was received by the Board earlier, the Board could accelerate placing the Appeal back on the Board's agenda. Mr. Frost also suggested that Mr. Bowlsby should speak to DEC because there appears to be some concern of the role of DEC, both in Syracuse and Cortland. He stated that DEC's role has become more intense, yet their role is very limited in things such as driving the piers or piles. Mr. Scala asked if there was any restriction in Mr. Bowlsby redoing his deck, to which Mr. Frost indicated that there was not. MOTION By Mr. Hines, seconded by Mr.Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that the Appeal of David Bowlsby be adjourned until the first meeting in September 1993. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Austen, King, Hines, Ellsworth, Scala. Nays - None. Mr. Frost made the announcement that the Board was looking at two meetings in July: July 14 and 28. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. 01-nflarrrrii ba) Roberta Komaromi _ Recording Secretary Lit Edward Austen, Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 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, May 12, 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 (ADJOURNED FROM MARCH 24, 1993) OF DAVID BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, AND/OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, AND ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 68, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25-2-38, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND. THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT, ON CAYUGA LAKE (BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK), AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE. APPEAL OF ELIZABETH DELAHANTY, APPELLANT, STEPHEN GIBIAN, AGENT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 340 FOREST HOME DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 66-3-4.1, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A NEW 16 FOOT X 21 FOOT ENCLOSED LIVING AREA AND AN 8 FOOT X 8 FOOT OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO BE ADDED TO THE REAR OF SAID RESIDENCE, WHICH IS LOCATED 2 FEET + FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE (25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED) . THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS AN AVERAGE LOT DEPTH OF 87 FEET + (150 FOOT LOT DEPTH REQUIRED) . APPEAL OF PATRICIA AND STEPHEN LUCENTE, APPELLANTS, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO ALTER THE USE OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 981 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 21-2-30, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID ALTERATION CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CONTAINING A THREE-CAR GARAGE WITH A SECOND FLOOR STUDIO AND AN 8 FOOT X 12 FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH IS LOCATED 4 FEET + TO THE PROPERTY'S NORTH SIDE LOT LINE (15 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED) . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE IV, SECTION 13, OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED, SINCE SAID ACCESSORY BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY'S FRONT YARD (SUCH BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD) AND ITS PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO BE 19 FEET ± (15 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION REQUIRED) . THE BUILDING LOT IS 50 FEET + WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK (100 FEET BEING 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: May 4, 1993 Publish: May 7, 1993 RECEIVEDDavid B. Bowlsby 829 Taughannock Blvd . MAY "993 Ithaca, NY 14850 TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING 6 0 7-2 7 3-4 211 May 4, 1993 Andy Frost Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Andy Frost , I am asking for an extension to the meeting scheduled later this May, to the meeting in June 1993 . This would allow me time to properly prepare my case . Thank-you. Sincerely, David B. Bowlsby RECEIVED APR 5:1993 Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING TOWN OF ITHACA 121 East Court Street —fir BUILDING/ZONING Ithaca,New York 14850 James W.Hanson,Jr. Telephone(607)274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX(607)274-5578 March 31, 1993 Mr. Andy Frost, Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Bowlsby Variance - Two Buildings On One Lot. Tax Map No. 25-2-38. 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 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, A"-211/- Jeanne Barrett, Circuit Rider Z� Recycled paper TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 1993 7:00 P.N. 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, March 24, 1993, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COI-RIENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL OF SUSAN WEITZ, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 AND 12, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST FOR UP TO FOUR LODGERS AT 312 SALEM DRIVE: ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 70-9-5, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. APPEAL OF RICHARD BRUNO, II, OWNER, RICHARD BRUNO, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 29.3 FEET + (30 FEET BEING REQUIRED) , LOCATED AT 4 WINNERS CIRCLE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 58-1-8.6, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. APPEAL OF BRUCE G. RIGHTM?ER, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF A SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 23, 1992, TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE PLUMBING WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 155 POOLE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 32-1-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY) . SAID BOARD IN THEIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STATED "THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING TO THE BUILDING AND THE TUB THAT IS THERE NOW, WILL BE REMOVED". APPEAL OF DAVID BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE.XII, SECTION 54, AND/OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, AND 'ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 68, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25-2-38, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTI.=.L BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND. THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT, ON CAYUGA LAKE (BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK) , AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE. 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: March 16, 1993 Publish: March 19, 1993 Town of Ithaca S Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 Dr. Ronald Krantz of 179 Sheffield Road appeared before the Board and explained that he and his wife own approximately all the surrounding land around Mr. Rightmyer's property. He stated that when Mr. Rightmyer first started clearing the land, Mr. Rightmyer cleared a lot of the debris and the wood onto Mr. Krantz's property. Mr. Krantz came by and they discussed the matter nicely and gentlemanly on both sides. Mr. Krantz stated he ended up getting a surveyor, which he paid for, to rule where the boundaries were, and Mr. Rightmyer, as he declared the last time six months ago, agreed that he had overstepped the boundaries and put the wood and debris on our land and promised to clear it. He stated that it has not been cleared. He further stated that Mr. Rightmyer had declared to the Board that he owned a bunch of apartments and that he has been pretty involved with real estate through the years. Mr. Krantz stated that Mr. Rightmyer didn't have a building permit when he put this up. He stated that Mr. Rightmyer put up a building that was too tall, too big and which this Board said that if a building permit had been applied for, there was no way that it would have been approved. He stated that the building was already there, so the Board was faced with the dilemma of telling him to rip the darn thing down, or else letting it stay up there because it was just a little too big and a little too tall and so the Board did really the only thing the Board could do. Dr. Krantz stated that we have a building that got put up without a permit, that was too big, and too tall, by a man that deals in real estate and owns a lot of apartments. He stated that he didn't clear off the debris from Dr. Krantz's land and then the Board stated six months and one day ago, remove the plumbing from it and remove the tub and it is another six months gone by and it is still there. He further stated that the building, which was just a building for Mr. Rightmyer's boats, now has four regular sized doors, three double garage overhead doors, one very large garage door, a large picture window and it's petitioned into three rooms. He stated now we put in a little plumbing and in his eyes, despite what Mr. Rightmyer says, we're aiming right down the road to some apartments, which was the original purpose of this. He stated that the Board agrees that the plumbing and the tub comes out, which should have come out six months ago. • Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. MOTION: By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Chairman Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny the Appeal on the grounds that the Appellant, Bruce Rightmyer, has stated that there has been no change in the circumstances with respect to the structure, located at 155 Poole Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32-1-1, or his investment in the structure since his appearance before this Board last year, at which time we listened to the evidence and many of us viewed the property, considered the situation, and made the finding that the building be continued, but in an effort to limit the use of the building, required that the plumbing be discontinued. The Appellant comes before this Board and says that he wants us to change our mind and allow the plumbing. There has been no new evidence; we have ruled on this matter, and once having ruled on it, our ruling should stand. Otherwise we will be continually getting applications to review our own decisions, which is essentially what he wants us to do. He's asking us to rethink what we have already' thought through and I am stating that that is not an appropriate function of this Board. Based on what we have listened to, I move that the appeal to this Board be denied, without prejudice of coming before us if he has some more information, but based on what we hear tonight, there is nothing for us to decide. Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Ellsworth, Hines, Scala, Austen. Nays - None. The motion carried. Mr. King stated that beyond the technical point, which is very well taken, there is a fact that this Board could have ordered the building itself removed or destroyed because it was put up without a permit and was in total violation of the Zoning Ordinance and it was constructed without a building permit by a man who owns three houses. He further stated the only purpose that he can see in retaining the bathroom, the expense question aside, would be to be able to utilize it down the road in a manner that is not permitted by our Ordinance. Mr. King thought that these points should at least be in the record as supportive of the decision on the technical motion that has been made. Mr. Rightmyer asked if the Board was saying that there was no way he was ever going to get water in that building. He stated that he had to have water because his heat is water and there are pipes in the floor. Mr. Frost stated that plumbing is plumbing and he thought that it said there will be no plumbing to the building. Mr. Rightmyer further stated that he has a boiler in there for heat and has pipes in the concrete floor. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Rightmyer what kind of heat he had and Mr. Rightmyer responded that he had hot water in the floor. Mr. Frost stated that Mr. Rightmyer could keep the plumbing for the hot water that provides heat only to the floor. Attorney Barney wondered what the septic system hooks up to. Mr. Rightmyer answered to the house and the Health Department said that it was fine if it was just a garage. Mr. Frost said he talked to the Health Department and if it wasn't a dwelling unit, then they had no regulation about the septic. Attorney Barney asked what in the garage is connected to the septic system and Mr. Rightmyer responded that right now there is a lavatory in the garage. Mr. Hines stated that the lavatory will be disconnected. The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF DAVID BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, AND/OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, AND ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 68, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 25-2-38, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND. THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWEJJ,TNG UNIT, ON CAYUGA LAKE (BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK), AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE. Mr. Hines stated in the interest of expediting their decision in the ultimate resolution of the problems that Mr. Bowlsby has, ultimately he has to get permission from the State and the Army Corp of Engineers to do whatever he wants to do. He stated that if what the Appellant ultimately wants to do is fairly:extensive, then what's the sense of our going through a lot of monkey business if the Corp of Engineers and the State doesn't approve. Mr. Frost responded that the Department of Environmental Conservation is not involved. He mentioned that the extent of the Army Corp of Engineers' concern is only that the structure is on piers and allows the water to flow underneath the structure. K Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 Chairman Austen asked if there is a permit for this project. Mr. Frost explained that Mr. Hines has what he received from the Army Corp a couple of years ago. Mr. Frost suggested that whatever the outcome of this appeal, that a reaffirmation from the Army Corp with regard to their permit seems appropriate. Mr. Frost mentioned that he had recently talked to the Army Corp and the impression is that the Appellant did get what he needed to and they are satisfied, as long as it's not obstructing any flow of waters. Chairman Austen referred to the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Assistant Town Planner, George Frantz, on March 22, 1993. He had invited George Frantz to the meeting and invited Mr. Frantz to discuss his positive declaration of environmental significance. Mr. Frantz appeared before the Board and stated that it's not like the usual environmental assessments or recommendations as far as determinations because usually as a planner and reviewer of developments in the Town of Ithaca, the types of environmental impacts that we usually uncover relate to the natural environment, whether its potential to impacts with regard to erosion, air quality, ground water quality, noise level, or impact on traffic. He said in this case, as he stated in the review, the proposal before the Board doesn't appear to have the risk of any significant adverse impact with regard to things like erosion, impact on environment, or rare and endangered species of life. Mr. Frantz stated the impact, rather, is to the potential significant adverse impacts to the community's goals and policies as officially adopted, specifically, the Town's current zoning as far as the intensity of land uses envisioned under the Town zoning. He thinks in this area that it is a particular concern, given the fact that there are approximately 70 lots in the Town of Ithaca along Route 89, many of which are legal non-conforming lots. He added there are approximately 90 dwelling units in this stretch of lake front. Mr. Frantz stated the particular parcel in question is especially deficient in size and lot dimensions and his recommendation is that there is a potential for a significant adverse impact for this proposal, essentially on the potential character of the existing neighborhood, and also due to the what he believes is the fairly substantial increase in the intensity of land use on the site. Mr. Frantz stated as far as impact on the lake or anything, he didn't address that because he knew that Mr. Bowlsby did get a permit from the Corp of Engineers and he is not qualified to assess its impact on the lake. He does know there are plenty of docks. He said his concerns were entirely from the land use planning perspective and the impact on the community's goals of policies as deflected in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Austen also noted that the coverage of the property is above the maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, it is covering 22% of the property, including the additional land that is between the high and low water mark. Mr. Frantz stated that approximately 1/4 of this .9,100 'square feet that he used as the lot size, is actually between the approximate low water and high water marks. He explained that of course, if you were to subtract that, you'd get an even higher percentage of lot coverage. Town of Ithaca ' 11 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 Mr. Frost stated that it has always been a little unclear to him where the land is when you're dealing with properties on the lake or in the lake. He stated in some cases he's heard measurements at the high water mark, others to the low water mark. Mr. Hines stated that the title runs to the low water mark. Mr. Scala reaffirmed that up to the low water mark, it's in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Hines stated that it's always in the Town of Ithaca, but the title of the upland owner extends to the low water line. He further stated the State of New York owns the bed of the lake and has recurring rights to use the lake water over your land, whenever there is lake water over your land. Chairman Austen referred to C5 of the Environmental Assessment Form. Mr. Frantz stated that at some point the Board may be faced with a future request, given the amount of the investment of the boat house, that it be allowed to become a full dwelling unit. He was also concerned about the precedent set for other property owners along the lake who may also have boathouses of this size. Mr. Hines replied that there aren't many; he could only think of one that is this extensive. Attorney Barney asked if the building was going to have sanitary facilities at all. Mr. Bowlsby responded that he is simply asking for a place to put a toilet. Attorney Barney stated that the Army Corp permit specifically precludes the construction of boathouses which includes living quarters or sanitary facilities. Mr. Bowlsby stated that the gentleman from the Army Corp said that if Mr. Bowlsby ever wanted to get that added to his boathouse, simply apply for it. He further stated that he had told the Army Corp that was his intention when he first spoke with them. Mr. Hines stated that the purpose of the regulations is premise on the fact that the upland owners don't own the lake and the rights of the public are paramount in the use of the lake and that every object placed in the lake impedes that, whether it's a buoy for anchoring our boats, or whether it's a dock and that the intention is to permit those facilities which aide and assist our boats and other means of ingress and egress to the lake, but when you start creating residential or living facilities, you start going on to the next step. Mr. Hines didn't thank it would be automatic that the Army Corp would find that acceptable and he was surprised that the Department of Environmental Conservation isn't involved. He stated he understand the Appellant's problem and he was sympathetic to it, but the point is that it's a rather large facility and he realizes that it's hardly navigable water down there because it's marshy and the weeds are very high, but as long as there is water over the land that extends into Cayuga Lake, the public has the right to traverse there and every time you've built something, you've eliminated the public's access to it. Hr. Bowlsby stated that yes, but that is why they put limitations on what you do and how far you go out and he's within limitations. Mr. Hines stated that there are limitations on the amount of square feet you can cover and lots of other things. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he spends all his time down in the boathouse. He stated he has his tool shop down there, he goes down to work, build things, it's his garage, it's his little entertainment center down there, he has friends that go down there, and he spends a lot of time down there. Mr. Hines stated what the regulations deal with is the intensity and the nature of the use over the lake and that's what you're really dealing with. He stated they're saying that you shouldn't have an intense use over the lake. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he didn't see an intense use over the lake because the lake is a big lake and he is out there legally 20 feet, with the building above the boat. Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 Attorney Barney read from the Army Corp permit stating that this permit does not authorize the placement of enclosed buildings, boathouses, fuel storage tanks, sinks, toilets, showers, fuel dispensing or sanitary pump out facilities waterward of the Ordinary High Water shoreline. He stated that the paperwork that Mr. Bowlsby presented to the Board suggests that he cannot do it, now there maybe some communications Mr. Bowlsby had with the Army Corp, but this is the permit that Mr. Bowlsby is expecting this Board to act on and rely on. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. Mrs. Sharon Eckert approached the Board and explained she and her husband, Charles, live at 825 Taughannock Boulevard, south of the Bowlsby's. She stated that, as David said how much he appreciates the lake, so do they. She stated that they may not always be on the lake, but her view is obstructed from her deck by the boathouse, which is already constructed. She didn't believe that there was a permit for the boathouse to be constructed. Mrs. Eckert said the boathouse is occupied from time to time. She mentioned that there are fluids that come out of the boathouse into the lake water. She didn't know what they are. She stated that they also have a lot of difficulty with parking along Route 89. She stated David has three off-street parking spots, they have one. She also stated there are two people that live in her house, she doesn't know how many reside in David's, but there are usually 2 or 3 vehicles on the street, plus his off-street parking. She stated they would like to remain good neighbors with David. She mentioned that when David built his house and deck, he apparently didn't check the survey, because he built his windbreak and the stairs off his deck on their property. She stated they consulted with their lawyer and in order to remain good neighbors, they gave him written permission to occupy that space, provided they could revoke that permission at any time. She reaffirmed that she doesn't want to be enemies with her neighbor, she just wants to be able to use and enjoy the lake as much as he does. Mr. Bowlsby stated that what he should address first, if he's ever going to get a toilet, is to communicate again with the Army Corp of Engineers. Mr. Brad Corbett of 907 Taughannock Boulevard appeared before the Board and stated that the last couple of times that he went down to the lake in his boat and he saw the building, that it was totally over the land, even at the low water mark, that it is still jutting out onto the lake. He stated that it gives the appearance of being inhabited a good period of the time. He stated every time he has seen it, there's either been someone there, the lights on, the television on, or whatever. He wondered if this is permissible, being also part of the lake property, maybe perhaps he would be permitted to build another large structure out there. He stated it does not appear to be a boathouse; it appears to be a residential unit and for that, he would object to its continued use in that respect. Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. • Mr. Hines suggested an adjournment. Attorney Barney "stated that the problem is that there appears to be a violation here so he thought if they granted an adjournment, without taking action on the application for the building as it sits there, there ought to be put some kind of time frame that Mr. Bowlsby will be back here. He asked Mr. Bowlsby how long it would take to talk to the Army Corp.. Mr. Bowlsby replied that it might be six months. Attorney Barney stated that they couldn't wait that long. ' Mr. Frost stated that he would make some phone calls .to attempt to expedite this. Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 MOTION: By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn this matter and place it on the May 12, 1993 calendar for additional hearing, specifically for the Appellant to furnish a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers, with the consent of the Appellant, David Bowlsby. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes - King, Hines, Scala, Ellsworth, Austen. Nays - None. The motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion, the meeting was adjourned. rlimai 04) Dani L. Holford� Recording Secretary APPROVED: Edwardit A Austen, Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $80.00 RECEIVED126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 3 j -1jq3 Ithaca, New York 14850 MAR 91993 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1783 QF ITHACA CHECK - ( () ( ) TOWN APPEAL BUILDING/ZON,NCs ZONING: to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to: i n S l G_` ( kg Cif n7 Qv`d .P)U (v !)it y 4a c , 1 , ii e s A a irwe a dv.),2_11,uA u 4 1c , g, op of p -�Ls Iauo ctccCso'y at K-2 1 a u2/�6,-1,1,c(, Rl (-/\-\d, _ . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. , ` 2 5 - 2 _ 3 S' , 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 the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the e UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appea from such denial and, in support of the Ap peal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary. ) . e c_k c,ci.,.e___ A. she e_t 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. "7 Signature of Owne ' Date: `- �j'g r/Appellant: „3 / y LCJ ,..,3 Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Home Telephone Number: 2-'> 3 9-2 / 7 Work Telephone Number: 272 Y ¢ 57.1 - NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will expire. RECEIVED David B. Bowlsby 829 Taughannock Blvd. MAR 9 1993 Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-4211 TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING March 9 1993 Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 To the Zoning Board, Gradually, our Boat House is becoming more and more our main location for entertaining. Fishing in the spring, summer and fall. Boating and swimming in the summer and Ice skating and walks in the winter. Due to the extreme steep stairs and length of them from our house to the boat house it has been a problem without the heating and plumbing facilities that our excessable to us. We feel it has been an unnecessary hardship for our private entertaining at the boat house without these heating and plumbing conveniences. Utilizing the lake frontage seems to be the whole purpose of living here. It seems foolish not to be connected to the plumbing facilities that our now available to us here on Taughannock Blvd. Sincerely, David B. Bowlsby TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 141150 December 14 , 1990 Mr. David Bowlsby 829 Taughannock Boulevard Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Lake . . Boat House Dear Mr. Bowlsby: This letter serves as a follow up to our recent conversations with regard to your construction of a structure along the shoreline of Cayuga Lake , at your property on 629 Taughannock Boulevard. This office has not issued any "building permits" to you for the construction of this building. I have also communicated with the United States Army Corp of Engineers (Buffalo, New York office ) and no permits have been issued by them either. The Army Corp issues construction permits for structures within "navigable waters" such as Cayuga Lake . The structure is constructed on piers and "railroad ties" and is located partly over the lake , a lake bulk head and the shoreline. It is not clear to me whether the structure is within the lake low water mark or the high water mark. The structure appears to have the potential to be used as a dwelling unit. (A dwelling unit is defined as a structure that can be used for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitary purposes ) . There is the space between the lake itself and the underside of the structure in which you propose to "house" a boat. You have stated that you had previously inquired of me as to whether a Building Permit is required to be issued by this office for "boat houses" and that my response was "no" . This was around May 1989 . I have some recollection of this conversation and would have said "no" to a question of requirements for "boat houses" and lake front "docks" ; however, a boat house to me means a place for housing a boat and not persons. In recent conversations you have indicated that your intent in using the term "boat house" was to mean a structure for housing people . Additionally, my recollection was that I informed you that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corp of Engineers would have some interest in any construction on Cayuga Lake . You have indicated that you contacted the DEC and spoke with Mr. Larry Gomar at the Cortland Office. You have further indicated that you did what Mr. Gomar instructed but that you never obtained anything in writing from him. /1; /74 nt ,f - 2 - Iri May 1989, a Building Permit was issued to you by this office for the construction of your home (at 829 Taughannock Boulevard) . The home is located uphill of the lake shore. You have indicated that the lake shore structure will be used by your family as an accessory building, though there will be provisions for eating, sleeping, and living. The main building, uphill, is your actual residence. It is not my feeling that you proceeded to construct the lake shore structure intentionally, without a Building Permit, particularly since you had a permit for the main residence. Enclosed is a Building Permit application for the lake shore structure. Please complete the application, including all construction plans and material specifications and submit it to this office along with the appropriate permit fees and site plans. Additionally, I am enclosing a Zoning Board of Appeals application, since an appearance before the Zoning Board of Appeals may also be necessary. The Zoning Board of Appeals may be involved in the permit process, depending on- the information you provide me with regard to the site plan and building location, with respect to building setbacks and high/low water marks along the lake . Should you have any questions, please call me at 273-1783. Sincerely, Oka_ SC -/ -4 Andrew Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer AF/dlw Enclosures cc: Shirley Raffensperger John Barney Army Corp of Engineers - - New York State DEC • _ - - - i • • RECEIVED TAVELLI & SELDIN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW JAN 12 1994 405 NORTH TIOGA STREET P.O.BOX 695 PAUL N.TAVELLI TELEPHONE ��p�/�gg / r •..�' ITHACA,NEW YORK 14850 (607)273-8410 WILLIAM S.SELDIN �M Off WUNINS (607)273 3900 January 11, 1994 Andrew Frost Building Commissioner Town Hall Town of Ithaca 121 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: David Bowlsby Dear Mr. Frost: I am the attorney for David Bowlsby owner of premises at 829 Taughannock Boulevard, Ithaca, New York . Mr . Bowlsby has requested that I prepare a deed restriction to his home at 829 Taughannock Boulevard which will run with the land and be binding upon his heirs and assigns to the effect that the boat house on the shore behind his present home is an accessory use, that it is not a dwelling and is for the sole use of Mr. Bowlsby and his immediate family and is not to be used for rental purposes. I have recommended to Mr. Bowlsby that we wait until the appropriate language is approved by the Zoning Board and then file same with the Tompkins County Clerk. Please keep me informed. Very rul yours, PAUL . TAV I PNT/rn _l.R I .... r..... , -.,e - III 1 I, I 1 Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev. 10/5C MAR 91993 Tovn of Ithaca Environmental Review • SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM TOWN OF Vt1STED ACTIONS Located in the Tovn of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY !MDT G/ZONINC — Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) I 1 . Applicant/Sponsor:, 2. Project Name: k)n,s_i_,..J.:3c: 3. Precise Location (Street Address and RRo tersections,promi ent landmarks, etc. or provide map): 2 77/9-c S hi 1 nv•"-v c(e- G/4vtl>+ Tax Parcel Number: •7 S ` 2 ) 4. Is Proposed Action: 'el E EXPANSION 0 MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): • (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 n NO If no, describe conflict briefly: / 2A-"la 6-9 'e:-N-c,-)/// r\-5, 0--,—, C-911--C q24P_6 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: el Public Road? YES E NO -( _ Public Water? YES 0 NO 0 Public Sewer? YES E NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? enttal 0 Commercial EIndustrial DAgriculture 0 Park/Forest/Open Space 0Other 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 U NOZA------ 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‘a NO El If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. A CC -(2SSo1 ( -v1IC L,/ '--G'Qc kl I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROYI ABOVE IS TRUE TO HE BEST OF MY KNDYLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): 1279 (}r ( \_& . p l' _,6q/ I I Signature: r �� Date: 5 I 1 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 X 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 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 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. C6. 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 X , 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 of 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. 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. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals /j Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature (If rent from Responsible Officer) Edward Austen, Chairman Nam,. Rrof Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date: _ Signature of Responsrole Officer in Lead Agency PART II-Environmental Assessment David Bowlsby Request for Special Approval and/or Variances . 829 Taughannock Blvd.,Residence District R-15 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24, 1993 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? None anticipated. The proposed action is to install heat and plumbing facilities, including kitchen and bathroom facilities, in an existing boathouse on the lot. No expansion of the boathouse is proposed as part of this action. The proposed addition is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts with regard to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic patterns,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage orflooding problems. - C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources,or community or neighborhood character? None-anticipated. • C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or • endangered species? None anticipated. 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 installation of kitchen and bathroom facilities in-the+/-565 sq. ft.boathouse represents an increase in intensity of land use on a parcel with an existing high intensity of use relative to the level anticipated by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Approximately 43%of the+/-9,100 sq.ft.' parcel is covered by buildings decks,verandas and stairways. .The existing home, boathouse,and shed alone occupy approximately 1,970 sq.ft., or about 22% of the parcel. The maximum building coverage allowed in the Residence District R-15 is 20%. The addition of kitchen and bathroom facilities would also essentially convert the boathouse into a structure useable The +/-9,100 sq. ft. includes the portion of the lake bottom between the approximate low water and high water lines shown on the survey submitted by the applicant. 1 as a dwelling. Given the substandard size of the parcel,the limited amount of off-road parking available(2-3 spaces) combined with the current traffic and parking conditions on NYS Rte. 89, and the character of the existing neighborhood, the change in land use intensity represented by this potential additional living space may have a significant adverse impact. C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? The proposed request, if granted, may lead to a future request to convert the boathouse to a full dwelling unit. In addition,it may set a precedent for other property owners along Cayuga Lake,and may result in an overall increase in the amount of development along the shore of the lake. 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? 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, and the information above,a positive determination of environmental significance is recommended for the above referenced action. The intensity of land use on the parcel,based on the minimum lot size,setback,and building coverage requirements of the Residence District R-15 regulations, already exceeds the intensity of use envisioned by the community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted. The proposed increase in intensity,and the potential precedence setting nature of the increase,may result in significant adverse impacts to both the Town of Ithaca's existing plans and goals as officially adopted,including the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,and its ongoing land use planning and growth management efforts. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: George R. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Review Date: March 22, 1993 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED t"�icT of o DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Q: A M\ BUFFALO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS w `'� ,,'ii, .'-I til 1776 NIAGARA STREET G (k 41111 i p1' BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14207-3199 '4.11 •.�r ;a83.4rrri°OF�' REPLY TOATTENTION OF October 26, 1993 Regulatory Branch SUBJECT: David Bowlsby Activity, Processing Nos. 91-101-35 , 92-101-13 , Regional Permit Nos. 87-000-1, 79-000-3 , Enforcement File No. 92-101-844 RECEIVE,. Mr. Andy Frost Town of Ithaca OCT 2 9 1993 Building Inspector's Office 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 TOWN OF I'fNACA BUILDING/ZONING Dear Mr. Frost: This concerns your October 18, 1993 telephone communication with Mr. Daniel Decker of my Regulatory Branch, Monitoring and Enforcement Section, regarding the subject David Bowlsby dock/boathouse investigation. The activity is sited in Cayuga Lake at the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York. As a result of that conversation, you requested written confirmation that the Corps has determined that the subject Bowlsby dock/boathouse activities are in compliance with the authorizations granted for them. Based upon the results of my staff's site investigation, as well as other information contained in the administrative file for the actions, it has been determined that the subject activities are in compliance with Department of the Army authorization(s) which have been issued. I, therefore, am not taking any enforcement action and, as such, am closing out this enforcement case. Thank you for your continued interest in the Corps regulatory program. Questions pertaining to this matter should be directed to Mr. Daniel Decker, who may be contacted at 716-879-4342 , or by writing to the above address. Sinc ly, L,,i(ja, Walter C. eitzkeK-, Colonel, 'U. S. Army ! Commanding _it �Th n •�.S I °4-1 J o N�F D/-7ni/� SCoTr n�rcyv •' • •- >> `<..- d, r r + ^ (S9 G ��G O, 0 _ j :w --------..___ k i --, . 111p Nc4( V. , , `� J ce 2 0 ECG 8. :'� 3 D 1 \t'' 1 -- N (\ —„ 0 , _Ni e \ Z' v.L ki t4' \9 a ev o 1 w o /:.._ Qr il 0 i \ •k k/ Q : 4; .t :1 0 2 3 ? a Z • w II e 4 -- ." I 0 fl•,.. IQ 'Ck N) [ iI r ti � Q -j 1V y PR��OSE o If BIER h - Cr Q ` (Y s "+ 0 0 � �, 8DATDoCK(u�iDFR •• /I '4 , kl IL: �'ir iii 1 ! niul 1r q N d o ;` l � '— I/ / '+� (\ U - i (r)tf's---.;,' I CZ 0) Ck101 \ I I II . I i� Lk 1 ! , iI ill 1 II-IlliIiIH if ' I--— _ li 4. Eq (57,„„ ,4, \ , , ___ ____ ___ A 36 8 Qkif----,,r , / ,,, i \ r- -- ,) \ _\,:..- VI ``.oz o C, V 3 J Q +n 40cC/-14RL L 5,Y✓�LI/? �C SI�A4N K GF .G DW�LL/NG AT ^ SURVEY IVIAP Q E EST 329 TACIGI�A 1UOCK BOULEVARD .14 T JJ'?W oFJ rNA CA, TOM PbC/,�+5 Co!/JY FY gzwYo�/� �r' L`/ 1�89 Sc,�t � � / ''= Z4- P?EPAfr_ o er 0 ( 1 fiESu UC: : h 0 fE_, , NO WARD R. SCNL/L i;C- r w > pUSc L0�' KeD ArJG. 4, i989JU[Y3, I93/ /Y,.YWA E. c.S. v�37S� FIELD ci/ECxrD JpN. Z, 1990 REVISED FE/3, 2h. /991 AT 45abc Fes. TOWN OF ITHACA !ILO/ 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1747 December 13, 1991 Mr. David Bowlsby 829 Taughannock Boulevard Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Lake Boat House Dear Mr. Bowlsby: Enclosed is a copy of a letter written to you on December 14, 1990 with respect to the building you constructed along Cayuga Lake . It has been one year since the letter was written and at this point in time, our records show no substantial movement in the direction of resolving the issue. A building permit and a Certificate of Occupancy for the use of the building and any approvals from the Town' s Zoning Board of Appeals have never been given. Additionally, I have not received any copies of permits issued by the Army Corp of Engineers. Though we have had several telephone communications, the patience of this office is coming to an end. To forestall the commencement of legal action, I am asking that a building permit application and your Zoning Board of Appeals application be submitted to this office by January 15, 1992 . Additionally, I would like copies of any permits issued to you from the Army Corp. Finally, this letter also serves as notice that any use or occupan- cy of the lakefront building without a Certificate of Occupancy is a violation of New York State and Local Laws. Sincerely, -u — / Andrew Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer AF/dlw cc: Shirley Raffensperger John Barney Ed Mazza David B. Bowlsby 829 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, NY' 14850 607-273=4211 December 16, 1991 ATT: Andy Frost Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Frost, This letter is to inform you of my intended use of the boat house at 829 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca, on the lake. The best way to describe it is; as a camp-site setting. A place for me and my friends to get together for fishing and boating activities. There will be no permanent heating and plumbing. If in the future I find I might want any permanent heating and plumbing I will go through the proper procedures of the Zoning Board. I have absolutely no intention of making this (the boat house) a year round live. dwelling. Thank-you! • Since lyu///� David B. Bowlsby TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12 , 1989 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 12 , 1989 , 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. ADJOURNED APPEAL ( from November 30 , 1988) of Ivar and Janet Jonson, Appellants, requesting the authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XII, Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the reconstruction of a single story, single family dwelling at 934B East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-18-5-9 , Residence District R-15 . Said Parcel of land is non-conforming in size and the dwelling proposed for reconstruction was non-conforming in yard setbacks , however, said dwelling is proposed to be located within the same footprint of said previously existing legal non-conforming single story, single family dwelling. Should it be the case that the previously existing legal non-conforming dwelling has been abandoned as a use in the Town of Ithaca for more than one year, the Appellant has entered a request for variance from the requirements of Article XII , Section 53 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of The First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church, Appellant , Gerald Rau, Agent, requesting Special Approval under Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 3, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the conversion of an existing residence located at 1462 Slaterville Road into a place of worship, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-22 . 3 , Residence District R-15 . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board , on March 21, 1989 , recommended that such Special Approval be granted, subject to certain conditions . APPEAL of David B. Bowlsby, Appellant, requesting authorization, under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the replacement, extension, and relocation of an existing legal non-conforming building destroyed by fire at 829 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-38, Residence District R-15 . Said building, prior to its destruction, had a south side yard setback of 5 feet and a north side yard setback of 11 feet, with a front yard setback extending into the highway right of way. The replacement building is proposed with a south side yard setback of 12 feet and a north side yard setback of between 11 feet and 15 feet, with a front yard setback from the highway right of way line of between 7 feet and 13 feet. APPEAL of Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca, David Axenfeld, Agent, Earland and Robert Mancini, current landowners , requesting variance of the requirements of Article VIII, Section 44 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a retail store with a front yard setback of less than 150 feet and a rear yard setback of less than 50 feet. Said retail store is to be located in a Light Industrial District on the Elmira Road approximately 900 feet south of its intersection with Five Mile Drive, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-3-2 . 2 . 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 Town of Ithaca 273-1747 Dated: April 4, 1989 Publish: April 7, 1989 ' ZI3A 4-12-89 22 1 . That the parking spaces as shown on the site plan be completed by December 31, 1989 . 2 . That any outdoor lighting be downcast. 3 . That the landscaping in front and in back of the Church be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Planner. 4 . That a sprinkler system be installed in the entire building, prior to the opening of the Church for the general assembly. Mr. Austen seconded the motion. The voting was as follows: Ayes - Aron, Austen, Hoffmann, Reuning, King. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The next item on the agenda was the following: APPEAL OF DAVID B. BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION, UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE REPLACEMENT, EXTENSION, AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING BUILDING DESTROYED BY FIRE AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-38, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. SAID BUILDING, PRIOR TO ITS DESTRUCTION, HAD A SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET AND A NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 11 FEET, WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK EXTENDING INTO THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY. THE REPLACEMENT BUILDING IS PROPOSED WITH A SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12 FEET AND A NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF BETWEEN 11 AND 15 FEET, WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BETWEEN 7 FEET AND 13 FEET. (Appeal Form attached as Exhibit #11. ) Mr. Vincent Mulcahy, Architect, addressed the Board, representing Mr. Bowlsby. He referred to the plot plan that was presented to the Board and stated that the difficulty with the existing site is that it is much less than is required by the existing Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the DoT at some point, took a right of way along this highway which basically went right through the existing house and thus it seemed advisable in building on this site to try to relocate the footprint outside of that right of way. He pointed out to the Board on the maps presented where the DoT had taken the right of way. Discussion followed on the floor regarding the setbacks on the property. Mr. Mulcahy stated that in the previous case, the Bowlsbys purchased it as a rental property. They have asked him to design a house for them in this case and for financial reasons and tax reasons they have asked that the house continue to be regarded as 4/ 4 ZBA 4-12-89 23 a duplex. However, they have ,no intention of using it as a duplex. . . Chairman Aron stated .for.>clarification that in other words it is a private single story residence. Mr. , Mulcahy said that it is a single family residence as it is being designed. However, • _the . Board will see in the designs that there is a studio unit identified on the top floor. He explained that the reason that • is being identified is .that, as he understands it, a capital gain tax would be assessed on, the property if it were to go from a • • duplex to. a single family property,;;. if_they couldn't, continue to . assert it as. a duplex. . . • _ Town Attorney-Barney Barney asked what the- square footage was of - the previous building that was .on•..this.. property.. " Mr. Mulcahy replied that he thinks that it was in the neighborhood of 1400 - - square, feet. Mr. Mulcahy stated•:that one- of the things _that becomes necessary on this site, because of the slope, is that it almost inevitably becomes a vertical house, at least on one side. . - Town 'Attorney..Barney asked if the elevation drawings are to . . -scale. Mr. Mulcahy , replied they-.are; -1/4" ' to -the foot. Discussion followed on the, floor regarding the drawings. - Town .Attorney. Barney asked what-. the footprint • of .this • •. - structure is. Mr. Mulcahy replied- that.,it is".1528 square feet. • _ Chairman. Aron opened .the,,publid-hearing. , No one appeared to - address the Board. Chairman Aron closed the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding .the_ .-.reasons for keeping this identified as an income property. - -- Mrs. Bowlsby:- answered questions from the Board. . Ms. Hoffmann. asked if this is a case where the footprint of the house has to be exact " to ' the previous one. Town Attorney Barney responded that if, they were . going to . rebuild_ on the existing foundation, that is perfectly: acceptable but •since the building is "going to 'be in .a different `lodation and is -'somewhat of a different .structure in "terms: of r layout, he thinks _that-,the Board _would, have _to, treat pit. "as.,-,an extenilon_ of a non-conforming use. Chairman Aron .stated for clarification that it .would then be Special Approval rather than a variance. Mr. Barney agreed. - . Mr. King wished to note' that'the proposed footprint of this house appears to be between 27 and 35 percent of the total lot area, whereas in the, previous application the footprint was 40 percent of the.11ot area, so this-. has- much less impact as far as the...immediate. impact.'on the-�lot '.itself: ' - .. - L B A 4-12-89 24 Chairman Aron stated that if the Board has no further questions, he will ask for a motion and he reminded the Board that there are variances to be given. First of all there is Special Approval as to allowing for that house to be built as an extended non-conforming use and then to vary the side yards and rear yards and front yard. Mr. Austen made the following motion: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the new house as shown on the plot plan dated March 20, 1989, prepared by Mr. Mulcahy, subject to side yard variances, hereby granted, of 3 feet on the south side and a variance, hereby granted, of approximately 4 feet on the northeast corner of the proposed building, and be it further RESOLVED, that a variance, hereby granted, for the northwest corner can be as close as but no closer than 7 feet to the front yard line on the southwest corner, and as close as but no closer than 13 feet to the lot line, said variances and special approval granted upon the condition that the percentage of area covered not exceed 35 percent of the lot, and with the following findings of fact: 1. No one appeared at the public hearing to object to the proposal. 2 , That this is replacing the building that was destroyed by fire on a legal non-conforming lot, with an extension of a legal non-conforming use. 3 . That the lot size is larger than the average lot size in width along that part of the lake front. 4 . That it is not feasible to reconstruct on the footprint of previous building due to the State highway changing their boundary lines. Mrs. Reuning seconded the motion. The voting on the motion was as follows: Ayes - Aron, Reuning, Austen, King, Hoffmann. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The last item on the agenda was as follows: APPEAL OF CANNON RECREATION AND SPA OF ITHACA, DAVID AXENFELD, AGENT, EARLAND AND ROBERT MANCINI, CURRENT LANDOWNERS, REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL STORE WITH ZBA �I • 4-12-69 25 A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 150 FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 50 FEET. SAID RETAIL STORE-.IS TO BE LOCATED IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ON THE ELMIRA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH FIVE MILE DRIVE, ON A- PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX -PARCEL NO. 6- 33-3-2.2. • - Chairman Aron read from the Appeal presented -to the Board from Mr. Axenfeld (attached hereto as Exhibit # 12) . - He stated that Mr. Axenfeld has been -before the Planning Board., for a Final Subdivision Approval (attached: hereto as Exhibit -i3A) ,and for a • . Site Plan Approval (attached hereto-: as Exhibit 138) . He said • .. that' the Planning Board did-go: over the- Environmental Assessment . Form (attached hereto as Exhibit #14)•; and they have granted Mr. • • - Axenfeld a negative - declaration with respect to,• site plan approval. , Chairman Aron asked Mr. Axenfeld to explain to the Board about his business and what he plans to do. : Mr. Axenfeld stated that they are a retail store that sells- swimming pools,- 'both in- -ground and above-ground. They. will-sell chemicals; supplies, • " spas, patio furniture; basically recreational type ,things. They • ,are proposing to display two swimming, pools., - • Chairman Aron asked Mr. Axenfeld about parking facilities.. -, ;Mr.. Axenfeld replied that there-ara25;• spaces for parking. - Chairman Aron asked -for .a -.location ,that is being proposed for this retail store. Mr. Axenfeld stated that- it is On Route ' 13, between Bell's Grocery and Salino Electric. - . He said that there is, ,an access road being built into where his business will be. • Mr. King asked Mr. Axenfeld how far .back . the front of his building would be from the higriway, relative to the other commercial buildings in the area. Mr. Axenfeld responded that • theirs will be farther back than. any along that road within a • quarter mile. Mr. King stated -that judging from the sketch, the first floor of the building would. be. about . 20. feet below the grade of the highway. He asked Mr. Axenfeld if that is correct. • Mr. Axenfeld replied. that basically where the entrance would start, he believes that it is 124 ' and- the actual elevation of the building would be 108 ' , so it would .be 161 . He said that • . coming up Route 13 heading north, he believes the elevation in the corner is much less: - Ms. Hoffmann referred to the project map and discussion followed on the figures on the map in regard to the front and - rear yards. - Chairman Aron opened the public hearing. No one appeared before the Board. Chairman Aron closed the public hearing. IOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $40.00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 3/ f$1 Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( , noc,A-) ZONING: -Vj 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 denied permission to construct a two family dwelling unit at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 - 2 - 38 , 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) IV , Section(s) 14, 15, 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) k Signature of ner/Appellant:c) ( Date: :3---r Z 2) `15 Cit - Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: ) r�� The proposed structure is designed to replace a previously existing structure which was destroyed by fire in 1988. That previous structure included two residential units, one three bedroom and one two bedroom. Its footprint was within 5' 0" of the southern boundary of the lot and 14' 0" of the northern boundary. Two thirds of that structure existed within that area of the lot taken over by New York State in 19 as part of a state highway right of way. On Side Yard Set Backs The proposed new structure is designed to be entirely within the lot as redefined. While the lot varies between sixty two and seventy feet is width the new structure is designed and positioned to afford a 12' 0" south side yard and between an 11' 0" and 15' 0" north side yard. (Again the previous structure had a 5' 0" south side yard and an 11' 0" north side yard. ) On Front Yard Set Back The lot is extremely steep as it descends from Rte. 89 to the lake's edge. The previous structure existed adjacent to Rte. 89. The proposed new structure is withdrawn from existing Rte. 89 by approximately 50' 0" and from the N.Y.S. taking line from 13' 0" to 7 ' 0". Removing the structure further from the highway taking line would cause considerable hardship of access since it would increase what is already a two story descent from the road's edge to the house entry. On Lot Size The lot has irregular boundaries/however at most it is 71 feet deep by 70 feet wide of buildable area,or 87 feet deep by 70 feet wide including the unbuildable lake edge. While it does not approach the lot size currently required by the zoning ordinance this lot was inhabited by a residential structure with a 1400 square foot footprint which was built before the present ordinance was adopted. The lot size is similar to others in the immediate vicinity and subdivided during the same period. On Lot Coverage The proposed replacement structure would have a footprint of 1528 square feet on a total lot size of 5544 square feet. While the house is compact,the historically determined limitations of the existing plot (similar to others in the district) combined with the N.Y.S. highway right-of-way instituted in 19 make a 20% lot coverage requirement extremely difficult. Proposed coverage is approximately 33% if a first story wood dec.!: is included with building footprint (lot calculated to high water line) . PLOT PLAN INFORMTION 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. Names 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. ' t Signature of Owner/Appellant: c.A. Date: � � �? /7_ Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Pf ,k/NG sNoOL4c TAU6IIANNOcK Z3Z. VD (NYE9) . g --- TO I T HACA 6"E OF PAverneAT SNEER 1 . f __T. ___l 1 PARKING I i ete sr cT)?18ER WAIL .o —L._ = C- Rms,e P.QoPERN L,,yE I L� ! ��'t�o+� S AB Ga,ycRErE SLAB I M AVi/ate.�6�,� f,P,(F) 0 � -(b , eJN C• iti ON SrgrE za 4j t 4 I.i_c, 3w vi o v as m ik _11 Q v i O Q ^ N G 2 4 A l m ‘A LANDS of RI �--- Q N N Qs(F1 DAVID ,s. CEOwLs,ey ��, �• es-2-3e 0s8s- S8) \ �N STEEP Sl.2o3 Store I ' i �' _<o . FP'/ 1 / il ! ,o L i L'/9 1 (-1G A --74- -- w 1 411111 .......„,,,_ I I idolf*-/ / ,o • ` , • 0, 5OR YEY / �'lAP � p1,VELL/NG AT � . - p A229 TACi6/AN/VCcir LVt(Al)/89) i ,e-o•' 41 TOWN OF /TN/aCA, TD1NPk/NS' CO. ` 1!.'8 1�� NEW 10/2/( SCALE 1"=20' PREPARED 8Y JULY °3, /381 f-IOWARD cR scHLIEbE2 �QEsukyEYED FEa.Zyl989 N Y`5' I� E' gL,S O4t3780 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD ( N Y 89 TO ITHACA SHOULDER ^ • , I , I-ARKINO I SEEP SLOPE _ 1 _ i- Pb fZM t R- I:VP PER:rY 1-114 (P 4I FOUNDATIONS !f -- - - ---- :: --e OF PREVIOUS HOUSE -- ' V P.(F) 1 - __-_- f 1T-0" - _. C�� k ill -- �. ;r _ e - tt�� 4 Z z f— i �lk/u NON‘VAY `� �' l FOOTPRINT OF_I I G E iii •Y I HOOPROSED et; , 7 3 PLANW q o }W X \ i t�'_c' , I cR q 24 -0' 'i m.' i t Q' -+ / -- 7-q n 1i- Z. - 1 - ` b - aCZ ' 62 +_ _. —1 . °O .2 m .95 'S(. PARCEL z5 38 • ? 3L0 / ' ' G F. P• LINE or bEGK - -- - I l Ir' / Co' I 4- v - __ ~_ AGM---;�^TER, CAUC,� --- LAKE-- PLOT P.-.AN OF PROPOSED B0WLS3Y RESIDENCE ; 1'� SCALE = 20 - 0 '� '?Li . I PREPARED BY V. MULCAHY R .A . N .Y, S . 1 -t- y, U),•• —TO c...) • ,-.` e, . --z:, 106,FP\ --r-\ 54_, "...."-t_,' -r.... sz, •e•:. 1 -c. kr\I 1 . — : --• .-...-- - - ... / '0..... ... • ' •,.....40.110■01111100J L, r•., '':( ' 4 7 It I 'I , 7 ; • ,-: ImpAINESSI ./,/,,, ; / i , 311 , .... h 110...0 . "SI..'I:SX i •:' .:1,11 "il -'^--. '.' Ti I I ' iv, ...- r, . .. ---*-74 1 1 ' 4k • 4 .;• 4`•..1... '•-.. ' '.•. , ' . K •,- .4-. 4,'1.. • _,...sod& —...isaille7 * • • 4* *1 ,: . ir,": - 1 4.....A .. t 4 -., .. .#m'' "oink ' ! • - lisc. . , . ., IIMIlm. ..; f . . -0,-' IllAirp." rry- ':t.,-2 ea t'it.; '''APri;•:?!• " • 1'a gill- ' `,r1t - ,1 1 •••••••-......< 31ItIW-- II I .... ,.. • ?,....11.:: II,V:: 44.:"...•III'i ...-1 ; . Y II ......•'7'..-.'----.------ II' ' ' III',, / . ' ''4'14 ' • it, i ' Willii: ..._ _----" ---.- -..- ' . 1‘'li '7 ' ./. . / I' ' I\ .. :. ..... 'Ii .:::::: .• -. <------II-I ' i • , I . . ___,.........,,„_ ....0 ••••• 04.0..011:ikt ealfiri :,•;\,.....„\., -.• ...•--:-„., -... ii?...'0.....4.,....4!_;,;47. ----,.. - ... •••, -• : a4- 3-.1 ::•;1 -474.4111' D'41114 ' - ,., • - 1 ---_____ ,... & ' . ,. ',:v4111r ir."404 Ai, 7"44/1 ; ..) sa a MIIMIIIIII, i.- .',12k 4..‘• IN t 9111 g; •ill'• •‘ • • $1 •i' ., X7" •..,‘140,14.W , •,,,, mL .• ' , ji"- t ... . ' -•-■ti'''.' • ' - ".-4•\t., P - . ' • .'":-. 4`.1:.'?*A- .1.1"?...;'.i). t 1 . C}Th , pik 1111, . ., •• * . \ ', -''‘ • 4s,=4,-', ...,..,..,7,,s..- '7001.. 47,/ 6._iii._ ..1 . .; ...6...v, .. • „4,-• - A, • 1 ,'. n$ '-'t ..' • ir . r. - . . , - •.- 4-- : ---4— - . --- — 0 - ,F- .‘,...-'"VS7 ''''• I'''.- Lilt 01,1 ; ,:. 'OtH-A!, . .• t,.., , . - Illt t t•: .," 0 ,r A •• . . 4' * ,- •.. . ...x. !..4,..,;,,- . .04,', ." • ..` ), ,ts ----./ 4 • ,..,,, .„..0 ...... - • 1---- . . ..n.71- ' . 7,"... ". NI-, '- .' •., - \_ ,' ' -' ..-•••••• , • : ) i, IN "bk • ":10* ...., : vi t.:,,,,, . t ,.. ,..v. V • - , — —• -: • • , '.4.-...."-", • ''' •.- - :E.AI '514• •. ,... ' -' 1.111: .Nik,N4 • •' , • .ear . ,.. s4,, ''•44' . . . ! ,,___ . , ( ' viti / fr,--, ' \ ...t% • .,, • •• 4.. . FA :41 ' 7 /,' . " ', 'ie. '''; -2 4' '•'''' ‘. ...4 .N,t itiAlli a. ,r11111n - -- #'''' •111 ,i / ,1,.// -\--.....- - ,(' t., 1 . 111 40' 'h... . -'.OP VW'- '''4247.IN • 4 , 7 r „ ,...„ p . i f , .• . . , , a r• • c. 4 44' • I li t i: I.,: -...,..1 7 'Ail , ... a. .._..... . ... , .. - 4 'I . • 2 4 . -.4'-A „.• 4 1 '.., -- .,. , - •wit , . c-: ., ii, ;.,. . i. . , it- II II, •— - . , k ''II k AA 07:11,10.14.1111114;:.!..5.11011.41::;17,. .iiii.; -7...1 7. • ‘`...s7;. •....•,.... ., - 1 00 I/ 4 1 - . -.... , Ir. t :: • l , • .. "It.: , li' • _ .-- - ,., • r--, -+. .g? k - ,.......4._ -0 _...i..‘ xp....._ 7---. DAVID B. BOWLSBY 262 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850 1 0 273-4211 February 7, 1989 Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14650 ATT: Andy Frost Dear Mr. Frost, I am writing in reference to your letter of February 2, 1989, regarding 829 Taughannock Boulevard. Heavy equipment can only remove a portion of the debris do to their reach ability. The majority of the debris has to be brought to their reach by manual labor. Because of the steep slope and snow this makes this portion of the job impossible at this time. It seems my neighbors (who have no children) understand this. The area has been roped off and posted. We need extra time for better weather conditions to do the majority of this clean-up. It would be dangerous if not impossible to do this with these snowy conditions. We intend to clean-up and start building as soon as weather permits. In the mean time we will be looking for different contractors with the ability to do this job. I hope for your understanding in this matter. Thank-you! Sin re , (_ David B. Bowlsby TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STRUT ITHACA, NEW YORK 14810 February 2, 1989 Mr. David Bowlsby 262 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: 829 Taughannock Boulevard Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel #6-25-2-38 Dear Mr. Bowlsby: Enclosed is a copy of a letter written to you on 12-6-88 which cites you, as a property owner of 829 Taughannock Boulevard, as being in violation of Local Law #4-1979 , "Regulating the Maintenance of Real Property in the Town of Ithaca" (copy enclosed) . The violation is a result of a fire that destroyed the two-family home on the pro- perty. Although debris piles by the roadside have been removed, the property in and around the building' s foundation remains littered with large amounts of debris. It is obvious that cleanup of this area will be difficult due to the extremely steep hillside between the road and the building ' s foundation; however the debris cannot remain. I would hope that cleanup can be finished no later than February 28 , 1989. If this date is not feasible , I will need a written notification from you indicating when you feel the property can be brought into compliance with Local Law #4-1979 . In conclusion, please be aware that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Article XII, Section 56 requires that a legal non-con- forming building/lot that is destroyed by fire must be rebuilt with- in a period of one year to maintain its "legal non-conforming" status . Your property is undersized due to Zoning Ordinance requirements (for lot size) and as such is legal non-conforming. You may request an approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals to extend this one year limitation by making application for such approval to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Failure to rebuild within one year, or obtain an extension from the Zoning Board of Appeals , could result in your losing your right to rebuild a residential structure on the prop- erty. Finally, you will be required to obtain a Town of Ithaca Building Permit prior to any construction on the property and, in addition, if any construction is to take place along the shoreline of Cayuga Lake , you will have to submit a "Permit Application Mr. David Bowlsby February 2 , 1989 Page 2 for Development in Flood Hazard Areas" . I am enclosing applica- tions for both types of Building Permits , as well as an applica- tion to the Zoning Board of Appeals, for your convenience . Should you have any questions , please feel free to call me at 273-1747 . Sincerely, a7/1114T;77- Andrew S. Frost, Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ASF/lp Enclosures cc: Noel Desch, Supervisor Henry Aron, Chairman-Zoning Board John Barney, Town Attorney ,___ILL-LeS) ts a L - DATE: f A-I(, -SS _ PROPERTY ADDRESS : B -61 &LA O. INSPECTOR: X •P,,(,QC/IntDU COMMENTS: `' C11 -Ga_ Cie /1Q.d_ kl¢e-rt ,.P L `4-t.- LAOCIS) LVIO CO!Z �, "�V 1 CT?.C,C / �� V w _ n ,, LA 0.Q. ,, cL- OS ( 1 ^ "I k ' 4,-,- _c_. , (-4-k,e_JA_Ls4_12___ L 1a.0 4 _p_,, KIP,-,.0 fit'itcalcs4A,) cur", ( , 0,ii C0 t,,,tc„ `'a C Q ea,, LL ) \no.ALLN..„ ,_ 1,,,,,S cvt.),,, fY\-ai-47 ,03YYLILCN\SL --I- t.436Ww l_p_o_1<_ 1-10--S .----6V 1 CA7`) 614-N\ c JL•. --+ Ct-* . )i ct-t__ LQ•k_a_.yk_Lim_ ) dtsS0.6--, a c/yvA , Ao6L40• )1/4) .e_tAT k,L,a _.•rik -.-t_A_Ja_cD 02) ,..6...( 2....*-L;-,_ , • i ,) 121161 Caul, ' o s Itia.v� ,n�2v�au.c�� 1�w1.4_ TOWN OF ITHACA • 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14a50 • December 6 , 1988 Mr. David Bowlsby 262 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: 829 Taughannock Boulevard Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 16-25-2-38 Dear Mr. Bowlsby: This letter serves as notice that your property at 829 Taughannock Boulevard is in violation of Local Law #4-1979 "Regulating the Maintenance of Real Property in the Town of Ithaca" . This violation was created in the wake of the fire that destroyed the two family residence that was situated on the property. At the current time, several large piles of debris are located on the property, from the roadside down to the peri- meter of the building ' s foundation. As I understand it, though the police/fire investigation has been completed , you are still waiting for your insurance company to complete their investigation. I would hope that all investigations will be completed shortly and that you can clean up the property by 12-23-88 . In the meantime I suggest you "Post" the property to keep people from entering or rummaging through the debris. Should you have any questions please don' t hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Andrew S. Frost, Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ASF/lp cc: Noel Desch , Supervisor Brian Wilbur , Ithaca Fire Department ITHACA FIRE DEPARTMENT INCIDENT REPORT ( F-40-1 ) QUID: 55009 EXPOSURE : 00 REVISED REPORT : tIdCNO: 003254 DATE: 112688 DAY : 7 ALARM BOX : 0003 DIST : ITT ALARM TIMES : RECEIVED : 1940 OUT : 1941 ARRIVED: 1946 IN SERVICE : 2241 iHCIDENT ADDRESS: TAUGHANNOCK BLVD 829 APT , ROOM OR LOT NO: ITY , ZIP: ITHACA 14850 OCCUPANT NAME: NA OWNER NAME : BOWLSBY DAVID OWNER ADDRESS : PENNSYLVANIA AV 262 CITY , STATE , ZIP : ITHACA NY 14850 ALARM METHOD: 1 SITUATION FOUND: 11 ACTION: PRIMARY : 1 SECONDARY: 3 FIXED PROPERTY USE : 42 PROPERTY COMPLEX : MUTUAL AID: kESPONSE: PERSONNEL: 008 ENGINES: 003 AERIALS: 001 TANKERS : 000 OTHER : 002 FATALITIES: FIREFIGHTER : 000 OTHERS : 000 INJURIES: FIREFIGHTER : 000 OTHERS : 000 CONDITION ON ARRIVAL : 3 PROPERTY VALUE : 6 PROPERTY DAMAGE : 6 PROPERTY ABANDONED OR VACANT : 2 IGNITION FACTORS: ,REA OF ORIGIN : 14 FORM OF HEAT : 99 TYPE MATERIAL : 99 FORM MATERIAL : 99 IGNITION FACTOR : 21 JUVENILE INVOLVED: :: 1RUCTURE FIRES: BUILDING HEIGHT : 3 LEVEL OF ORIGIN : 1 SPRINKLER PERFORMANCE : 8 CONSTRUCTION TYPE : 5 FLAME DAMAGE : 6 SMOKE DAMAGE : 7 WATER DAMAGE : 7 EQUIPMENT INVOLVED: ITEM: MAKE: MODEL : SERIAL # : YEAR : IF HEATING EQUIPMENT , FUEL USED: DETECTORS : PRESENT : TYPE : POWER SUPPLY : PERFORM? : IF DEFECTIVE: BRAND NAME: MODEL : MOBILE PROPERTY : TYPE: YEAR: MAKE: MODEL: VIN# : LICENSE # : STATE : HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: CLASSIFICATION : AMOUNT INVESTIGATION REFERRED TO: LYLE NEIGH/T C S DATE REFERRED: 11 /26/88 OFFICER IN CHARGE : VLIET, ASST CHIEF OFFICER MAKING REPORT : COMMENTS : STRUCTURE COMPLETELY INVOLVED AT TIME OF ARRIVAL. NO ONE AT HOME AT ARRIVAL. CONTROLL OF FIRE INCLUDED PROTECTION OF EXPOSURE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE FIRE BUILDING . SEE NARATIVE AND INNVESTIGATORS REPORT. LEPORT ENTERED: 12/16/88 REPORT LAST UPDATED: 12/16/88 REPORT STATUS: • \>ECHO OFF , loading menu. . . 2J2J2J1 ; 1H1 ; 53H20 ; 1H20 ; 45H24 ; 50H1D0m2J November 26 , 1988 Saturday 1940 hrs. 829 Taughannock Blvd% Responded to a reported house fire at 829 Taughannock Blvd. at 1940 hrs . on Saturday November 26 , 1988 . , Upon arrival the structure , a three story frame dwelling was fully involved . Fire was coming out from all sides and floors and a grass fire was making it' s way towards 835 taughannock Blvd . The trees surrounding the house was on fire and fire brands were in the air . The structure was a complete lose . The house was vacant at the time of the involvement , the people that had lived in the lower apt. had moved out that evening at approx . 1800 hrs . according to the neighbors and the occupants of the upper apt. were not at home . The initial attack was made by 906 to the north and 902 to the west with their on board stung deck guns . Since the fire was out of control and our concern was the two exposures , one north and the other south of 829 . After the initial attack on 829 we invested time in wetting down the exposure houses , the surrounding trees and the grass that had ignited and threatening to ignite the two exposures . The fire in 829 was under control at around 2030 hrs . and out at 2110 hrs . Engine 902 was left on the scene all night and a crew stood by until our investigators and those of the Sheriff dept. could make a thorough investigation under better light. Because of the collaspe on the structure the hot spots were difficult to get to but with the for mentioned crew they worked all night to extinguish them without to much moving of the structural components. The investigation is continuing with us and TCSP . D. R. Vliet Ass ' t Fire Chief 11 /27/88 TOWN OF ITiHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST' 24 ,, 1.983 By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE 1:S HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on 1;edne:sday , August: 2.44 , 1983 , in Town Hall , 126 East: Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at the fo] 7.owi.ng times and on the following matters : 7:00 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from October 1982) of David Bowlssuy appellant from the decision of the Building Tnepect:or denying permission (O. . .p to allow more than three unrelated persons to occupy a two 0401,11j " family residence at 829 Taughanno:�l: Boulevard , Tax Parcel No. 6-25-.2-38, Town of Ithaca. Permission is denied under �, Article IV, Section 17. (3) , Town el :( theca Zoning Ordinance. 7 : 15 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from .(,,pie 29, 1983) of. Lester Barber appellant from the decision of t:l,e Building Inspector denying a certificate j10of occupancy for the pa:emises with a southerly side yard of less /43° than 15 feet, at 198 T„i:eyton Drive, Town of Iti.aca Tax Parcel No. 6-70-1.1-51 .14. Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 75 , Town o:C Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 7: 30 P.M. Appeal of Brian Chabot., appellant from the decision of the •� Building Inspector denying permission to maintain chickens at 246 Sapsucker Woods Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No . 6-73-1--6 Permission is d: nied under. Article IV, Section 12 , Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . 7:45 PM._ Appeal of Wendy Wallenbeck, appellant fromthe decision of the P� '. Building Inspector, denying permission to operate a small retail. At"- business in the basement of a residence exceeding 2 :`) squere feet le at 420 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 6-32-1-16 . 2 . Permission :is denied under. Artic1 ,XI , Section 51, Town of. Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 8: 00 ! ApJ)e-'..(. or Robert: J . 1Hig,tlt: , np�� , l Lint: fre: : t'bc a.'.i : sioa or the t , i. l 1 . i) ! P !-.i: (7( :I . . T).._ i .i . e ) t:f-) 1.4 !IS . c•: ! vce i,iri°° ((). 9 jr° , , ,. . , ..1 , Te. . " fie' . , Tee li rlee , !'- 10 :', .4- ,,,,14° 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AUGUST 24 , 1983 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, August 24 , 1983 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y. , at 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward W. King, Joan G. Reuning, Lewis D. Cartee (Building Inspector) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Lester Barber, Jaime Hecht, Audrey Geiselman, Harrison Geiselman, Joan Sabin, Samuel W. Sabin, Brian F. Chabot, Carolyn Chabot, Louis W. Sullivan Jr. , Beatrice A. Sullivan, Wendy Wallenbeck, Johann W. Gebauer, Michael J. Shay, Jutta Gebauer, Anna Gebauer, Betty T. Brown, Fred M. Brown, Waldron B. Darling, George E. Gull, Nancy B. Potter, Darryl Geddes (WTKO News) . Chairman Aron declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 10 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 August 16 , 1983 and August 19, 1983 , respectively, together with the Building Inspector' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon all the various neighbors of the properties in question and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and, accepted Mr. Cartee ' s statement that he served, by mail, the Appellants, as parties to the actions, on August 17 , 1983 . It was noted that each Board member had received with his/her Agenda copies of all documents pertinent to each matter before the Board. ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM OCTOBER 13 , 1982 AND NOVEMBER 17 , 1982) OF DAVID B. BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-38 , ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a, SUB-PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7: 11 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Chairman Aron noted that Mr. Bowlsby was not present and asked Mr. Cartee to speak to the matter of the Bowlsby Appeal . Mr. Cartee reminded the Board that on November 17 , 1982, by Resolution, Mr. Bowlsby was given until August of 1983 to bring his property into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance requirements . The referenced Resolution is as follows : Zoning Board of Appeals 2 August 24 , 1983 "RESOLVED, that the Town' of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Appeal of David B. Bowlsby from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Tthaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-38 , until the first meeting of said Board of Appeals in August 1983 at which time the occupancy of said two-family dwelling shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and shall remain in such compliance, with the clear understanding that there shall be no more unrelated persons occupying said dwelling in the meantime than the five presently tenanted. " Mr. Cartee stated that he had tried and tried over the past several weeks to get in touch with Mr. Bowlsby; he had visited the property; he had left messages at various places including his Roto-Rooter office, but to no avail. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Bowlsby does not reside at the 829 Taughannock Blvd. property -- it is rented and he (Cartee) had no idea how many people, related or unrelated, are tenanted in the structure. Mr. Cartee stated that he would recommend that the Board authorize him to take the matter to the Town Justice Court. Mr. King stated that, at the prior hearing, Mr. Bowlsby had shown the Board a lease signed by only two people but that he had five people tenanted. Mr. King commented that it looks to him that Mr. Bowlsby does not wish to comply with the Zoning Ordinance or with the resolution of the Board. Mr. Cartee stated that the house may be in compliance but, in fact, he does not know that. Mrs . Reuning pointed out that Mr. Bowlsby has not responded and so it would appear as if he is not in compliance, adding that one could assume that if he were in compliance with the occupancy requirements, he would be happy to tell us. Chairman Aron stated that he agreed that the matter should go to Justice Court, adding that Mr. Bowlsby has had almost a year to bring the structure into compliance which is more than generous. Mr. King agreed. Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Bowlsby Appeal. No one spoke. MOTION by Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals authorize and hereby does authorize the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer of said Town to proceed to present the matter of the occupancy violation presumed to be existing at premises located at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-38, David B. Bowlsby, reputed owner, to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 3 August 24 , 1983 Justice Court for prosecution unless said Zoning Enforcement Officer receives evidence that the property is in compliance. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Bowlsby Appeal duly closed at 7: 15 p.m. ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM JUNE 29 , 1983 AND JULY 13 , 1983) OF LESTER R. BARBER, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR PREMISES WITH A SOUTHERLY SIDE YARD LESS THAN 15 FEET, AT 198 TAREYTON DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-70-11-51 . 14 . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 76, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7: 16 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Chairman Aron read from the Appeal Form as submitted and signed by Mr. Barber under date of June 1 , 1983 , as follows: " . . .Survey indicates that the house was built less than 15 ' of the south boundary of the lot. It would not be practical to now move the house. Survey map is attached. " Chairman Aron noted that a survey map of the property in question was attached to the Appeal, prepared by Milton A. Greene, P.L.S. , and dated June 29 , 1982 . Chairman Aron stated that the survey indicates that the southwesterly corner of the house is situated 12 . 65 ' from the southerly side lot line which is too close, the requirement being 15 ' . Chairman Aron asked Mr. Barber if he were the owner of the subject property. Mr. Barber stated that he was the owner. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Barber how long he had owned his home, to which Mr. Barber replied - one year. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Barber if, at the time he purchased this home, he was aware of this problem. Mr. Barber stated that he was not, adding that he was not told about it until Mr. Cartee told him. Mr. Barber stated that the house was built about ten years ago. Mr. King asked Mr. Barber if he could move the house easily. Mr. Barber stated that he could not. Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Barber Appeal. No one spoke. Mr. Cartee stated that he had received one inquiry by telephone from a neighbor who merely inquired as to the nature of the Barber Appeal and appeared to be satisfied. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 17 , 1982 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, November 17, 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , at the following times and on the following matters : 7: 30 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from September 22, 1982 and October 13 , 1982) of Norma M. Gray, Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of a detached garage less than 25 ft. from the street right of way at 209 Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-8. 168,. Ithaca, N.Y. 8: 00 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from October 13, 1982) of David and Sylvia Mintz, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying Certificate of Occupancy for a single-family dwelling having. been constructed with a side yard of 6 '6" contrary to the granting of a variance for a side yard of 11 ' , at 1061 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-21-2-13, Ithaca, N.Y. 8 : 30 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from September 22, 1982 and October 13, 1982) of Saino Zazzara, Appellant and Agent for the Sons of Italy, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of a Lodge at 691 Five Mile Drive, Town of. Ithaca. Tax Parcel No . 6-31-2-21 , Ithaca, N.Y. (Special Approval of the Board of Appeals required pursuant to Article III , Section 4, paragraph 15, of the Town of Ithaca. Zoning Ordinance. ) 9: 00 P , M. Adjourned Appeal (from October. 13, 1982) of David B. Bowlsby, Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-25-2-38 , Ithaca, N.Y. 9: 15 P.M. Appeal of James G. Bennett Sr. et al , Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a single family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 1115 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-43-2-13, Ithaca, N.Y . Permission is denied by the Building Inspector under Article V, Section 18 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Zoning Board of Appeals 15 November 17 , 1982 that he is building on a swamp to start with and commented on the fill from the County Barns, mud, and quick sand. Mr. Becker stated that there are too many questions. Mr. John Cook, 209 Coy Glen Road, spoke from the floor and asked if there could be something written into the contract that would make it impossible to ever open a bar. Mr. Aron stated that something to that effect might be a condition if approval were to be granted. Mrs. Edith Becker, 661 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that something was said about back land and she wanted to point out that he cannot use it; it was given to the Town and taken off the taxes. Mr. William Jenks, 655 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that several years ago they got the County Barns, then the School Bus Garage. He stated that he was against anything else. Mr. Ralph Bacon, 704 Five Mile Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that he had several things to say, one of which was with reference to postponing any decision until later. Mr. Bacon stated that, as he reads the zoning ordinance, it states that a lodge may be permitted by permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bacon stated that he believed every person is opposed except one and with everybody objecting, how could the Board give them permission to build. Mr. Bacon stated that he • did not think it was fair to the Lodge either to postpone decision. Mr. Bacon stated that the costs of this building could mean 85 members of the club, adding that the residents do not need 40 or 50 more cars in the area. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing duly closed at 9 :00 p.m. The Board agreed that Mr. Zazzara should present his plans to the Planning Board for review and request that the Planning Board make a recommendation to the Board of Appeals. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Zazzara Appeal adjourned to a later date. ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM OCTOBER 13 , 1982) OF DAVID B. BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-38 , ITHACA, N.Y. Chairman Aron declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 9 : 01 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above . Mr. Bowlsby appeared before the Board and presented one lease for the main house (3-bedroom house) dated October 1 , 1982 between Bowlsby, Eric Rassmussen, Martin Moynihan, and Anthony Zoning Board of Appeals 16 November 17 , 1982 Allyn, to expire August 14, 1983 . It was noted that the lease was actually signed by only two persons. Mr. Bowisby indicated that he could not find the other lease. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Bowlsby how long he had owned the property in question, to which Mr. Bowlsby responded - about 1' years. Mr. Aron asked Mr. Bowlsby if he purchased. the house to live there. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he wants to live there as soon as he can. Mr. Bowlsby stated that there are all kinds of people up there on Taughannock Blvd. who have apartments and tenants. He commented that he is the Roto-Rooter Man and he has been in many homes up there. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he wanted a three-year extension of the lease expiration date in order to take care of his note. He stated that he did not know he was in violation. Mr. Bowlsby stated that the house costs him $1,000 . 00 a month right now. Mrs. Reuning stated that this request is no different from many of the appeals this Board hears. Mrs. Reuning stated that the only thing pending in this matter was checking the lease and deciding on an extension or denying it. Mr. Bowisby stated that the man who came in to see him said there would be no problem in getting an extension. He stated that there are three people downstairs and two upstairs. Mr. Aron pointed out that that is two too many. _ Mrs. Reuning commented that the Board has a problem with people thinking they can just get an extension. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he did not take that for granted, he was told it. Mr. Aron asked if the tenants were employed. Ms. Stanton stated that four of them are employed, one is unemployed. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Rassmussen is a student-teacher at DeWitt Junior High School. Mr. Austen stated that the Board had asked at the October 13th meeting that Mr. Bowlsby present the leases involved. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he has no problem in bringing in the lease for the upstairs , adding that one of the guys is leaving anyway so he needs to make a new lease. He stated that the upstairs lease expires in July of 1983 . Chairman Aron asked if there were any comments from the public. There were none. Chairman Aron asked for Board comment. Mr. Austen stated that the Board has been more than lenient in the past in allowing for the expiration of a lease, however, in this case with a request for a three-year extension he felt the Board had to hold the line. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he would imagine that seriousness would be a consideration. Mr. Austen stated that he looked at it as a matter of whether or not the hardship is self-imposed, commenting that a person knows the costs involved and knows he will have to put more people in the house. Mr. Bowlsby stated that his hardship is his ignorance of ti. Zoning Board of Appeals 17 November 17, 1982 the law. He stated that from what he knew, two apartments would be no problem. He noted again that he is a service man and he has been up and down that Lake. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he did not buy that place to say to heck with the zoning which is being implied here; he did not know. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he assumed that two apartments were okay and he simply could not imagine any problems, adding that if he had had any doubts, he would have checked. He stated that he never anticipated what he is running into; his intentions were to live there and rent upstairs. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he is not making any money, he is losing $100 .00 a month. Mrs. Reuning stated that the Board ' s problem is to decide whether to allow the lease to run out, to extend the time for compliance until the end of May, to grant the requested three-year extension, or to deny the appeal and order compliance. Mr. Aron noted that the upstairs lease expires in July 1983 and the Board has not seen that lease. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he could bring it in. Mrs . Reuning pointed out that in July of 1983 the upstairs lease with two persons expires and then the house would be in compliance with three persons downstairs and the upstairs empty. MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Appeal of David B. Bowlsby from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-38 , until the first meeting of said Board of Appeals in August 1983 at which time the occupancy of said two-family dwelling shall be in compliance with the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and shall remain in such compliance, with the clear understanding that there shall be no more unrelated persons occupying said dwelling in the meantime than the five presently tenanted. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Bowlsby Appeal duly adjourned. APPEAL OF JAMES G. BENNETT SR. ET AL, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 1115 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-43-2-13 , ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR Zoning Board of Appeals 18 November 17 , 1982 -7]-; UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH . 1 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 9:25 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Mr. Bennett was present and Mr. Aron noted that each Board member had received a copy of Mr. Bennett' s documentation in support of his appeal . Mr. Bennett asked if he could show pictures of his house and surrounding area and was given permission to do so. Mr. Bennett pointed out the size of the parcel - 100 ' x 500 ' - noting that it is a very deep lot with the house set back 120 ' from the street. Mr. Bennett pointed out the existence of a commercial area two doors down. He stated that the house is a very large home. containing five bedrooms and the economics are just not there to maintain it for only three unrelated persons. Mr. Bennett stated, as set forth in his petition, that the house was originally purchased for his father and his sister; unfortunately, his sister died at age 36 and his father would not consider living there then. Mr. Bennett stated that he has rented the house to anywhere from three to five unrelated persons since August 30 , 1980 . Mr. Aron asked if the students presently occupying the house are graduate students. Mr. Bennett stated that they are all graduate students - two at Cornell and three at Ithaca College. He stated that he prefers graduate students; they are serious students who need a quiet place and this house is conducive to that with room enough for everyone to have a quiet spot. Mr. Bennett stated that he has no trouble renting the house; it rents on the basis of word of mouth; it is a classy house, well kept, with considerable time having been spent fixing it up. Mr. Aron commented that one would have to do that anyway. Mr. Bennett indicated that that was not necessarily so, if Mr. Aron were generalizing, adding that he has tried to make it a credit to the neighborhood. Mr. Bennett stated that he had a letter from his realtor which he could submit to the Board. He stated that it would be a hardship for him to rent to only three people; it would put him in a negative cash flow situation and the house would be under-utilized. He commented that three tenants could not afford the overhead, adding again that it is a very large house. Mr. Bennett stated that it would also cause him a hardship to sell the house with interest up to about 5 points. Mr. Bennett stated that realtor Bob VanDermark has indicated that the market is not there; people are looking for smaller houses. Mr. Bennett stated that he might be able to sell the house if he were willing to hold the mortgage. Mr. Bennett stated that they have tried to turn a bad situation into a good one, adding that they provide a good, clean place for select students to live in. Mr. Aron noted that Figure 1 of Mr. Bennett ' s documentation shows that there would be a loss of $171 . 11 a month if the house were in compliance with the occupancy regulations. Mr. Aron 'I'Uw1V Ut 'MAUA ZONING BOARD Uk' APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13 , 1982 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, October 13, 1982, in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance , WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , at the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from September 22, 1982) of Saino Zazzara, Appellant and Agent for the Sons of Italy, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construc- tion of a Lodge at 691 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No, 6-31--2-21 , Ithaca,- N.Y. (Article III, Section 4, par. - 15. ) 7:40 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from September 22, 1982) of Norma N. eray, - Appellant , from the decision of the Building- Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of a detached garage- less than 25 ft . from the street right of way at 209. Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 6.-57-1--8 . 168, Ithaca, N.Y. (article IV, Section 14. ) 7:50 P.M. Adjourned Appeal (from September 22, 1982) of Nelson Eddy and Alfred Eddy, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to extract natural products (gravel) at 296 Enfield Falls Road. East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33--1•--1, Ithaca, N.Y. (Article XII, Section 70. ) 8:00 P .M. Appeal of David B. Bowlsby, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a two- family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , a-31 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6--25-- ,s Ithaca, N.Y. Permission. is denied by the Building Inspector under Article IV, Section ll , • paragraph 2a, sub-paragraph ,, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinanc 8: 10 P.M. Appeal of David and Sylvia Mintz, Appellants , from the decision of the Building Inspector denying Certificate of Occupancy for, a single-family dwelling having been constructed with a side yard of 6 ' 6" contrary to the granting of a. variance for a side yard of 11 ' , at 1061 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-21--2-13, Ithaca, N.Y. Certificate is denied by the Building Inspector under Article IV, Section 14 , and Article XIV, Section 76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said °times and said place hear all (continued) Zoning Board of Appeals 9 October 13, 1982 that the Mining and Reclamation Plan, and maps therefor, prepared by George C. Schlecht, L.P.E . , L.S. , signed and sealed 7/8/82 , submitted by Messrs. Nelson and Alfred Eddy, had been received by the Board members and reviewed. The total package submitted consists of: 1 . Completed Appeal Form 2 . Title Page 3 . Introduction 4 . Index 5 . Narrative 6 . Completed Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form (Long Form) 7 . Completed Mining Permit Application and Reclamation Report 8 . Completed NYS Short Environmental Assessment Form 9 . Completed Mineral Resources Unit Environmental Questionnaire 10 . Completed NYS DEC Bureau of Minterals Organizational Report 11 . Completed NYS DEC Notice of Complete Application 12 . Two Prepared Drawings : a. Mining Plan b . Reclamation Plan Mrs. Reuning asked Mr. Eddy where he takes the gravel after he gets it. Mr. Alfred Eddy responded, down Teeter Road. Mrs . Reuning asked Mr. Eddy what his normal route is. Mr. Alfred Eddy stated that he called the area a hog back, commenting that the soil . is all upside-down. Mr. Eddy stated that if they get it [viz . , the gravel] out of the way, they can farm it. He stated that the gravel is basically what is used for a driveway or a septic system where they have poor drainage, or for barnyard fill. Mr. Alfred Eddy stated that the Church wants to build a level driveway on Applegate Road. He stated that they may use Bostwick Road, noting that you come out on Teeter Road and then to Bostwick Road. He stated that if they go west, they would go on Bostwick Road, adding that they could come on Applegate Road, or north on Sheffield Road. Mr. Alfred Eddy commented that he always thought the land was in the Town of Enfield, adding that his deed said it was in the Town of Enfield. Mr. King noted that the Eddys just need two acres in which they want to operate. Mr. Alfred Eddy stated that that is the way it ended up and commented that he was a little disappointed in the size, adding that it cost him $1 ,500 . 00 to have the package the Board received prepared. He stated that they will give it all away. Mr. King noted that the total amount of material to be removed is about 40 , 000 cubic yards which will be taken to various places , i.e . , whoever needs fill. Mr. Alfred Eddy stated that that was correct, adding that they need some and the neighbors need some and the Church wants to build a driveway. Mr. King noted that the Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form (Long Form) had been reviewed by the Town Engineer, Lawrence P. Fabbroni, on September 16 , 1982 and had recommended a Negative Declaration, stating that the "scope is small; reclamation will be to active agricultural use; soil profile is supporting intended future use; access and site isolated so naturally buffered. " r Zoning Board of Appeals 10 October 13, 1982 • Acting-Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to be heard. No one spoke. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed extraction of natural products (gravel) by Nelson and Alfred Eddy at 296 Enfield Falls Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-1-1 , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as completed, and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted, and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above-mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and, therefore, will not require further environmental review. There being no further discussion, the Acting-Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval, pursuant to Article XII, Section 70 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to Alfred and Nelson Eddy to permit the extraction of natural products (gravel) , as requested, at 296 Enfield Falls Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-1-1 . There being no further discussion, the Acting-Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Acting-Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Eddy Appeal for Special Approval duly closed at 8 : 25 p.m. APPEAL OF DAVID B. BOWLSBY, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 829 TAUGI-TANNOCK BLVD. , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-25-2-38 , ITHACA, N.Y. A Zoning Board of Appeals 11 October 13, 1982 PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a, SUB-PARAGRAPH 2', OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE ,3 Acting-Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8: 26 p.m. The Secretary noted that the tax parcel number for the subject property had been incorrectly cited as 6-25-3-8 rather than 6-25-2-38 (as noted above) . Acting-Chairman Austen read aloud from the Appeal Form as submitted and signed by Mr. Bowlsby , dated October 2 , 1982 , as follows : "Having been denied permission to allow five (5) unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-38 . . .Due to the fact that 75% of my house is on State property, I was forced to finance the house by different means than intended. I had to take a collateral loan of $15,000 . @ 19% interest for five years from the bank, with the owner taking the balance as a second mortgage versus one mortgage from the bank. So I decided to go ahead and buy the house this way, not knowing of the zoning regulations in this area, and support the house by renting it for five years until I would be able to afford to live in it myself. Therefore, I 'm requesting a variance for 3 years after the present lease is over, which would be August 15 , 1983 . " Acting-Chairman Austen asked Mr. Bowlsby if he wished to comment any further. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he would answer questions. Mr. King asked Mr. Bowlsby what the nature of the house is. Mr. Bowlsby stated that there is an apartment on the top and he intends renting. Mr. King asked how many apartments are in the house. Mr. Bowlsby stated that there are two apartments - one two-bedroom upstairs and one three-bedroom down. Mr. Bowlsby stated that 75% of the house sits on State property because the State has so much right of way by the Lake, and, closer to the highway, it is on State property. He stated that the bank would not touch it having 75% of house on State property. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he bought this house for himself; he bought it out of town. He stated that he is familiar with the City of Ithaca. Mr. King noted that the property is located in an R-15 Residence District. Mr. Bowlsby commented that just up the street there are houses, actually all up and down, just full of apartments. Mr. King stated that a two-family house is permitted; it is the number of unrelated people that is the problem. Mr. Bowlsby asked how far up the R-15 goes; Mr. Cartee stated that it extends to the Town line. Mr. Bowlsby stated that just up the street he has friends, one of which has at least four apartments. Mr. King inquired if the house was supposed to be a two-apartment building. Mr. Bowlsby stated that it had begun to be and that is why he bought it; the previous owner had started it to be that way. Mr. King asked if a certain area was a garage and wondered what the purpose of all this construction was, inquiring if it were occupied as a single family house. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he thought so, commenting that John Henderson was the previous owner and adding that he bought it one and a half years ago. Mr. Bowlsby stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals 12 October 13, 1982 only reason he does not live there is because the bank turned him down so he could not get one mortgage, so he took a collateral loan for the down payment at 19% for $15 ,000 . He stated that he gets $350 .00 for the upstairs apartment and it is costing him $1,000 a month to own it. He stated that he is asking for three years after the expiration of the lease in August 1983. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he had been informed that it is common practice to allow a lease to run out. Mr. Austen stated that that was not so. Mr. Cartee commented that Mr. Bowlsby had mentioned numerous houses up and down the Lake over-occupied and stated that he had no doubt that we have other problems, however, this particular one was brought to his attention and that is why he knew about it. Mr. Cartee stated that he had a telephone call from Mr. Robert Terry who lives at 835 Taughannock Blvd. and who stated that he objected to a variance for the Bowlsby property on the premise that too many vehicles parked on Taughannock Blvd. create a traffic hazard. Mr. Bowlsby stated that that is a problem all along the Lake. He stated that the people that live there do. not seem to have a problem parking, but if you are in a cottage on that Lake, there are not any places to park. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he has plenty of parking on the road which is basically all you have up the Lake. Mr. Cartee noted that some people have built places to park. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he would like to do that also when he lives in it. Mr. Bowlsby stated that his nephew just moved in with them and he is thinking about adoption or legal guardianship. Mr. King asked Mr. Bowlsby if he had a lease. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he did -- two leases -- he brought the lease for downstairs, dated June 15 , 1982 , which goes from August 15, 1982 to August/1983 , with rent of $550. 00 per month. Mr. Bowlsby indicated that Eric Ros lives there, Boyd is gone, Marty and Anthony are there. Mr. King stated that he did not see where Mr. Bowlsby is under hardship at all. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he had two leases, one for up and one for down, adding that he has two houses in the City. He stated that he intended to live in this house but he did not intend to buy it the way he ended up getting it. Mrs. Reuning asked if Mr. Bowlsby' s realtor had not informed him of the Town regulations. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he had no intention of renting the house; he had no realtor; it was self-purchased. He noted again that there are three people down and two up. Mr. King pointed out that the lease refers only to the named tenants with no names . Mr. Bowlsby stated that three names were to be there. Mr. King noted that the rent ' for the upstairs is $350 . 00 per month. Mr. Bowlsby commented that that was unusual rent. Mr. Austen noted that the Town of Ithaca sign stating that zoning is enforced is opposite this house on the highway. Acting-Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone who wished to be heard. No one spoke. Acting-Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing closed at 8 :45 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals 13 October 13, 1982 Mrs. Reuning stated that she thought if would be helpful to explain to Mr. Bowlsby about how this Board has had several meetings with people asking for the same thing, however, the difference in this case is the request for an extension of three years after the expiration of the lease . Mr. King commented that interest rates will be high for a long time, he thought, adding that if the Board were to accept this argument we would have to let everyone do the same in order to afford high interest rates. Mr. Bowlsby noted again that 75% of the house is on State land plus the problem of the high interest rates. He stated that it would be a different matter were it not for the collateral loan. Mr. Cartee asked Mr. Bowlsby if he had corrected his problem with the water supply. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he had, but now he has another problem -- because they did work on the well something is not good in the water and he was advised to put a quart of Clorox in it. Mr. King asked if this lot extends to the Lake and how many buildings are on the lot. Mr. Bowlsby stated that it does extend to the Lake and there is just one building on the lot. Mrs. Reuning stated that she felt the problem is particularly Mr. Bowlsby' s ignorance of the zoning ordinance and not looking into it, and also the fact that more money can be realized by renting to more people. Mrs . Reuning stated that she would suggest extending the matter until August 14 , 1983 so that he has a chance to locate a family and two unrelated persons. Mrs. Reuning stated that she was not in favor of extending the matter beyond that. Mr. King stated that he thought any extension beyond that would be out of the question. Mr. King stated that he is disturbed by the inference that people just have to have a lease and this Board will extend the lease, adding that the Board would have to give such consideration to every property in the Town. Mr. King stated that the law is clear as to occupancy. Mr. Bowlsby asked how one gets one and not another. Mr. King described different sets of circumstances , particularly unnecessary hardship. Mr. Austen stated that he felt it is not the Board' s problem as to how a property is financed, adding that unnecessary hardship has to be proved and not self-imposed hardship. Mr. Bowlsby commented that it appears to be irrelevant to the Board that he would have to sell the house or find a family. Mr. King asked how many of Mr. Bowlsby ' s tenants have automobiles. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he did not know, adding that at least two do. Mr . King commented that with so many unrelated people, there is a tendency to have more cars . Mr. Bowlsby stated that the people from up above his property park on his place. Mrs. Reuning stated that the zoning ordinance is written to protect the community and the Zoning Board ' s job is to uphold that. Mr. Bowlsby stated that he agreed and all he is asking for is a three-years ' variance. Mr. King asked if these people were students, to which Mr. Bowlsby replied that the upstairs tenants are not and one, or maybe, two downstairs are . Mr. King stated that he would like to deny the variance but give Mr. Bowlsby a reasonable time to bring the property into Zoning Board of Appeals 14 October 13, 1982 compliance. Mrs. Reuning asked when the other lease expires, to which Mr. Bowlsby replied, one month earlier. MOTION by Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning: RESOLVED,, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the David B . Bowlsby Appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-25-2-38 , until the first meeting of said Board in November 1982 , at which time the Appellant will submit for Board review the two signed leases for the above-named premises. There being no further discussion, the Acting-Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Acting-Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Bowlsby Appeal duly adjourned. APPEAL OF DAVID AND SYLVIA MINTZ , APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING HAVING BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH A SIDE YARD OF 6 ' 6" CONTRARY TO THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE OF 11 ' , AT 1061 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD. , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-21-2-13 , ITHACA, N.Y. CERTIFICATE IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. MOTION by Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Mintz Appeal before this Board this date, October 13 , 1982, is a Re-hearing of said Mintz Appeal for variance denied on May 13 , 1981 , thereby denying a Certificate of Occupancy, a Resolution to Re-hear having been unanimously adopted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at its regular meeting held on September 22 , 1982 , with Messrs. Aron, King, and Austen and Mrs . Reuning being present and voting aye. There being no further discussion, the Acting-Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . [Secretary' s Note: Following is the Report of Proceedings as taken and transcribed by Ms. Billie Drake , Court Reporter , TOWN OF ITHACA EE: $7.50 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: /c-c -3 ) Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( r�) APPEAL ZONING: /�- / r to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to 4. /10 uS t J— Cs-) 2.e/a. ,( at eL4 tc'g �R it)0(IC U 4- , Town of Ithaca Tax // l Parcel No. A - 3 0 , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permitwould be in violation of: Article(s) �r.t--vim , Section(s) ) ` 6. )6063) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, 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: Dc,e_ 7570 of my hoc.) + s Qc`'A `3 1 was --Corced -Eb tycL)se- b fferenf Means -•f'har. ir%+encicc . h-z A to a Gollaj-tera1 l7{ 4/I S. 000. Co /9'% !n ter_e St Cor -G.ue c r4 groin '-'r,"u 100an K w•`�'►'� `�Y1 P_- AWt�P_r ��kr�c `-Yhe, loalancr- �S sc c.,r,d rtsa 3941. - Verses one- .Nr,ocigale. rcM. Te_ bark . So z decodzd .0heact and e. how se. L-+-vn: s ) wok K lecio s o•f rg re_5u 1ai,or s s are. ) and ¶, peor•-t b- hP hous . by rec‘ ncy , t -for- c e, v P_ rs tint 1 .i Wok' i.1 he a51 tc c-co r d - v e i n t t`n‘A Se.,1sc CA V ER Dated: Oc.f. c2 , l ?8 Z. Signed : ,.u-P aQ Q�(-sox?) ,yrn ' .aa No S ` seal avasaJc e gal. �oS� v24 N e �V C�spr.\ W .'r a aJ , I • TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING opimmmiN\m‘immil Lomm%rb Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning October 18, 1982 v oga 007 F, is6. 1Toim OF Mr. Lewis Cartee �THqc Building Inspector A Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 RE: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. CASE: Appeal of D. B. Bowlsby at 829 Taughannock Boulevard (State highway) Dear Mr. Cartee: This will acknowledge the 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 interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. Sincerely, die Frank R. Ligu ri Commissioner of Planning FRL:ys OF 128 East Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York Telephone (607) 274.5286/274.5287