Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (11) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 45.-1-3 104 Ridgecrest Road Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 104 Ridgecrest Road 45.-1-3 with no subdivision or readdressing. History: 2013 – Special Approval to keep chickens – Denied 1986 – Area Variance for subdivision - Denied and interpretation asked for at subsequent meeting TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes Monday November 25, 2013 Present: Kirk Sigel, Chair; Bill King and Rob Rosen Alternates: Christine Decker Absent: John DeRosa and Chris Jung Staff: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, and Lori Kofoid, Deputy Town Clerk Appeal of Devon Buckley, owner, requesting "Special Approval" per Chapter 270-69 (C) "Keeping of Domestic Animals" of the Town of Ithaca Code, and if allowed, would need a variance for (1) keeping domestic animals on a lot less than two acres in size and (2) in a building closer than 30 feet to the lot line of an adjoining owner, located at 104 Ridgecrest Rd, Tax Parcel No. 45.-1-3, Medium Density Residential (MDR). Devon Buckley was present to answer questions and discuss the appeal. Mr. Sigel summarized saying that Ms. Buckley has a chicken coop about 10-12 feet from the neighboring property line which she is requesting be allowed to leave there and have up to 10 chickens in. Mr. Rosen asked about the complaint and how the issue came to the appeal process. Ms. Buckley responded that a neighbor complained because the chickens were roaming free and they would occasionally breach the boundaries of his property. She added that Ms. Buckley works from home so she is able to get the chickens back on their property when they wander. Mr. Sigel noted that it would be better if the coop were placed further from the property line of the neighbor that made the complaint. The lot is just over '/z an acre. Mr. King asked whether there could be another location for the chicken coop on the property and Mr. Sigel explained that the lot is just over '/2 an acre and the further you go back on the lot, the more room there is and that the coop could be placed in the meadow in the back property in the middle which would allow almost 30 feet on either side. Ms. Buckley agreed that the back yard would be a better location but stated that unfortunately, they put the coop in cement with rebar and it would be very difficult to move it now. Mr. Rosen mentioned that he knows someone in the city that has chickens under an educational use but that is not available in the town. The public hearing was opened at 7:15pm. Tracy Mitrano, 21 Chase Ln Ms. Mitrano is a neighbor and stated that she is not in favor of granting the appeal because the chickens crow from 4:30 in the morning until 7 at night non-stop and it is not appropriate for the type of neighborhood they are in which is why there are restrictions against it. She noted that although an exception 1 or variance could be made, when you look at the larger picture, the kind of environment with constant crowing is the larger picture and perhaps why the rules exist in the first place. There is a general unruliness and misalignment of the overall environment in which one lives and enjoys their home and peace and quiet. She added that if the noise was occasional it might be charming but this summer when she was outside painting her house it was incessant. This would not just be a boundary adjustment here or there or moving the coop here or there, this vote will be determining the overall consistency of a residential neighborhood environment and she asked the board to consider that seriously when they make a decision. Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Brock whether this would be setting a precedent for another residence in an MDR zone. Ms. Brock explained that each case is looked at individually and if there is a particular setup that might be unique and might mitigate the impacts in one situation and not in another the answer would be no but if you don't find anything particularly unique in this situation where you think the impacts could be somewhat mitigated then it would be difficult to justify a different outcome if a similar appeal would come before the board. An anonymous resident of Danby spoke and stated that it sounds like this has now turned into more of a noise ordinance issue instead of an issue with the chickens. He wondered if there was a way to cut down on the noise instead of focusing on the lot size because even if she had 10 acres the noise would be the same. Mr. Sigel responded that was a good point in that as long as the set back was met the chickens could be there. Ms. Mitrano spoke again saying that if an individual chooses to purchase property next to a large lot, such as a 10 acre lot, then they are probably assuming they are in a different type of zone that would allow different uses that would probably allow chickens and other animals that make noise, although she added that she is not aware of another animal that makes noise all day long. She stated that she chose to live in a neighborhood where everyone's lot is relatively small because they are beneath the level that would allow this type of thing. She was looking for a certain consistency in a neighborhood and therefore she was not assuming the risk that she would have chickens crowing and cackling all day long in her neighborhood so she did not think it was the size of the lot but rather taking the entirety of the whole neighborhood into consideration. Small lots in a residential neighborhood are not expecting agricultural uses. She reiterated that she is sympathetic to the family and educational uses but the area of the neighborhood is not consistent with keeping chickens and not what the neighborhood thought would be allowed or they would have to deal with. There was no one else wishing to address the board at this time. Mr. Rosen asked if there was a rooster and Ms. Buckley stated that they do have one rooster and that the chickens and rooster do crow throughout the day for periods of time. She added that the rooster was hatched there and was her son's birthday 2 present as well as being a part of an educational lesson she uses for teaching nutrition. She stated that moving Sapphire would be an emotional issue for the children at the school and her own children. Mr. Sigel stated that he is finding the situation difficult because he is sympathetic to the neighbor because it is a fairly dense neighborhood and if you read the zoning and it only allows chickens on a lot of 2 acres and you look around you would assume since there are no 2 acre lots there would be no chickens. The board discussed the possibility of letting the rooster go as a condition which would be a mitigation to make it quieter but there was the concern about other properties like this in this neighborhood as well as others in the town and precedents. The ordinance is written in such a way that the authors really didn't intend for chickens to be in these neighborhoods and in fact, the only mention of varying the 2 acres in the ordinance is the assumption that it may need to be larger which gives the board an out if someone came with just 2 acres and taking into consideration the neighbors' opinions so clearly the intent is not to allow chickens. Ms. Buckley asked about the difference between dogs and chickens and Mr. Sigel responded that a domestic pet is an animal kept inside and a domestic animal is one that is kept in an accessory building such as a coop. The Board discussed how the ordinance would apply if there was no accessory building and the special approval that would allow chickens without a building would still fall back on the 2 acre minimum. Mr. Sigel went through the criteria a. through I. of the special permit which seemed to be not met in this case. The impacts on the neighborhood would not be mitigated. Mr. Rosen stated that this does seem to be the type of nuisance the authors of the law intended to protect against. Ms. Decker stated that she was concerned about the small size of the lot noting that she had lived in Danby with a ten acre lot next to her with chickens and they were in fact very noisy. Mr. Sigel stated that the more he looks at the requirements that would need to be met, the more he finds that this is not an appropriate variance to allow. Mr. Sigel closed the public hearing at 7:37pm. Mr. Sigel stated that it does not seem that the criteria can be met and the board cannot consider that the applicant already has the chickens and there is no real basis for finding an exception to all the requirements. He stated that the applicant could withdraw her appeal or the board could move forward with a motion to deny. Ms. Brock and Mr. Sigel discussed procedurally the order in which the motions should be taken resulting in the following resolutions: 3 ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 032: Area Variance 104 Ridgecrest Rd, TP 45.-1-3 MDR November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Christine Decker. Resolved that this Board denies the appeal of Devon Buckley requesting a variance to allow the keeping of domestic animals on a lot less than 2 acres in size located at 104 Ridgecrest Rd, Tax Parcel No. 45.-1-3, Medium Density Residential Zone, with the following: Findings: 1. That the benefit to the applicant will not outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the community, specifically, that an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties will take place by virtue of the noise produced by the chickens, which noise can be heard on a number of nearby properties given the small size of the applicant's lot, and 2. that the request is substantial being a reduction from 2 acres to approximately 2/3 of an acre and 3. that the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects by virtue of the noise produced by the chickens, and 4. that the alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant did acquire and site the chickens on her property. 5. the benefit cannot be achieved by any other means feasible by the applicant; the only way the applicant could keep the chickens is by granting this variance. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, Rosen, King and Decker Nays: None ZBA Resolution No. 2013 — 033: Special Approval 104 Ridgecrest Rd, TP 45.-1-3 MDR November 25, 2013 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Rob Rosen Resolved that the special approval be denied because one of the requirements of the special approval, that the lot be at least two acres in size, is not met and the request for a variance from that requirement was denied by this Board. Vote: Ayes — Sigel, Rosen, King and Decker Nays: None 4 Narrative Page on Chickens/Coop at 104 Ridgecrest Rd in Ithaca By Devon Buckley Firstly, when I decided to get eggs to hatch with my son for his 7`h birthday, I attempted to find the regulations for the town of Ithaca concerning chickens and could not find them. I called Tompkins Community Action and Cooperative Extension and could not be directed to this board. When I discovered folks in the city of Ithaca had chickens, I figured we were in the clear. The chickens were to have a coop built by June. My ex-partner and I were beginning to have difficulties in many realms and I could just not motivate the work to completion. Finally, when we separated, he finished the coop! (August) So, the chickens roamed for a while, eating seeds and bugs. They rarely left the yard, but we would find them on the neighbor's porch at times. We had spoken to the neighbor a few times regarding the project and never once did she complain to us directly. If I would have known there were serious issues, we could have addressed them sooner. The coop is up now and the chickens have a fenced in yard that keeps them on my property at all times. I run a home preschool on this property and the children have become very attached to the chickens. I really do hope we can settle this so my son and my students can benefit from this experience into the future. Strict observance will be difficult only if the coop is too close to the neighbor's property. My ex secured the coop into the ground with rebar and concrete, which will make it very difficult to move. I would appreciate special approval to be able to keep these chickens here and will do all I can to comply with the zoning board. I have attached photos of the chickens, from egg to hatchlings to growing chicks to chickens. The children at Earth Rhythms have been growing with these chickens for 6 months now. Their incubator was designed and built to be a part of the classroom. They lived in the vegetable garden when they got too big to be indoors,then yes they roamed free during the day while we were at home (they slept in our fire pit at night!) till August 6th, when the coop was finished. They are well maintained and live in their own little chicken yard near the house kitchen so egg gathering is convenient and so is scrap feeding! This has been one of the greatest experiences of my son's life. We tried to get him a dog and he showed no interest at all. For these chickens, he feeds them first thing every morning and he puts them in their coop, at sundown. I hope the board will agree to a special permit for the chickens to stay! Thank you for your time and consideration. 1/1-4711 September 26,2013 As a parent of a child at Earth Rhythms preschool,I strongly feel that the chickens in the care of Devon Buckley play an important role in the program, in that they provide important introductions to science as well as matters of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility. The children at Earth Rhythms have witnessed the chickens' life cycle to date, as little hatchlings in an incubator to the large full-grown chickens who now occupy a coop in the backyard. They understand that the food scraps that result from snack and lunchtime are recycled as chicken food. They know that the fresh eggs they find in the coop can be eaten just like the ones from the store. These things they observe are invaluable hands-on lessons that little minds cannot glean so easily from a book. To witness it firsthand plants the seeds of interest in minds eager to learn about the natural world as well the food they eat and where it comes from. Regarding personal responsibility, the children also know that attention and care are required for the chickens' well-being. They see Miss Devon feeding them,providing shelter for them, and collecting their eggs. My three-year-old son's motivation for leaving the comfort and security of his home each morning to attend school skyrocketed the day the chickens arrived. When he realized that he could hold a chicken just like our pet cat,his confidence blossomed. Perhaps it's because he has his own special chicken, which he calls Sandfire (Sapphire in reality).But he loves to tell me about how all his friends have their own special chicken friend: Riley's is Black Eagle, and Lucia's is Peeper. To take the chickens away now would leave a strange void in the program at Earth Rhythms, leaving Miss Devon to have to explain their absence.I believe it would send the wrong message about the practice of self-sufficiency. Earth Rhythms has a beautiful vegetable garden as well,which compliments the act of raising the chickens and together, they teach the children valuable lessons about healthy eating habits. Young children benefit immensely from relationships with animals, be they dogs, cats, or chickens. And when children are taught from a young age that those relationships can be mutually beneficial,the stage is set for future inquiries and exploration of their own talents and interests. -Edie Jodz RP KOg. L.6 dart J of Coo, r IP /vsT n.o. ;c'7s5,s3-Opl x '*► te, 2 _ • iYD v 0 La • a I:` KAuf VI SUMP PUMP VAUIY1111 51 • 4s - T_ 1 DRY te. W Oov FRAME • = 104 P '\ 6S EiTk J • a w.v. Gs�E- SAVED S3¢t'd't z • sued 83,) t \ o �� W :‘;i 1t 05'To [,Ay `, ui 49'P.-P. VALVE ' - YV 4PPt0x. t.oc_ T /lig iNsr- Aid. 1/S73B/ -00/ � I Gab Uu� - so. 9Z 330, baYeb Io 28 t9q a �'k / t -4: 11 - E M10(o I , 44 4.1 '... REAGAN,LAND SURVEYING 1401E:ANY REVISIONS TO THIS MAP*IST COMPLY MTh SECTb3A MM.S.MDAPS004 2 OF THE NEW IGIIK P.O.BOX 1124,o ,NEW YORK Eouc*nodi LAW.ALL CERTIFICATIONS HEREON ARK Y LIO FOR 71115 K1 IMP i COPIES THEREOF ONLY E SIGNATURE APPEARS 644-8837 is BEAROR COPIES EMBOSSED SEAL IIJUCTION i ►+ s . r OF THE LiGEXSED...Ale S.PWEYOR OR TE DATE /LW,000o BV S w..E , Via.- Air- scA E / ZO Jos NO.: 3 '406- ' S ,,,_;,,,.,, I hereby certify to: Cye/Jro°AEe A. Cq/LF,FCD,- ge:or/eR b. !AWL,-/Ec D, • MicEe ifM"Ee, LtP BAR/EY GPoss /AN D'9a. ' 4' S 0% 3O 4 N'r! '' At )"' co..fAev.✓/r/ $AA"A" 4/,4. AyD Ti#E STAre of NEA Yo.e& .NoerSAr£ ,4SEa/=T tige. � -- ;r5Sucressogs ANa/oe Assa,Ais; r,cot r/rCE AVraveAaGf :4w$+, . � i DEVAI K. By KCEY,- $ErrER yout/ /6 FoR rONog..ws Coo rY, ' 'c._ : reA4fX/A/f r�sr coMPA.vY /rJ tuCCF Sic/a$ 4WD/0A A St,6 A,S; Z4 „i ., ' '1. "t that I am a licensed land surveyor, New York State License No. o y 8 9 . and Mar# , . r men nnr►nnthr rintinnetne an i.'h,nI ea anima nn *Ina nrMlntl m7/1c b.r ma nr I arwitar 15, ri naot ''-1 V l a �jv .., _r ha, ÷ Jy�-, , 4., 11*.i il 'Illi ,/Y `*,,,y,, 77 /s2..i,5,,y J o/ 1. .. :'. T.'''' ..... ' . .... . .,. çT-1Cr. • . ,, ` iit, `� 179 ?'`�' `ti f • ��" _eta • • t s., ` c ;<'�.`t ,{ ` 41.41-t`",;;A 104 Rldgecrest Rd. Itt aca,-NY•1 a,`:� i . r• - A . I/\ .N tv.. rid I.... C l�� earth r •' 1'3 Goog le ..---- C Google earth feet 200 A meters 70 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850Th TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORCENT&ZOO 1146 73-1783 PUBLIC WORKS(Engineering,Roads,Parks&Trails,Water&Sewer)27i- 6 p J FAX(607)273-1704 OCT 08 2013 3 / Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form:TOWN OF ITHACA Submit this Application ONLY after: (1) applying for a building/sign permit for • /denial from Code Enforcement Staff or(2)referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review. ZBA Appearance Fee: $100 For Office Use Only For Office U 1 Property is located within,or adjacent to: Date Received O�31 3 Please check all that apply: CountyDistrict ti Area Variance Ag Cash or Check No. O3t3 Use Variance UNA Zoning District Il D i( _Sign Variance CEA Applicable Section(s)of Town Code: _Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historic District ,` �� �+, ! 17.)c-6 9 C Special Approval State Park/another municipality U) - 'ties A-4 'A- (a) 3o si, n- f,a," 1 r , In row 17c - 65c -K.-yrj4 -.4 The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to 4.7.,t/, kee,p t:,,ck.Cns Penned, at 1 G 4 .i tt et re4 f R , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ,� - _3 q d� � 1 as shown on the atfached supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows(attach any additional sheets as necessary): See /l/a(ra./r've By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to enter my property for any inspection(s) in connection with my application. Print Name Here: p1✓vQ n tj UCIPA Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date: vrz -71; 01 3 Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Home/Cell Telephone Number: 1907—a,7q—g(Ogl Work Telephone Number: SLt Email Address (le ven ceann ( Tjcnaa t '. Co NOTE: A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its filing. Construction work associated with any variance(s)must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 11/9/2010 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORCENT&ZONING 273-1783 PUBLIC WORKS(Engineering,Roads,Parks&Trails,Water&Sewer)273-1656 FAX(607)273-1704 Instructions for Submitting an Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals IMPORTAN : You must have applied for a building, sign, or other required permit and received a determinatio denial from Code Enforcement Staff OR a referral from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board prior to bmitting these application forms. Complete the attac ed Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form. In addition to the application, the following documenta '.n should be submitted: Er A copy of the determ ation/denial letter from Code Enforcement or the Planning Board resolution referring the project to the Zoning Bo. d of Appeals,and l' A narrative describing yo troject, including the present circumstances under which strict observance of the Town Code would impose practic. difficulties and/or unnecessary hardship, along with the other criteria for use variance, area variances, or special app *val. Refer to the attached sheet "Information on the Criteria for an Area or Use Variance," which explains what ou as an appellant need to prove and that which the Zoning Board will consider. Complete the applicable criteria f.I (area,use or sprinkler),and L( A current survey map and any other =lans that will clearly and accurately illustrate your proposal. The survey should include dimensions, setback lines, am any natural features on or immediately adjacent to the site; such as streams, ponds, woodlands, wetlands, etc. .'ght variance requests require scaled elevation drawings with accurate dimensions showing both the exterior an. 'nterior proposed heights. The submission of floor and utility plans should be included when construction is involved. n some cases,these plans may be the same plans submitted to the Code Enforcement Department which caused the de -rmination or denial,and ❑ If the property is located within a Tompkins ounty Agricultural District, submit a County "Agricultural Data Statement" Form available at Town Hall. Ma. showing these districts are located on the Town website www.town.ithaca.ny.us and at Town Hall,and ❑ Any other documentation to support your appeal/request, .ch as statements from your immediate neighbors,etc.,and ❑ The "Town of Ithaca Environmental Review, Short Enviro 'ental Assessment Form." All applications require an Environmental Assessment Form (exception--area variance wh- - a building setback is involved). There are some cases where a Long Environmental Assessment Form will be requ -d; Planning or Zoning staff will notify you and provide the form,and ❑ All documents should be submitted together. Submission must include '- original and 12 complete copies to the Code Enforcement and Zoning Department. Applications are scheduled on a first-come first-serve basis. All documents s ST be submitted FORTY- FIVE(45)DAYS IN ADVANCE of the proposed meeting date,together with the :•uired$100.00 application fee. Failure to do so will result in a delay in your hearing. Please make checks payab ; to: Town of Ithaca. If your appearance requires an additional meeting(s),an additional fee may apply. ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TO ALLOW FOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. YOUR ABSENCE COULD RESULT IN A DENIAL OR POSTPONEMENT. Revised 11/9/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE CRITERIA FORM - (to be completed by Applicant) Applicant: ID Qu����� Address of Property Requiring the Variance: IOLA RA(II eCres-1 PA k flCl(i , kY /`Ufo Tax Map No.: Li S. TEST:No area variance will be granted without consideration by the Board of the following factors: 1. Whether undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties: Yes NoX Reasons: we ace si rnl y keeq► 3 ck,eils kr rn.u,fi:ta.Qi bene G f ‘6,1q,os.. ca.re,—c4,k i9 le � Ia.j 2. Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No X Reasons: tine. Cu{ent C'rtt i fin COW Well ((Ai h- QYl —ike foperl1 —C �-+Cl A-90St 5 e ct is held. reAi o repar 4" curt lire -re.. . 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes X No Reasons: The Coop keep& fie_ ch cJens prover- Oty\ct scr(e corn Vc4'4ctD15. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?: Yes No X Reasons: l 1 V1. VALI-) we are vex- u 1u .fn sha re j (e S ) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No )( Reasons: The bL i)der Of --tte Coo bumf if ;r kts sin �uftc6n an 4o o k rn ` . � / a � Q I ec a n c aYvl l�-1� 1 _ T was c,�h Qt )a e J� --tog (c) ad -tote -h-epte Revised 11/9/2010 USE VARIANCE CRITERIA—(Com.leted b • u•li . •t Applicant: 'eV / U...COel 1 LI, 14,461) 1 Q cv Appeal Concerns Property at .e following address: LA /� ! I • Tax Map Number. LI'J • — ' TEST: No use variance will be granted wi out a showing by the applicant that applicable zoning regulatkons and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. •e following tests must be met for each and every use allowed by zoning on the property,including uses. owed by spec'. -permit: 1.The Applicant cannot realize a r .sonable return,as .own by competent financial evidence. The lack of return must be substantial: Yes No 9 ILLUSTRATIONS OF Proof: ( ctCe � �J FINANCIAL EVIDENCE o 1 nn s ( r e. in TVli,cs enc. •Bill of sale for the recent property, W� P f r f t- b cdd.i r / is a'QQ value of property,expenses for I�T �[ maintenance •Leases,rental agreements •Tax bills •Conversion costs(for a permitted use) •Realtor's statement of inability to rent/sell 2.The alleged hardship relating to the property is unique.(The hardship y not apply to a substantial portion of the zoning district or neighborhood.): Yes X No ILLUSTRATIONS OF UNIQUENESS Proof: p,QL(,S e l nspet •Topographic or physical features preventing development for a permitted use. •Why would it be possible to construct the applicant's proposal and not any of the permitted uses? •Board member observations of the property and surrounding area. L\forms\ZBA Forms\Applicant USE VARIANCE CRITERIA fonn.doc 617.20 Appendix B Short Environmental Assessment Form Instructions for Completing Part 1-Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information. Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency;attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item. Part 1-Project and Sponsor Information 104 RIDGECREST-BUCKLEY Name of Action or Project: Keeping of Chickens Project Location(describe,and attach a location map): 104 Ridgecrest RD.Ithaca NY.14850(Corner of King Rd.East and Ridgecrest Rd.) Brief Description of Proposed Action: requesting special approval and variances from the acreage and set back requirement of the town's zoning law to be able to maintain a coop,to house 10 Chickens,in the yard and maintain said chickens. Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: 607-279-9681 Devon Buckley E-Mail: a`t°a@gmail com�� l� vw- C Address: 104 Ridgecrest Rd. City/PO: State: Zip Code: Ithaca NY 14850 1.Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan,local law,ordinance, NO 1'ES administrative rule,or regulation? If Yes,attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that ✓ n may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no,continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit,approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes,list agency(s)name and permit or approval: 3.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? .0689 acres b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? .0689 acres c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? .0689 acres 4. Check all land uses that occur on,adjoining and near the proposed action. ❑Urban ❑Rural(non-agriculture) ❑Industrial El Commercial ®Residential(suburban) ❑Forest DAgriculture ['Aquatic ['Other(specify): ❑Parkland Page 1 of RESET 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a.A permitted use under the zoning regulations? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ b.Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? ❑ 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in,or does it adjoin,a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes,identify: ❑✓ ❑ 8. a.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES ✓❑ ❑ b.Are public transportation service(s)-available at or near the site of the proposed action? ❑ ✓❑ c.Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? ❑ 9.Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements,describe design features and technologies: El El -this is a small coop to house chickens. 10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES If No,describe method for providing potable water: ✓❑ ❑ NA-the coop will not be hooked up to the municipal system. 11.Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES If No,describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ❑ ❑ NA keeping of Chickens waste will not enter into the municipal system. 12. a.Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? ❑ b.Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area? ,—, ❑ 13.a.Does any portion of the site of the proposed action,or lands adjoining the proposed action,contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal,state or local agency? ❑✓ ❑ b.Would the proposed action physically alter,or encroach into,any existing wetland or waterbody? ❑✓ ❑ If Yes,identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: 14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on,or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: DI Shoreline El Forest ❑Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional ❑Wetland ❑Urban mSuburban 15.Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal,or associated habitats,listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered? ❑ 16.Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES 17.Will the proposed action create storm water discharge,either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, a.Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? ❑NO DYES ✓❑ ❑ b.Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems(runoff and storm drains)? If Yes,briefly describe: ONO DYES Page 2 of 4 RESET 18.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids(e.g.retention pond,waste lagoon,dam)? If Yes,explain purpose and size: ❑ ❑ 19.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes,describe: [] ❑ 20.Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation(ongoing or NO 1'ES completed)for hazardous waste? If Yes,describe: 111 I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: Devon Buckley Date: /f — Z — + 3 Signature: Part 2-Impact Assessment. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 2. Answer all of the following questions in Part 2 using the information contained in Part 1 and other materials submitted by the project sponsor or otherwise available to the reviewer. When answering the questions the reviewer should be guided by the concept"Have my responses been reasonable considering the scale and context of the proposed action?" No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 1. Will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning ❑ regulations? 2. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? ❑ 3. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? 4. Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area(CEA)? 5. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or ✓ affect existing infrastructure for mass transit,biking or walkway? 6. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate ri reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? l 1 7. Will the proposed action impact existing: a.public/private water supplies? b.public/private wastewater treatment utilities? ❑✓ 8. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic,archaeological. architectural or aesthetic resources? 9. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources(e.g.,wetlands, ✓ waterbodies,groundwater,air quality,flora and fauna)? Page 3 of 4 RESET No,or Moderate small to large impact impact may may occur occur 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion,flooding or drainage ❑ problems? 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? Part 3-Determination of significance. The Lead Agency is responsible for the completion of Part 3. For every question in Part 2 that was answered"moderate to large impact may occur",or if there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action may or will not result in a significant adverse environmental impact,please complete Part 3. Part 3 should,in sufficient detail,identify the impact,including any measures or design elements that have been included by the project sponsor to avoid or reduce impacts. Part 3 should also explain how the lead agency determined that the impact may or will not be significant.Each potential impact should be assessed considering its setting,probability of occurring, duration,irreversibility,geographic scope and magnitude. Also consider the potential for short-term,long-term and cumulative impacts. This proposed project is a request to be able to keep 10 chickens in a coop on the property which is an allowed use by special approval in this zone.But the applicant does not have the required acreage and the location they want the coop does not meet the required set back from the neighboring property lines. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action may result in one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts and an environmental impact statement is required. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above,and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board ./I1�1 Name of Lead Agency Date Kirk Sigel Chair Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Si ature of Preparer(if di event from Responsible Officer) PRINT Page 4 of 4 RESET Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca,Tompkins County,NY ONLY PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION(To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1.Applicant/Sponsor 2.Project Name Dever 6uck.ley CIu ckens Chu LkEn Coop 3.Precise location(street address,road intersections,prominent landmarks,etc.or pro(ide map:) 104 •R i d eLresf- Eck I-liana 1J ' I�-cD (comr of4< j c `J ,accre - Tax Parcel Number: 'tG'.—I -3 4.Is proposed action: NEW?X EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose,present land use,current and future construction plans,and other relevant items): TO L Lct a Coop t house of to ( 6 cluekenS ; A_ \I arA an& wit stda M scud ckick Ats , (Attach separate sheet(s)if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6.Amount of land affected: Initially(0-5yrs)r 1 Acres (6-10yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres 7.How is land zoned presently? t ��Itt DeX1�1`i- C� iC elti`(, 8.Will roposed action comply with existing zoning or other exi ting land use restrictions? YES NO If no,describe conflict b ' fly: -V4 Wein S caa a.�p icy 9.Will proposed a n lead to a tiequest for new: Public Road? YES NO X Public Water?YES NOX, Public Sewer?YES NO X_ 10.What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential )( Commercial_ _ _ Industrial_ _Agriculture_ _Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe: 11.Does proposed action involve a permit,approval,or funding,now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal,State,Local?)YES Y NO If yes,list agency name and permit/approvaUfunding: Zor \ (1c aodurA VOti 12.Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval?YES NO X If yes,list agency name and permit/approval.Also,state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE: Applicant/Sponsor Name(Print or Type): �e✓eyi 8 uc0 Signature and Date: c)/L -Al �� Revised 11/9/2010 Information on the Criteria for an Area Variance or a Use Variance Area Variances: As per Article XXV, Section 270-213 of Town of Ithaca Code and Section 267-b of Town Law,the Zoning Board of Appeals, in making its determination for an area variance, will apply a balancing test of the benefit to the applicant weighed against the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community by granting the area variance. You, as the appellant, have the burden of proving that your proposal meets the majority of the criteria below. You should come to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting prepared to prove that: a. an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will not be created by granting the area variance, b. the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance, c. the requested area variance is not substantial, d. the proposed area variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and e. the alleged difficulty was not self-created. Use Variances: As per Article XXV, Section 270-213 of Town of Ithaca Code and Section 267-b of Town Law, the Zoning Board of Appeals, in making its determination to grant a use variance, will consider the unnecessary hardship caused by the applicable zoning regulation, and will determine if the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated ALL of the following criteria. You, as the appellant, have the burden of proving that your proposal meets ALL of the criteria below. You should, therefore, come to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting prepared to prove that: a. the applicant(you)cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence, b. the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood, c. the requested use variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and d. the alleged hardship has not been self-created. Please complete the attached "Area Variance Criteria Form" for area variances ONLY. Contact Planning and Zoning administrative staff for the "Use Variance Criteria Sheet." If your project is in an Agricultural District,you will need to complete the"Agricultural Data Statement" Revised 11/9/2010 3.The requested use variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: Yes No X Proof: ILLUSTRATIVE l NEIGHBORHOOD See 5►�t v ei CHARACTER FACTOR •Board members'observations of neighborhood. •Expected effect of proposal on neighborhood,for example,change in parking patterns,noise levels, lighting,traffic. 4.The alleged difficulty has been self-crest_.• SELF-CREATED FACTORS: Yes No Proof: •What were the permitted uses at the Y e'r rnA a_ (1 zee,s r e.0 e_ C esi d �� time the property was purchased by tt__ the applicant? d n n I- kinow Coops/Gr�i CLAMS •Were substantial sums spent on remodeling for a V f d y Q 4 j t use not permitted by zoning? •Was the property received through GCii • OAA,S inheritance,court order,divorce? I\forms'\ZBA Forms\.Applicant USE VARIANCE CRITERIA form.doc SPRINKLER VARIANCE CRITERIA—(Completed by Applicant) Applicant Appeal Concerns Property at the following address: Tax Map Number. TEST: No sprinkler variance will be granted without a showing by the applicant and consideration by the Zoning Board the following factors: 1 Whether the application of the strict letter of the Sprinkler Chapter of the Town Code would create a practical difficultly or unnecessary hardship: Yes No • Please explain below even if you checked No EXAMPJ.FS OF INFORMATION FOR Proof QUESTION I • • Estimated cost of a sprinkler system for this structure. • Cost of the structure or assessed value • Size and shape of structure (architectural drawings) • Presence or absence of water or heating systems in the structure 2. Whether the omission of an approved sprinkler system from all or part of the building will significantly jeopardize human life: EXAMPJ.FS OF INFORMATION Yes_No FOR QUESTION 2 Please explain below even if you checked No • Building use and lau out (floor plan) Proof: • Site plan(location of building on property and relation to other structures) • Building construction materials and methods • Occupancy and#of occupants. ■ Forms of alterative mitigation L\forms\ZBAForms\Applicant SPRINKLER VARIANCE form.doc 2/2/2011 OFIT TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 �o�� www.town.ithaca.ny.us CODE ENFORCEMENT - BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR Phone (607) 273-1783 Fax (607) 273-1704 ORDER TO REMEDY DATE: September 18, 2013 CERTIFIED MAIL # 7002 2030 0002 6247 6706 LOCATION: 104 Ridgecrest Rd TAX MAP # 45.-1-3 TO: Devon Buckley 104 Ridgecrest Rd Ithaca, NY 14850 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THERE EXIST A VIOLATION OF: STATE UNIFORM FIRE PREVENTION AND BUILDING CODE (Title 9, NYCRR) section (s) 1507.5.3 Underlayment—Proper placement of ice and water shield ...X.. CODE OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA section (s) Chapter 270, Section 69C "Accessory buildings and uses authorized by Special Approval (the keeping of chickens without special approval and the required lot size, and minimum distance from property line) YOU ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED AND ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND REMEDY THE CONDITIONS IMMEDIA TEL Y Compliance consists of either removing the chickens or applying for and receipt of Special Approval from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. FAILURE TO REMEDY THE CONDITIONS AFORESAID AND TO COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS MAY CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE PUNISHABLE BY FINE. WE WILL REINSPECT ON OR BEFORE September 30, 2013 DIRECTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 www.town.ithaca.ny.us CODE ENFORCEMENT Phone (607) 273-1783 Fax (607) 273-1704 COMPLAINT FORM Property Address 104 Ridgecrest Rd Tax Parcel No. 45.-1-3 Date 8/6/13 Form of Complaint ❑ Phone ❑ Letter (see attached) ❑ Person Complainant Marjorie Parker Address 106 Ridgecrest Phone mmparker@cayugamed.orq Email Property Owner Devon Buckley Mailing Address 104 Ridgecrest Rd Phone Email Nature of Complaint Owner has appx 7 chickens that free range all over neighbors yard, depositing feces on porch and vard.This has been going on for approx 2-3 months. The owner is working on a chicken coop. Complaintant is fine with his having chickens, lust not free ranging on her property. Action by Code Enforcement Officer Possible violation of Chapter 270 Section 69 Subsection c of the Town of Ithaca Code Accessory buildings and uses authorized by special approval only Name of Law Site Inspection Completed on 8/16/2013 at 2:30 pm . date time Report of Findings 8/16/13 chickens roaming free. Action 8/16/13 need to follow up with owner. - BB Enforcement Action ❑ No Violation Found ❑ Abated ❑ Other ❑ Appearance Ticket issued ❑ Referred to Attorney for Possible Injunction ❑ Stop Work/Cease and Desist Order issued &served TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13 , 1986 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Consideration of the request of William W. Steele, owner of 119-121 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-4-40 , for an interpretation of Article III, Section 4 , paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of the request of Vincent Franciamone, Agent for Grace Cascioli, owner of 104 Ridgecrest Road and land backlot of 104 Ridgecrest Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-45-1-3 and 6-45-1-2 . 6 , respectively, for an interpretation of Article XIII , Section 67, in context with Article IV, Section 16, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, and, in context with Section 280-a of the Town Law. 8:00 P.M. Adjournment. Henry Aron, Chairman Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. NOTE: THERE WILL BE A SECOND MEETING OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS IN AUGUST ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20 , 1986 , AT 7 :00 P.M. PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR. A NOTICE WILL FOLLOW. MINUTES OF TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA MEETING AUGUST 13, 1986 An agenda meeting of the Town of' Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals was held on August 13, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York. . PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Edward Austen, Joan Reuning, Town Attorney John Barney. ' ALSO PRESENT: Vincent R. Franciamone, Mr. and Mrs. William W. . Steele, Gary Wood, Susan Beeners, Nancy M. Fuller. Chairman Henry Aron opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. The first agenda item was as follows: Consideration of the request of William W. Steele, owner of 119-121 Kendall Avenue, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 6-54-4-40, for an • interpretation of Article III, Section 4 , paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Aron invited Mr . William Steele to speak to the members of the Board. Mr. Steele explained that he would like to have an interpretation as to, the zoning law and in particular, Article III, Section 4 , Paragraph 2, relating to occupancy . Chairman Aron reminded Mr. Steele that he had been turned down in his last appeal as to occupancy and asked exactly what . interpretation he wanted. Mr. Steele said that he was trying to follow the rules set by the Board to rent to no more than three unrelated persons and had, had no luck whatsoever since February. He had been able to rent to two students in the bottom half of the house but as far as having a family in the top half of the house he had tried, since last February and had not been able to rent to a family. No one wanted to live next door to a factory and no one wanted to live in a neighborhood where it is total student housing. Chairman Aron asked if he wanted an interpretation as to why Mr. Steele could not have more than three unrelated persons and Mr. Steele responded that that was correct. Chairman Aron then again reminded Mr . Steele that in December Mr . Steele was turned down by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He advised Mr. Steele that he could ask for a rehearing of this appeal . The Board could rehear this appeal but there were some criteria that had to be followed. One is that Mr . • ! 2 Steele must bring to the Board new facts which were not divulged or talked about at the last appeal. Secondly, there had to be a unanimous decision of a positive nature by the members of the Board to grant a rehearing. If there was one who voted against the rehearing it would then be denied. He further advised Mr. Steele that if he wanted to pursue this option he would have to go to the Zoning Officer first who would assist him. Chairman Aron summarized by saying that Mr. Steele had two options - one would be an interpretation or he could attempt to have a rehearing. Mr. Steele preferred to try and have it reheard and Chairman Aron advised him to go to the Building Inspector and give him all of the facts, but reminded him that it was up to the unanimous vote of the Board whether a rehearing should. be granted. The second agenda item was as follows: Consideration of the request of Vincent Franciamone, Agent for Grace Cascioli , owner of 104 Ridgecrest Road and land backlot of 104 Ridgecrest Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 -45- 1 - 3 and 6- 45 -1 -2 . 6 , respectively , for an interepretation of Article XIII , Section 67 , in context with Article IV, Section 16, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and , in context with Section 280-a of the Town Law. Chairman Aron then invited Mr.. Vincent Franciamone to speak to the members of the Board. Mr. Franciamone stated that he would like an interpretation as to what would reduce a lot size. Chairman Aron asked if he wanted interpretation of Article XIII, Section 67 in context with Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and, in context with Section 280- a of the Town Law. Mr. Franciamone responded that this was correct. Chairman Aron then read Article XIII, Section 67, from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as follows: SECTION 67 . Reduction of Lot Area. Whenever a lot upon which stands a building is changed in size or shape so that • the area and yard requirements of this ordinance are no longer complied with, such building shall not thereafter be used until it is altered, reconstructed or relocated so as to comply with these requirements. The provisions of this Section shall not apply when a portion of a lot is taken for a public purpose. S r - 3 Mr . Franciamone stated that this passage implied that a portion of a property could be taken over by the State for public purpose and this would mean reduction of the lot size. Attorney Barney asked what the significance of this was and Mr. Franciamone responded that if you have 100 foot frontage and ' the State comes along and takes 40 feet of it that reduces your property. . Since Mn Franciamone mentioned the State removing property, clarification was asked for as to what constituted public purpose and it was determined that it was not only the State but the County or Town as well which could appropriate property for public use. t Chairman Aron then went on to read Article IV, Section 16 as follows: SECTION 16. Size of Lot. Lot sizes in Residence Districts R15 shall meet the following depths and widths at the front yard set-back. 1 . " Minimum width of lots shall be 100 feet and the minimum depth 150 feet. Chairman Aron then inquired of Mr. Franciamone what he would like interpreted. Mr . Franciamone responded that he would like an interpretation on exactly what takes away from a lot other than appropriation for public use. He wondered if sharing a driveway took away from the lot and, if so, how.. Chairman Aron stated that if a driveway was installed that would be taking away 15 feet or so from the lot because generally speaking the house which stands on the lot might not have enough sideyard. Mr . Franciamone said if 15 feet of parcel No. 45-1 -3 were used as a driveway, it would not come out of the deed. Chairman Aron then asked if there were any questions from any members of the Board to Mr. Franciamone. At that time there were none and Chairman Aron stated that he would like to consult with the Town Attorney as to this matter and that a written interpretation would be sent to Mr. Franciamone. Attorney Barney then interjected that he was unclear as to what Mr. Franciamone wanted interpreted. Mr. Franciamone explained that basically what he was asking for was interpretation as to , what would reduce a lot size. The 4 Zoning Ordinance implies that if a portion of the lot is taken by public use that portion would be removed from your deed. Attorney Barney said that if you have a lot that otherwise conforms, an R15 lot, 100 foot by 150 foot, and there is a house built 50 feet back from the road and the State elects to widen the road that the house sits on and as a result knocks off 25 feet of your frontage, then under those circumstances, you would only be 25 feet back from the road . This does not become an illegal use because it was a valid use when you started and only became illegal because a public entity made it that way. Therefore it would remain a valid use. Attorney Barney further stated that he did not understand how Mr. Franciamone wanted some sort of interpretation of this fairly narrow exception to his situation. Mr. Franciamone responded that sharing a driveway in no way reduces the frontage of any lot. Attorney Barney asked if Mr. Franciamone was asking for an interpretation as to whether a frontage, sideyard , or backyard setback requirement can include an area that is committed to a common driveway for other people to use. Mr. Franciamone stated that he was not asking for that. He was asking that if a driveway were shared, would it reduce the lot size. Attorney Barney asked for what purpose he was asking. Mr. Franciamone then referred to the tax map which showed there was no way to gain access to the lot behind Lot No. 45-1 -3 other than by sharing a driveway. Chairman Aron asked how the land became landlocked. He also asked when Mr. Franciamone bought the property and if it was landlocked when he bought it. Mr. Franciamone responded that it was. Chairman Aron asked Mr . Franciamone if he knew it was landlocked . Mr. Franciamone responded that he knew it was landlocked but there was access from 108 Ridgecrest Road and other lots on Ridgecrest Road. Chairman Aron asked if someone had bought those lots. Mr. Franciamone stated that they had been sold. He further stated that at the time no approval was needed for subdivision of one lot but that now the subdivision rules and regulations have changed and by the changing of the subdivision rules and regulations this has caused Mr. Franciamone a hardship in that the land cannot be used unless access is gained through Lot No. 45-1 -3, 104 Ridgecrest Road. Chairman Aron again asked when Mr . Franciamone bought the lots and Mr. Franciamone responded that it was several years ago. Chairman Aron asked if he knew exactly when and Mr. Franciamone responded that he could look it up and let him know. Chairman Aron stated that he did not understand the i7_ 5 hardship . Mr. Franciamone responded that it was a hardship because of the change in the subdivision rules. Chairman Aron asked if Mr. Franciamone owned the two lots where he previously had access to the rest of the lots. Mr. Franciamone responded that he did. Chairman Aron then asked Mr. Franciamone if he sold those. lots knowing that it would prevent access to the rest of the acreage. Mr. Franciamone responded that he bought the large acreage first. Chairman Aron asked if there was any occupation on the two lots that were sold. Mr. Franciamone responded that there were buildings on those two lots but he still had access through 104 . Chairman Aron asked how and Mr. Franciamone responded that it was by a driveway. • Mr. Franciamone asked Attorney Barney if he understood what had just been talked about and Attorney Barney responded that he did but he was still not certain of what interpretation Mr. Franciamone wanted . Mr . Franciamone responded that the interpretation he wanted was regarding a driveway where 15 feet would be used from parcel No. 45-1 -3 to gain access to the lot behind this lot which driveway was to be shared under the same ownership. Attorney Barney asked if Mr. Franciamone wanted to make, create; or use, - whatever the term - a 15 foot easement across 45-1 -3. Mr. Franciamone said that was correct. Attorney Barney then asked if Mr. Franciamone wanted to know if by doing so would the existing building on this lot be in violation of the ordinance if 15 feet were excluded from the lot. Attorney Barney asked if it would be in conformance if it were included. Mr. Franciamone responded that it would - be in conformance if it were included . Attorney Barney asked if this 15 foot right of way would be for access to all of the property. Mr. Franciamone said it was not for access to all of the property but only to the proposed lot shown on the sketch he presented marked "Proposed Lot, 15, 000 SF MIN. " • Chairman Aron asked if there were a surveyor's map of the two lots. Mr. Franciamone responded that he had a map of the • 16. 74 acres but he did not have a surveyor ' s map of the two lots in question but he could supply one if necessary. Joan Reuning asked who would own the driveway. Mr. Franciamone said it would be under the same ownership as all of the land, namely, his sister, Grace Cascioli. Attorney Barney said that ultimately perhaps there might be separate ownership and Mr. Franciamone stated that he doubted that could ever happen because of the way the rules and regulations regarding subdivisons were. Mr. Franciamone went on to state that if it were separate ownership that would mean that this 15 foot access would have to be deeded and therefore would reduce the frontage of the front lot. If it was deeded over that would be taking away from the 100 foot frontage but using it 6 under the same ownership in no way would reduce the frontage of that lot. Mr . Franciamone then brought up Section 280-a of the Town Law - the access provisions - and Attorney Barney read excerpts from this section. Chairman Aron at this point felt that the Board should study the matter more closely and come to a conclusion one way or the other and. notify Mr. Franciamone. Mr. Franciamone had a few more comments to make. He referred to the sketch of the entire 16. 74 acreage that was presented to the Planning Board and stated that one of the things that the Town Planner said that by doing something like this it would be a misconfiguration of the 16.74 acres. He went on to say that the way it was laid out by Mr . Fabbroni, the Town Engineer, there was no way that the subdivision of that one lot was going to cause any misconfiguration. Chairman Aron asked if it was laid out or if it was a recommendation by Mr . Fabbroni of what could be done. Mr. Franciamone responded that it was a recommendation of what could be done with the land. Chairman Aron asked who owned the adjoining property and Mr. Franciamone responded that a Mr. Erdman owned it. Chairman Aron asked why Mr. Franciamone did not buy the land from Mr. Erdman and then build a road. Mr. Franciamone responded that that would create a further hardship because of the cost of Mr. Erdman 's land. Mr. Franciamone said that it would not be feasible to purchase that land just for a one lot subdivision now but if it were 30 lots in question then it might be feasible . Chairman Aron asked what Mr. Franciamone was going to do with the rest of the landlocked property. Mr. Franciamone said that they had to either wait of purchase the Erdman land . Mr. Franciamone mentioned an "opinion" of the State which he found that said it was not a right of a Planning Board to rule on a one lot subdivision. He also stated that it was obvious from the sketch that no one could go any farther than the one lot with the 15 foot access driveway. Chairman Aron again questioned how Mr. Franciamone would get to the rest of the land later on. Mr. Franciamone responded that he only wanted to gain access through Parcel No. 45-1 -3 to the one lot that they want subdivided. Chairman Aron again asked Mr. Franciamone how in the future they were going to be get into that 16 . 74 acres. Mr . Franciamone responded that what he was banking on is that when the Erdman property was sold and the owner tried for a subdivision plan the Town or Planning Board would require the owner to provide a 60 foot right of way before any development of the acreage. Mrs . Reuning then inquired as to the ownership of the property and whether the ownership of the driveway was always going to be the same as the ownership of the lot on which the 7 • driveway would be. Mr. Franciamone stated that all of the land would be under one ownership. always. Attorney Barney then inquired as to why Mr. Franciamone was asking for a subdivison. Mr. Franciamone responded that Mrs. Cascioli did not want to pay water and sewer charges on the whole 16. 74 acres. - Mrs. Reuning then again mentioned the ownership of the lot and Mr. Franciamone reiterated that both of the lots are under the same ownership and always would be. Attorney Barney . advised that once there is a subdivision there is no control adding that you cannot build two buildings on the same lot so there has to be a •subdivision. Chairman Aron said that he thought Mr. Franciamone wanted to build a house on the lot behind 45-1-3 and wanted access to it. Mr. Franciamone said that was correct. Mr. Franciamone stated that there would be no easement in title, that it was Mrs. Cascioli ' s land and she was going to use the driveway. Chairman Aron wondered what would happen if Mrs. Cascioli decided to sell the property to someone else and the new owner would not grant access. Mr . Franciamone reponded that she would never sell the property. Attorney Barney stated that if she sold the property subject to the rights of someone to get across to the other parcel that would be a right of way. Mr. Franciamone repeated that she was not going to sell the property. Chairman Aron stated that even if she wanted to build a house on the far lot it did not seem that the Planning Board would subdivide without access to it. Mr. Franciamone said that Grace Cascioli owns all of the property and has no intention of selling it unless someday she gets a 60 foot right of way from King Road. He went on to say that there is very good potential there if she can get that right . of way from King Road because that ultimately opens up that 16. 74 acres to about 30 lots but you cannot build 30 lots on a 15 foot driveway. You would never get any kind of approval. Chairman Aron asked if Mr. Franciamone intended to live 8 ' - there or rent it out. Mr . Franciamone responded that at this point he did not know. Chairman Aron then mentioned the petition brought by Mrs. Freund to the Planning Board on June 17, 1986 opposing this situation because of the probability of rental units. Chairman Aron then asked if there was any more discussion or any more questions. There being none, he stated that the Board should meet with the Town Attorney to go through all the materials and see whether or not an interpretation could be made with a written notice of the interpretation being sent to Mr . Franciamone. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JUNE 17 , 1986 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 17 , 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca, New York, at 7 : 00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Barbara Schultz , Virginia Langhans , David Klein, Carolyn Grigorov, James Baker, John C. Barney, Esq. (Town Attorney) , Lawrence P. Fabbroni , P.E. (Town Engineer) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Planner) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: Suzanne Fullagar, Johann W. Gebauer, Holly Freund, Jean Brockway, Joseph Jeraci, Vincent Franciamone, Claudia Weisburd, Jerold M. Weisburd, James K. Hilker , William D. Hilker, William F. Albern, Paul A. Jacobs, Linda Jacobs , Jonathan O. Albanese, Esq. , John W. Yarky ( ?) , Alan Wood, Joan Reuning, Sanford Reuning, Eleanor Sturgeon, Mark Tomlinson, David Dubin, Millard Brink, Lucille Brink, Nancy Phillips, Larry Phillips, Peter Loomis , Linda Loomis, William Seldin, Esq. , Sandra Knewstub , Ronald C. Knewstub, Linda Tompkins , Joyce C. Maki , Nansen Josselyn, Donald K . Josselyn, Tracie Evans, George Sheldrake , Larry Jensen, Jeff Coleman, Esq. , Corrine Bruno, William J. Petrillose Jr. , Anthony Ingraham, Glenn Snyder, Barbara Bartholomew, Frank W. Young, Helen Murison. Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 12 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 June 9 , 1986 and July 12 , 1986 , respectively, together with the Town Planner' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the Cascioli property, upon the applicant and agent, and upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning on June 12 , 1986 . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS LOCATED BACKLOT OF 104 RIDGECREST ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-45-1-2. 6 , AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THAT, UNDER SECTION 280-a OF THE TOWN LAW, A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT NOT FRONTING ON A PUBLIC ROAD. GRACE CASCIOLI , OWNER; VINCENT FRANCIAMONE, AGENT. Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 : 13 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Franciamone was present. The following documents were before the Board :(A)Or rIev v c P 'i >' 'L • '30 . l Planning Board 2 June 17 , 1986 1 . Short Environmental Assessment Form [Part I] as completed, signed, and submitted by Grace Cascioli, under date of May 19, 1986 , with attachment, and, as reviewed and recommended upon by the Town Planner, Susan C. Beeners, [Parts II and III] , under date of June 12 , 1986 , [Revised from May 30 , 1986 , after Sketch Plan Review on June 3 , 1986 , and, after receipt of revised plan on June 10 , 1986] , as follows: PART I -- "1 . Applicant/Sponsor -- Grace Cascioli. 2 . Project Name -- N/A. 3 . Project Location: Municipality -- Town of Ithaca. County -- Tompkins. 4 . Is proposed action: [X] New. 5 . Describe project briefly -- One Lot Sub . 6 . Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) -- Ridgecrest & East King. 7 . Amount of land affected: 15000 , sq.ft. of 16. 74 acres. 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? -- [X] Yes. 9. What is present land use in vicinity of project? -- [X] Residential. 10 . Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal , state or local) ? -- [X] No. 11. Does any aspect of the action have a currently valid permit or approval? -- [X] No. 12 . As result of proposed action will exisitng permit/approval require modification? -- [X] No. " Attachment: "623 W. Buffalo St. Ithaca, NY 14850 May 19, 1986 Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planner, Susan Beaner [sic. ] Dear Susan, Enclosed are ten copies of a sketch plan, with a short Environmental Assessment Form that I would like reviewed and presented to the planning board for an informal review, as soon as possible . I have added some comments for your consideration as follows, The lot will be 15 ,000 square feet as required in R15 Zone . A precedent has been set by the Town Planning Board in approving similiar [sic. ] lots, subdivided within one mile of my proposed subdivision, i.e. Newhart residence, 171 E. King Rd. Howard residence , 307 E. King Rd. Lydia [sic. ] (Hillman) residence , 370 Stone Quarry Rd. I had my attorney research the Town Law 280-A. The access provision of Section 280-A must be reasonably construed. J.L. Henessy Associates, Inc. V. Griffin, 155 N.Y.S. 2d 378 . It does not mean exclusive access. McGlosson Builders, 4---- O,f ,t9FT - Planning Board 3 June 17 , 1986 Inc . V. Tompkins, 203 N.Y.S . 2d 633 . It means physical access to the building. Annadale, Inc. V. Brienza, 1 A.D. 2d 785 , 148 N.Y.S. 2d 17; Turner V. Gali, 13 Misc. 2d 1012, 176 N.Y.S. 2d 680 . It means that the plot on which the structure is to be erected abuts on the highway and has sufficient frontage to allow ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. I have also added a second sketch showing that there will not be any cumulative effect or inefficient configuration of any ' future resubdivisions of the remaining parcel. I will also provide any other information the Planning Board request, to comply with subdivision regulations, Zoning regulations, governed under Town Law. Thank you. (sgd. ) Grace Cascioli" PART II -- "A. Does action exceed any Type I threshold? NO B. Will action received coordinated review. . . ? YES C. Review: [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?] Provision of a 60 ' right of way from East King Road by the Town has not been established. The revised plan submitted for preliminary subdivision consideration indicates there is adequate room for a 15 ' access drive on 45-1-3 . Provision of such an access easement on 45-1-3 to serve the proposed back lot would reduce the frontage of 45-1-3 from the minimum 100 ' required in an R15 zoning district to 85 ' . Such reduction may require consideration of an area variance for 45-1-3. C2. [Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?] Development of a lot not fronting on a public road, with no established provision for adequate access for potential future resubdivision of the mother parcel would be inconsistent with the character of orderly development in the surrounding neighborhood. C3. [Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?] No significant adverse impact expected. 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?] Project as proposed does not meet the requirements of Section 280-a of Town Law, regarding lots without frontage on a public road. The provision by the Town of a 60 ' right of way from East King Road has not been established. C5 . [Growth, subsequent development, or related activiites • Planning Board 4 June 17 , 1986 likely to be induced by the proposed action?] Proposed subdivision would be contrary to a process of orderly development, and could set a precedent in regard to the development of similar lots without frontage. C6. [Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-C6?] The orientation of the proposed back lot apparently shows its frontage on the proposed 15 ' access drive. The northern property line of 45-1-3 is not shown. If the ' future possible highway r.o.w. ' from East King Road is to be provided, the proposed back lot should front on such, otherwise there may be an inefficient configuration of future resubdivision of the mother parcel. C7. [A change in use of either quantity or type of energy?] No significant adverse impact expected. " PART III -- [Box checked which indicates a conditional determination, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts -- with reasons, as follows.] "Project as proposed does not meet requirements of Town Law Section 280-a. The provision of a 60 ' right of way from East King Road by the Town, as noted on the plan under consideration, has not been determined. The orientation of the lot in regard to potential frontage on this potential right of way is insufficient. The provision of a 15 ' access drive on 45-1-3 reduces the frontage of this lot to below the minimum required in an R-15 zoning district. A conditional negative determination of environmental significance based on the plan submitted for preliminary subdivision consideration could be made, if based on the following conditions: 1. Provision of a 60 ' right of way from East King Road. 2 . Reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front on such right of way. 3. Granting of an area variance of Article IV, Section 16, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance in regard to the potential frontage reduction of tax parcel 45-1-3 from 100 feet to 85 feet. " 2. Drawing entitled "Lands of Grace Cascioli, Ridgecrest Rd. , Town of Ithaca, For Base Map P/L Survey Refer to Map By K.A. Baker Dated 8/27/83" , undated, showing proposed lot, 15 ,000 SF Min. , Parcel 45-1-2.6 , 16 .74 Ac. , Parcels 45-1-9 , 45-1-8 , 45-1-6 ,7; 45-1-5.1, 45-1-5 .2 , 45-1-4 , 45-1-3 , Min. Access, Ridgecrest Road, King Road. 3 . Drawing, no title, undated, showing "Future Possible Highway R.O.W. 60 ' " in dotted lines, Parcels 45-1-2 . 6 , 45-1-5 . 1 , 45-1-5.2, 45-1-3, King Road, Ridgecrest Road. 4 . Drawing, as in #3 above, marked "Cascioli" , "Rec 'd. 6/10/86" , with added Note, "Town to provide R.O.W. " , showing 100 ' by 150 ' o e , v' T - • Planning Board 5 June 17 , 1986 parcel proposed for subdivision from Parcel 45-1-2 .6 , 500 ' marked on King Road as the distance from Ridgecrest Road to "Future Possible Highway R.O.W. " , "Property Line" shown for Parcel 45-1-3 , 100 ' shown as frontage on Ridgecrest Road for Parcel 45-1-3 , rectangle marked "Ex Bld" shown on Parcel 45-1-3 abutting proposed 15 '+ access to parcel proposed for subdivision. 5. Draft Resolution, "Cascioli, Grace, Preliminary Subdivision Consideration, SEQR" . 6. Draft Resolution, "Cascioli, Grace, Preliminary Subdivison Consideration" . Mr. Franciamone spoke from the floor and stated that at the last meeting, the informational meeting, we left it that the Board wanted to know about the 15-foot access. Mr. Franciamone stated that, in the letter, recommended by Ms. Beeners, it has been established that there is enough room for access. Mr. Franciamone stated that "we" could start right on the review. Mr. Franciamone stated that he would like output from this Board if it really thinks the 15-foot access takes away from the lot size. Chairman May noted that, according to the drawing received June 10th, the access is shown right up by the building, with Mr. Franciamone responding, no. Chairman May stated that he was having trouble because the drawing before him shows the 15 feet right up to the building, with Mr. Franciamone again responding , no. Mr. Franciamone stated that what it shows is "15 ' +" , so, the actual distance between the building and the lot line is probably 22 to 23 feet. Mr. Franciamone asked again if the Board really feels that the 15-foot access takes away from the 100-foot frontage, with Chairman May and Mrs. Schultz responding, yes. Chairman May added that he did not see how else you could say it and Mrs. Schultz added, yes, that access is part of it. Mr. Franciamone stated that he would draw the Board ' s attention to Section 20 , "Terms. " , of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Franciamone read aloud as follows: "Driveway -- A portion of a lot or a right-of-way less than 20 feet wide providing access to buildings or other structures on one or more lots. " , and also, "Easement -- A grant by the property owner to the public, a corporation, or a certain person or persons, of the use of a strip of land for a specific purpose. " Mr. Franciamone stated that there is an implication there, by those same words, it implies that it does not take away. Referring to the "June 10th" drawing, Mrs. Schultz wondered if she were correct in assuming that the line marked "property line" is actually the property line of "this first lot" [45-1-3] and, so, there is 37 feet between that lot line and the building. Mr . Franciamone responded, no, and stated that he marked 15 ' +, but there is actually 22 to 23 feet. Mr. Franciamone stated that at the time of final approval he can get specific numbers. Mrs. Schultz noted that the • Planning Board 6 June 17 , 1986 building is actually about 22 feet from the lot line, with Mr. Franciamone responding, yes, approximately. Chairman May, noting that this was a Public Hearing, asked if there were anyone from the public who wished to speak. Mrs. Holly Freund, 110 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she and the other neighbors present were a little confused because the letter [Notice of Public Hearings] said nothing about a driveway; it simply said about a variance to permit subdivision of the lot with development of the lot without road frontage. Mrs. Freund stated that she had talked to Ms. Beeners and she said that this was where the driveway was being proposed, but, as far as the letter went, the only thing going to be discussed is a variance as far as developing that lot. Both Mrs. Schultz and Chairman May stated that the requested variance is part of it and added that you have to have access to the lot. Mr. Joseph Jeraci, 112 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor and, noting the discussion about two lots, asked if there are two lots or access for one lot. Chairman May stated that right now there is an existing lot with a building on it and they want to subdivide one piece off. Mr. Franciamone corrected Chairman May, stating that the acreage is 16 .7 acres and one lot is being subdivided from that 16 acres . Chairman May offered that there is one building on that acreage, with Mr. Franciamone responding, no, there are two parcels -- 45-1-3 and 45-1-2.6 . Mr. Fabbroni stated that, for some reason, on neither this revised drawing nor his original submission, the back lot line of 45-1-3 is not shown. Mr. Fabbroni stated that that line should run right along the same as for the adjoining parcels . Chairman May indicated that that clarified things , and offered that nothing is being done with 45-1-3 except the access to 45-1-2 .6. Mr. Franciamone agreed. Mr. Franciamone, noting that Ms. Beeners said there would not be access, stated that they could make modification and spoke of a lot 150 ' by lo0 ' . Ms . Beeners stated that she felt that the orientation of that back lot, as proposed, was not workable with the "future possible highway R.O.W. " , and, that the 100-foot dimension should really be on that right of way, if this were to be a lot, adjacent to that right of way rather than to the right of it. Mrs . Langhans inquired if Ms. Beeners were suggesting bringing "this 100 feet" down to meet that other property line, with Ms. Beeners responding, yes. Mrs. Langhans noted that, then, if you did Planning Board 7 June 17 , 1986 that, that right of way would deadend at the back lot line so it could be used for nothing else, with Ms . Beeners, responding, no, and adding that it would have to stop right there. Mr. Franciamone stated that, on the reduction, since everybody on the Board feels that it is going to take away from the 100 feet, that is , 100 feet minus 15 feet equals 85 feet, he understood that R15 and R30 are all the same except for the dependability of water and sewer. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that the densities are not the same , and stated that only if you have both water and sewer does R9 allow a 9 , 000 square foot lot; with water and sewer and an R15 zone designation a 15 ,000 square foot lot is the minimum, and , with R30 zoning it still means 30 , 000 square feet . Mr. Fabbroni that there is a very different density in each of the different zones and, also, there are some subtle differences in allowable uses . Mr. Franciamone stated that he thought the implications are the same. Mrs . Langhans asked Mr. Franciamone what he was leading up to. Mrs. Schultz read aloud from Article III , Section 9 , paragraph 3 , [Size of Lot, R9] , Article IV, Section 16 , paragraph 1 [Size of Lot, R15] , and Article V, Section 23 , paragraphs 1 and 2 , [Size of Lot, R30] , of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Franciamone asked about the size of an R9 lot with water and sewer, with Mrs . Schultz responding , 60 ' by 150 ' . Mr. Franciamone stated that he believed the intent when the Zoning Ordinance was made up was that they are all the same . Several of the Board members offered that, if that were the case, what would be the need for the different zones as designated in the Ordinance? Town Attorney Barney noted, as had the Town Engineer, that there are different densities particular to the different residential areas . Mr. Franciamone stated that the acreage where they are proposing the subdivision is not served with water and sewer. Mr . Franciamone stated that in order to get water and sewer, he would still have to take that 15 feet to get the water and sewer. Mr. Franciamone asked if, in that case, the 15 feet takes away from the frontage. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that there are underground easements for utilities which do not take away from the enjoyment of the land, but a driveway is an above-ground improvement. Mr. Franciamone wondered why and Chairman May responded that that driveway would be no help to parcel 45-1-3 , and added that an easement for water and sewer is very different from a driveway. Mr. Jeraci spoke from the floor and stated that if the road went up and Mr. Franciamone enlarged the lot and the driveway were allowed, could he not access any other part of the lot. Mr. Jeraci stated that he would like the "deadend" clarified. Mrs . Langhans stated that, no, he would not be able to, adding that the driveway would just go to that particular property, with the remainder being landlocked, unless he got access from East King Road . Mr . Franciamone showed the Board members the map which he had submitted , copies of which each member had before him or her, and pointed out the 60-foot right of way from East King Road , noting that it opens up the land in the back for development . DEc' r 7 Planning Board 8 June 17 , 1986 Mr . Johann W. Gebauer, 117 Ridgecrest Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he would like to remind the Board of Lagrand Chase ' s proposal some years back for the backland along Ridgecrest Road. Mr. Gebauer suggested that the Board might recall how the people were all against it, but, at least he had a plan. Mr. Gebauer noted that the people suggested a 60-foot access to East King Road at that time. Mr. Gebauer stated that Mr . Franciamone has no plan, adding that he would like to hear what he has in mind because, perhaps, it might be a development for students . Chairman May pointed out that what Mrs . Cascioli has applied for is one lot out of this large parcel. Mr. Gebauer stated that the people are worried about too many students . Mrs . Freund spoke from the floor and stated that the neighbors do not care about the driveway, adding that it is what the driveway is for that is the concern. Mrs. Freund stated that she had a Petition with her signed by 75% of the residents of the street who are all against any more development and , whether there is a driveway or not, they do not want any more building. Mrs . Langhans pointed out that she did not think the Board knows what is going to be built. Speaking to Mr. Franciamone, Mr. Fabbroni stated that he has a right to subdivide lands if he meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and if the Board approves of the subdivision as being developed logically. Speaking to the Board, Mr. Fabbroni stated that, if he owns 16 acres and has access, Mr. Franciamone has certain rights and it is that which is the question before the Board . Mr. Fabbroni offered that Mr . Franciamone, for his own reasons, still insists on developing something through his own lot . Mrs . Jean Brockway, 166 Ridgecrest Road , spoke from the floor and asked what would stop him, if he got access, from developing the 16 acres , because he could then build back there. Mrs . Langhans stated that he could not do that , adding that he is asking for a 15-foot easement , probably, to access one lot. Chairman May pointed out that Mr. Franciamone would still have to come back to the Planning Board for any further development of the parcel , adding that this proposal is for one lot . Mr . Jeraci spoke from the floor and, commenting that he understood that the main discussion is for one lot, asked what kind of structure was planned. Mr. Fabbroni responded -- a one- or two-family house could be built -- and added, as a question to Town Attorney Barney , since it involves a variance of some sort, the Board of Appeals could impose any reasonable restrictions. Town Attorney Barney stated that that sounded about right, reiterating reasonable restrictions. A lady spoke from the floor and stated that she understood the ordinance limited occupancy to three unrelated people. Mr. Fabbroni offered that there are many complexities to the occupancy regulations and suggested that if she needed more information she should call the Zoning Officer. OR f '. Planning Board 9 June 17 , 1986 Mrs . Brockway spoke from the floor and pointed out that 108 Ridgecrest Road has an apartment in back and a house in front. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Mrs. Brockway was referring to a property about which there is a standing court order and , basically, if someone is living in that back dwelling they are in contempt of court. Town Attorney Barney , commenting that the particular piece of property has been the subject of considerable court action, briefly described its history . Speaking to Town Attorney Barney, Mr. Fabbroni stated that, as far as we know, it is not occupied. Town Attorney Barney stated that we cannot camp out there to verify its occupany but the neighbors can, and, if they know something and it can be proved, they should let us know. Mrs . Brockway wondered how the Board could entertain this subdivision proposal when he is in violation. Town Attorney Barney stated that we have difficulty with not reviewing something coming in that may be appropriate because something has been done, perhaps, incorrectly in the past; we have to look at each proposal on its merits. Mrs. Freund spoke from the floor and stated that the merits are what they are concerned about. Mr. Fabbroni briefly described the circumstances under which, generally, development can occur, referring to the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations , the SEQR regulations and other applicable regulations . Mrs . Freund presented a Petition, for the record, signed by 24 families residing on Ridgecrest Road from #109 through #171 , reading as follows: "We are opposed to the two-lot subdivision of the backlot of 104 Ridgecrest Road. A driveway to the back and the possibility of two new structures would only mean more traffic and the probability of rental units. As it is now, there is already one rental unit in violation of the Zoning Law, which has caused disturbances and has reduced the value of all properties on Ridgecrest Road. Also, the past ' track record ' of Grace Cascioli and Vincent Franciamone has not been good . When they owned the two buildings at 108 Ridgecrest Road, the law was violated in several ways. The front building was rented to several more than three students-the maximum allowed-and the back building was rented although the permit to build that was granted not as a rental unit but as a laundry or a garage. Also, the house at 104 Ridgecrest Road , since Vince and Grace have owned it, has been rented to students and it has seemed many times that there were quite a few more than three students there. The noise level has been very high, especially at night, the garbage lines the street after their frequent parties and there are cars lining the street many times presenting a potentially dangerous situation. We feel that we did not move into a student housing neighborhood and had hoped that the Zoning Law in this area would prevent this from happening. " Chairman May asked if there were any further comments from the public; there were none. Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45 p.m. Chairman May noted that the Board had before it draft resolutions with respect to both consideration of the SEQR form and consideration of preliminary subdivision approval . Chairman May stated that he, personally, had a lot of trouble Planning Board 10 June 17 , 1986 with the drawing before the Board showing the 15 feet . Mr. Franciamone stated that at the hearing for final approval he would be perfectly happy to have a surveyor ' s map. Chairman May stated that what he was looking at shows a lot line 15 feet from the building and, therefore, there would be zero feet from the building. Mr. Franciamone asked if he could suggest that the Board could do this on contingency of that survey. Chairman May wondered if it were the case that the Planning Board wished to act as lead agency on this, noted that it would be turned over to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and stated that he was not sure they should not be the lead agency. It was the Board' s consensus that the Planning Board was the lead agency in matters of subdivision consideration. Speaking to Ms. Beeners, Mr. Klein wondered if the Board were to make an approval subject to access from East King Road, would the easement matter not be moot. Ms. Beeners responded that it would depend on the immediacy of access. Mr. Klein stated that he would say that he could have the driveway within the 60-foot right of way, with Ms . Beeners commenting, either/or. Continuing, Ms . Beeners suggested, perhaps , a modification of the proposed words for the recommendation on the granting of the variance , if necessary. Mr. Klein suggested formulating it as , "a" and "b" , or, "c" . Speaking to Ms . Beeners , Mr. Fabbroni suggested that, if, from her knowledge, the variance relates not only to the 100 feet being reduced to the 85 feet, it would also relate to the lot being off a public highway , so, maybe to clarify it, a fourth point should be a reference to the need for a variance from Section 280-a of the Town Law. Discussion followed between Town Attorney Barney and Mr . Fabbroni as they reviewed the sketch . MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mr. David Klein : RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board declare and hereby does declare itself as lead agency for the environmental review of the Grace Cascioli subdivision, as proposed. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein , Grigorov, Baker. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr . Klein referred back to Ms . Beeners ' review of the Short EAF and noted that if any assessments in question C are adverse , Part III says that a positive declaration may be made. Discussion followed with Town Attorney Barney describing certain environmental concerns. Ms . Beeners requested that point #3 in Part III of her recommendation [ "Granting of an area variance of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance in regard to the potential frontage reduction of tax parcel 45-1-3 from 100 feet to 85 feet. " ] be deleted, and replaced by, "3 . Deletion of the 15 ' r.o.w. to the backlot. " Planning Board 11 June 17 , 1986 MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. James Baker: WHEREAS : 1 . This project is a 2-lot subdivision of lands in an R15 residential district located backlot of 104 Ridgecrest Road. This is an Unlisted action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on June 17 , 1986 , and for which the Planning Board has declared itself Lead Agency. 2 . A recommendation of a conditional negative determination has been made by the Town Planner, with the following mitigating conditions : a. the provision of a 60-foot right of way from East King Road, and b. the reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front on such right of way. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1 . That this project is conditionally determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and here is made, conditioned upon the following mitigating measures: a . the provision by the applicant of a 60-foot right of way from East King Road, and b. the reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front on such right of way, and c. the deletion of the 15-foot access , shown on the Sketch Plan before the Planning Board at said Public Hearing, from Ridgecrest Road to the proposed lot. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein, Grigorov, Baker. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr . James Baker: WHEREAS : 1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision on June 17 , 1986 and made a conditional determination of negative environmental significance subject to certain mitigating conditions. ,o le r Planning Board 12 June 17 , 1986 2 . The Planning Board has reviewed this preliminary subdivision proposal at a Public Hearing on June 17 , 1986 . 3 . This action is the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-45-1-2 . 6 , containing 16 . 74 acres , into two parcels containing 16 . 4 and . 34 acres , respectively. 4 . The proposed subdivision does not meet the requirements of Town Law Section 280-a regarding lots without frontage on a public road. 5 . The provision for access along a "future possible highway r. o.w. " has not been established. 6 . The provision for access on a 15-foot access drive on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-45-1-3 would reduce the frontage of this parcel from the minimum 100 feet required in an R15 residential district to 85 feet, and, thus, would require the consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the granting of an area variance of Article IV, Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance for said Parcel No . 6-45 -1-3 . THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the proposed preliminary subdivision of the lands of Grace Cascioli , and recommends that the applicant fulfill the following conditions prior to resubmission of any subdivision proposals for the subject lands : 1 . Provision of a 60-foot right of way from East King Road. 2 . Reconfiguration of the proposed back lot to front on such right of way. 3 . Deletion of the 15-foot access from Ridgecrest Road to the back lot . There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - May, Schultz , Langhans, Klein , Grigorov, Baker. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman May declared the matter of the Grace Cascioli two-lot subdivision as proposed duly closed at 8 : 09 p.m. Mr. Franciamone stated that the Board would be hearing from him again on this matter. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING (FROM JUNE 3 , 1986) : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OF A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION OF LANDS LOCATED AT 277 BURNS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-48-1-14 . 312 , 31 ACRES . SHIRLEY S . HILKER, OWNER. 100 Oe ` TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $10.00 .' • 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: J <u-j•�l``�/74 Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( y ) APPEAL ZONING: / 5"°-. Te" ta.iWe For Office Use Only /�..Q/14/P /Do," ?D +- Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission ire - Fly a_ h- at Z7to ,j /'1.4•4 , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . $/j / -r2 2 . 6 T 3 , as shown on the accompanying application and/or (lijans)or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the t would be in violation of : Article(s) , Section( s) /' 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 : 17Zig-',1V 6‘.1,2_. 4„,C2_ 410 • c9 I �/- � � i/ - z: , L 2tZ ,416E- Mc2 7 '-'-1 e r a.. • Dated: ifs f Signed: ,��►zC�-�' i fj 1 1 - 7. . / leo rE • ,7o %,yNr 0 ^ q7q ,,, J ° ' F'u-r_ _ _ ___ �r�,� PosS rQl.�E � — 1- ,,,, ___ _ ._ _ — _ - -- - _ _ o _, 4?. . .4-S 1 I - "z -4 ° (02 • 4) // ---/5= 1 1 1 ? A / 40 'v ///�#5— i -"3 / //ve%'? 1c, t I 1 fli.0 D 1 I , T -,— - 100371 ,// Riv&eciZe‹.T R a. CA6CADI r 1 l� l � n )� . .i . a•G 4„3--- 1 - 3144i, I G ,7 4 A c . t la t ) / , I l ,7 • • ' pr2Drgos6 d LdT , I S,000 sF M is .) —w 1 !, /fib ri • ¢� eo •-i- 3- 1- (0,7 1 i .41-S-l-4 4�-t-z, / N r 45-i•5,11 /4,.4 A i. 4 KI r2 4 , 'F G t2Lc,s GLSG :1 7.12oeG;z✓S-c �D,i 0oif, Ct- I- li — iziVroG e ze6-r iL�-- — I 7A'j'�t7 /!Z^ l.,,)) MEMORANDUM TO: John C. Barney , Esq . Town Attorney FROM : Henry Aron, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals RE: Grace Cascioli Matter 280-a Interpretation DATE: June 28 , 1988 On August 13 , 1986 , you were asked by me on behalf of the Board of Appeals for a legal opinion in order for the Board to interpret Section 280-a of the Town Law. Numerous requests of mine have been unheeded. The latest request from Mrs . Cascioli for this interpretation came about two weeks ago, for which I signed a return receipt requested form. I again spoke to you the day thereafter in your office and gave you her letter. You are very well aware of the urgency of the matter. It is not my habit as Chairman of the Board, nor is it the habit of the Board of Appeals , to let important things of this nature linger on. I , th efore, expect you to give us your legal opinion in the mat e no later than two weeks from this date. Tha rat/ . HA/nf cc - Members, Zoning Board of Appeals Andrew S . Frost