The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA History Combined (13) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 17.-3-31 18 Renwick Heights Rd Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 18 Renwick Heights Rd 17.-3-31 with no subdivision or readdressing. History: 1993 – Height/Area Variance for accessory structure - Approved 1984 – Area Variance for addition – Approved FILED TOWN OF IT>E1ACA TOWN OF ITHACA ` Date ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS c � WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 10 , 1993 j Cler' THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE BEFORE THE BOARD ON NOVEMBER 10 , 1993 : APPEAL OF STEVEN 14AUK , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 13 , SECTION 65 , OF THE T014IN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLO141ED TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF 7 FEET 6 INCHES + ( 1AXIi-tUt1 6 FEET HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 147 PINE TREE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 57 - 1 - 33 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE FENCE WILL BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S REAR YARD AND WILL RUN ALONG THE SIDE LOT LINES . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF RICHARD BOYD AND BARBARA KOSLOWSKI , APPELLANTS , AtfY NETTLETON , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A NON - CONFORr1ING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 18 REN'WICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 17 - 3 - 31 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE UTILIZED AS A CHILDREN ' S PLAYHOUSE AND WILL HAVE A HEIGHT OF 20 + FEET ( 15 FEET HEIGHT LIMITATION REQUIRED ) . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCESS HEIGHT , AS WELL AS TO PERMIT THE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S SIDE YARD , 141HEREAS SUCH STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ONLY . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF DANIEL TOURANCE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 141ITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXItUll HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 221 SAND BANK ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 35 - 2 - 12 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 30 . THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS EXCEEDED WHEN MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE NEAR A PROPOSED WOOD DECK ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE AND MEASURED TO THE " WIDOWS WALK " LOCATED ON THE BUILDING ' S ROOF , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF GARY C . DUFFY AND DONNA HOFSTEAD DUFFY , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AN INTERPRE - TATION AS TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE V , SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE OPERATION OF THE LITTLE BROOK FARtlS HORSE TRAINING FACILITY AT 340 WARREN ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 68 - 1 - 2 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SHOULD AN INTERPRETATION BE MADE THAT FINDS THE OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF SAID ORDINANCE , THE APPELLANTS THEN REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 19 , PARA- GRAPH 6 , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT A RIDING ACADEMY AND A FACILITY TO BOARD AND TRAIN HORSES . ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 12 , 1994 . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 4 ) That the variance to permit such fence on the south line , extending easterly from and in line with the east Nall of the house nearest that south line , no more than four panels , or a maximum distance of 32 feet , and permitting the westerly end of that fence to connect northerly to the house . 5 ) That the fences will , at no time , be extended easterly toward the back line of the property so that the easterly portion of the yard will be kept open with fences that are open in order to permit views across the back property line . 6 ) That the maximum height of the fence is that measured at the westerly extension of the fence . 7 ) That the top grade of the fence is to be horizontal from the westerly extension so that the current height of the fence decreases as the grade increases . w AYES - King , Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF RICHARD BOYD AND BARBARA KOSLOWSKI , APPELLANTS , AMY NETTLETON , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING /LOT LOCATED AT 18 RENWICK HEIGHTS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 17 - 3- 31 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE UTILIZED AS A CHILDREN ' S PLAYHOUSE AND WILL HAVE A HEIGHT OF 20 + FEET ( 15 FEET HEIGHT Is TATION REQUIRED ) , A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCESS HEIGHT , AS WELL AS TO PERMIT THE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S SIDE YARD , WHEREAS SUCH STRUCTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ONLY , Agent Amy Nettleton from Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects Planners spoke in behalf of Richard Boyd and Barbara Koslowski . Its . Nettleton stated that they want to build a playhouse for their son at their home . Its . Nettleton oriented the Board as to location of the house on Renwick Heights Road as it relates to Lake Street , approaching from Lake Street . She further explained the diagrams as they relate to the house and the proposed playhouse . iris . Nettleton stated that the whole area is pretty well Brooded with mature evergreens and other shade trees which provide some screening amongst the properties . Its . Nettleton said the request for the variance is because the lot is undersized , the excess height of the playhouse , and the location of the playhouse being on the side yard . Its . Nettleton addressed the grade on the property , stating that it slopes fairly steeply from the street so that the grade , at the street , is approximately 7 feet above the grade at the back of the house . She continued that , by the time one gets to the lower part of the rear yard , the grade drops another 15 or 1.0 feet , continuing to drop dorm to the houses that front on Lake Street , Its . Nettleton explained that the neighbor to the south is separated by a small ravine , so that from the Boyd / Koslowski property , you are looking out over a ravine wall that varies in height from 6 to 8 feet . She said that , even though the lot is small , there is a fair amount of physical separation of the property because Tom of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 of the setting . Its . Nettleton said this location was chosen because of the existing stone retaining walls which deal somewhat with the change of grade around the house . Ms . Nettleton stated that the appellants want the playhouse to be as close to the house as possible , rather than putting it in the rear yard where it would be harder to get to . This solution would allow easier access to the playhouse , and at the same time , the appellants want an easier . way doom the grade to the playhouse below . Its . Nettleton explained the other drawings to the Board , showing how the playhouse nestles into the walls , trying to optimize that location . With the submitted plans , Its . Nettleton feels that they allow to get the playhouse close to the house and provide a •vray dorm into the woods . Its . Nettleton said the change in grade makes the playhouse vary in height from 13 feet to about 20 feet at the highest corner . Ms . Nettleton further stated that , depending upon where you are looking at it , the apparent height will vary . Its . Nettleton said that it will be only looking from the woods that one will see the high corner . Hr . Scala asked Its . Nettleton if the playhouse would be up on posts without any footings . I-is . Nettleton said the posts are the footings . Mr . Scala followed that the playhouse would just be up on " stilts " , and Its . Nettleton agreed . Chairman Austen commented that when he was up looking at the area , he wanted to know if there was any reason why there are no steps coming dorm to lower the playhouse to the foundation wall . Ms . Nettleton said the playhouse bridge is already lower than the foundation . Chairman Austen had hoped that there would be some steps to get to the deck . Its . Nettleton asked if the Chairman was asking if they lorWer the deck , and Chairman Austen said that the ravine is quite steep and quite high . He continued that , nor knowing the ages of the children who would be using the playhouse , perhaps the building could be at the stone wall height . Mr . Scala stated that he was not too clear along the same lines . He asked ;shy is the playhouse not closer to the house , and why does the playhouse have to be on that side . of the retaining wall ? Its . Nettleton answered that there is a very narrow space between the house and the retaining wall . Ms . Nettleton said the playhouse is 9 feet square , and Mr . Scala said there is then 10 or 12 feet between the house and the playhouse . Ils . Nettleton stated that the playhouse would then be jammed or pushed up tightly against the house . 11r . Scala said that the appellants wanted the playhouse close to the house . Its . Nettleton said that the appellants also wanted passage through and circulation around the house . Itr . Frost stated that the proposed location , as an accessory structure , would not violate any side yard setbacks . Mr . Scala said that the playhouse could easily be moved over 4 feet and not have a violation . The Board said the height variance is for the height . its . Nettleton said she supposed the playhouse could effectively " straddle that stone wall " , but she added that , when you are out in the yard , it is clearly visible that the playhouse would just fit in better if it was fitted into the niche of the wall rather than straddle the stone wall , Mr . Scala asked why the playhouse was not located around the back , and Ms . Nettleton said that it fits more into the open and is not as screened by the vegetation around it . Mr . Scala and Ms . Nettleton discussed the vegetation , trees , and shrubs in that area . Mr . King said that the only location where there is a height violation is from the south dorm in the ravine and the west disappears . He continued that the house adjacent to this property , south of it , is quite a distance south . its . Nettleton said she had a letter from that neighbor , as well as , from the neighbor from across the street . Mr . King explained the locations of the houses relative to the lots and to each other , and then asked I-Is . Nettleton the approximate distance from the south Toim of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 side of the playhouse to the north side of the neighbor ' s house . Ms . Nettleton said there is about 12 feet to the property line . There was then a general consensus that there would be another 50 feet to the house . 11r . King said that , in effect , this extra height should not be a bother to anyone and that the nearest neighbors would not even notice it . Chairman Austen again stated that he did not know how old the children are and that there is a considerable drop off the back . He was informed that the child was nine . Its . Nettleton repeated that Chairman Austen ' s concern ..7as the drop from the playhouse to which Chairman Austen indicated that he was concerned about this . Its . Nettleton said the appellants wanted an elevated playhouse and that was why the railing was there . She continued that , initially the appellants wanted a tree house . Attorney Barney asked what , besides a nine year old child , was going to go into this playhouse , and IIs . Nettleton said the playhouse , itself , is derailed so that it matches the house , but inside the playhouse :would be left to the child ' s imagination . IIs . Nettleton said she assumes there would probably be a desk in there , or table , and maybe bunks . Attorney Barney asked if electricity or plumbing would be included to ;which 1-is . Nettleton answered " No . " IIr . Hines inquired as to the cost of the playhouse , and Ms . Nettleton said that she believes it will cost around $ 5 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Frost stated that the property really has no flat land . He further stated that this playhouse is a means for keeping the kids somewhat in their back yard . IIr . Scala agreed with that , commenting that unless you like cliff climbing , continuing that with this playhouse access to the rear will somewhat be cut off . Hr . Frost said that the Fire Department could get to the rear from the other side ( garage side ) of the house . Ms . Nettleton said the emergency vehicles could still get back through the existing corridor . Ms . Nettleton said they are actually using the playhouse to bridge that to provide a way dorm . Mr . Frost said that the playhouse would actually provide something to stand on . Chairman Austen read the October S . 1993 letter from Mary Gigliello , 14 Renwick Heights Road and the November 10 , 1993 letter from Marie CostanZo and Tom Fox , 15 Renwick Heights Road into the record . Iis . Nettleton said the latter letter was from the people across the street whom they felt would be most affected visually by the building of the playhouse . Chairman Austen then read the November 4 , 1993 letter from James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner of the Tompkins County Planning Department , into the record . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . Frost wanted to clarify that the property and the building are non - conforming because the house is too close to the road . He said that the property , on the setback on the north side , is too close to the side lot line and depth of the parcel is approximately 92 feet on the south side , 1 ?0 feet on the north side , and 150 foot depth . Therefore , he continued , that both the lot and the building are non - conform- ing which is what requires a special approval because a change is being made to a non - conforming building / lot . I4r . Frost continued that , again , there is the variance for the height and the location of the building on the side yard . Environmental Assessment Tom of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . Chairman Austen said that he would like to correct Part II on the Form to reflect feet - ( 15 feet and 11 feet ) , not inches as written on a non - conforming lot . MOTION By Air . Robert Hines , seconded by 1•Ir . Harry Ellsworth , RESOLVED , that a negative determination of environmental significance be made based on the Environmental Assessment by Louise Raimondo on November 1 , 1993 and based on the information , submitted plans and presentation by the appellants ' agent . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : YY'ES - Hine . , El1swcrth , King , Scala , Austen . NAYS - None . The motion carried unanimously . 1r . Scala asked that ( the property besides being non- conforming in terms of being too Close to the road and being too close to the north side ) by putting up the playhouse , there will be at least a height of 20 feet , exceeding the 15 feet and will also be too close to the south side " He inquired if the structure has to be 10 feet or 15 feet from the south property line , and Air . Frost said that an accessory building can be 3 feet , and as such , there is no setback problem . MOTION Motion by Air . Robert Hines , seconded by Hr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board of Zoning Appeals ( 1 ) grant special approval to the appellants , Richard Boyd and Barbara Koslowski , that construction of a playhouse structure as shown on the submitted plans on the generally southerly portion of the non- conforming building lot at 18 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17 - 3 - 31 , Residence District R- 15 and ( 2 ) grant a variance from the strict enforcement of the zoning law , Article 13 , and permit the structure to be in excess of the height otherwise permitted which is 15 feet , as well as permit the accessory building . to be permitted in the property ' s side yard , whereas such structures are permitted in the rear yard only , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That the nature of the property on Renwick Heights Drive is generally a sparsely traveled residential area and is a rather steep , sloped grading property . 2 ) That , to the west , the property is without a level outdoor playing space for children or other persons who might want to visit the outdoors - for whatever recreational purposes . 3 ) That the properties in the neighborhood are sufficiently distant from this property so that no adverse visual impact is created as a result from the structure which is architecturally dram with trees and close to the existing residential structure . To;•m of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10 , 1993 4 ) That the character of the property and the need for play space are the practical difficulties which are e %.hibited . 5 ) That upon review of the information , the changes contemplated do not have an adverse architectural impact on the neighborhood and conform generally to the neighborhood . 5 ) That the neighbors at 14 Renwick Heights Road and 15 Renwick Heights Road have no objections to the addition . ? ) With the condition that the playhouse be constructed out of cement and board . 81) With the condition that there be no plumbing or electrical facilities placed within the playhouse . 14 4r Scala questioned the justification for putting the playhouse on the side instead of the back , and he said he did not feel that there are significant reasons shown . Air . Scala said that he did not feel the Board should grant a variance just on the basis of that . Chairman Austen stated that 14r . Scala ' s objection is so rioted . Chairman Austen said he walked all around the house when he looked at it , and he stated that he thought , perhaps , that : ras the best place because it would not be quite as conspicuous as if it set right in the back yard and perched over it . He further stated that the ground drops off quite rapidly in the back , and he said the playhouse would show up from doom below and you would be looking up right under it . 11r . King stated that he agreed with Chairman Austen . 14r . King said the homecemers below there , to the :nest , are actually closer , and would be closer to this playhouse than the neighbor to the south . Mr . King stated that he felt where the playhouse was proposed to be built would probably be the least offensive place to put it . Mr . Scala stated that his technical judgement is that the playhouse could be built in the back without exceeding the 20 foot height . He further stated that , by building where it is proposed , you ;Mould also have the problem of being very much closer to the ravine , and , based on the future of the wetlands requirements , he did not feel the Board should touch it . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Hines , King , Ellsworth , Austen . NAYS - Scala . The motion carried with one Nay . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF DANIEL TOURANCE , APPEAI ANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FA14ILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 + FEET ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) AT 221 SAND BANK ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35- 2- 120, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 301 THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS EXCEEDED WHEN MEASURED FROM THE FINISHED GRADE NEAR A PROPOSED WOOD DECK ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE AND MEASURED TO THE "WIDOWS WALK " LOCATED ON THE BUILDING ' S ROOF , Chairman Austen accepted additional photographs from Air . Tourance . Chairman Austen stated that when he was at the site , he said he thought there was a fantastic view in the winter without the leaves on the trees , but that he did not know if it would be the same in the summer . Air . Tourance said that this was probably one of the ;Pot 10 1 a/ - - r _fir,,,, .�.,,�� .�, __ i •� ,�s ♦71f• •l e•• Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM' For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I — Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2. Project Name : 8 15AKA KOSL.OWSKI 44ui RI GNaJZb go rp 0SLDWS91 / 150 Yn PLAYHO V5FL 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 16 IM4W I &K HS 16rHIms KDAP Tax Parcel Number : 4 . Is Proposed Action : ® NE`rf EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project. Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : GoNs7't� ut.T► D }� 0 � A 61 sF f LAMOVSE W141i 14 . 5 �'F DI✓ ASSOUATV�V P5tXIt4 ft. i ptAYuoVsF, IS L06AT512 ON SLDO14i JOEVdN Of: KF-::& IPENJ-tAL. L. Or A- ► �-- L D WK S IDI: is l= If9- V/AID, j I I ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) I 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) . 00 Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? I �- I S . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? ' YES F�J NO ® If no , describe conflict briefly : 171.AYH0VSE 5XC�W76 IS' IN NWV GrHT' AT 7*40 609 NFxs , t7s&r. 6r.TP64a,. 1s 11 ' - w mo A4 s ) dIL i2A0MKT( LI NE- . 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : 1 i Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial 0 Industrial 7Agriculture 7 Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES NO ® I If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE i Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : 6AKE-AZA 905LOWSKI 1 Signature : I �c .� - , Date : -PART If - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes , coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6 ? YES NO X If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any. C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten , If legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: See attached . C2- Aesthetic , agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See attached . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly: See attached . C4 . The Town 's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : _ See attached . C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : See attached . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C5 ? Explain briefly : See attached . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly : See attached . D. Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO X If yes , explain briefly : See attached . E. Comments of staff X , CAC other attached. (Check as licable . ) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect Identified above , determine whether it is substantial, large, Important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (le, urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) Irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed . Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this de mination. O Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals I �� Name of Lead Agency Prep is Signature ( If different from Responsible Officer Edward Austen , Chairman ame itle of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : f - V —�4� i nature of a onsible Officer in Lead A enc PART II - Environmental Assessment Be Koslowski/R. Boyd 18 Renwick Heights Road Variance to Construct a Playhouse with Height exceeding 15 " and a Deck Setback of 11 " on a Non-conforming Lot A. Action is Unlisted Be Action will not receive coordinated review C Could action result in any adverse effects on to or arising from the following : C11 Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels , existing traffic patterns solid waste production or disposal potential for erosion drainage or flooding problems? None anticipated. C2. Aesthetic agricultural archeological historic or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? The proposed playhouse would be situated in a forested side yard, with the proposed deck to extend within 11 to 12 feet of the property to the south . The residence to the south (# 14) is situated approximately 50 feet away from the proposed new deck and playhouse, across a small wooded ravine and a small paved parking area adjacent to # 14. There is sufficient distance and mature tree cover between the proposed playhouse and the neighboring property to the west to act as a buffer for this use. The proposed height of the structure may make it visible from the sidewalk and street to the east, although this could be screened by additional landscaping. This proposed structure will not be visible from the property to the north . C31 Vegetation or fauna fish shellfish or wildlife species significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species? The surrounding vegetation with be preserved. No rare, threatened, or endangered species are known to exist on the site. 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? There will be a minor increase in intensity of use of land. The proposed playhouse would be situated among mature trees , thereby limiting its visibility from adjacent properties . Additional landscaping could provide screening from the street. C5 . Growth subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? This proposal does not include plumbing or electrical connections , and appears to be only for the use stated, a playhouse for a child. C6 . Long term, short term cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05 ? None anticipated. C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D . Is there , or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III - Staff Recommendation Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Louise Raimondo , Planner 1 Review Date : November 1 , 1993 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 100 . 00 rr`` 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : n vl . Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273 - 1783 CHECK S P E C I A L A P P R O V A L ZONING : A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been informed that authorization is required to : 64w;TtZULT A ri .AYi4oy 1:. 1NL1'ti REi &kr EXLEErw t 15 ' Al"A a PEU S9775AL1, OF 11 , ON A N0NW ( ONFI KM11JLr Loo at jQ_ KPNWIGK_ HF I (tHTS KD D Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . as shown on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents . The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to : X11 54 Article ( s ) Imo_ , Section ( s ) 13 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization . ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) sLa A1T' LMEa LZ By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . 6' s - 16 - 5 3 Za Signature of Owner / Appellant : Date : Signature of Appellant / Agent : jjp! 1lln "1TL1) b�a I Pla j WOf.F Date : 1 ,06 511 .2, Home Telephone Number : Work Telephone Number : NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months , the approval will ' expire . KOSLOWSKI / BOYD PLAYHOUSE Statement of Practical Difficulties The proposed location of playhouse offers the best fit with site. The grade drops steeply away from the house towards the side and back yards, and the playhouse provides a way to get from the house level to the woodland ,10 feet below. In the chosen location, the playhouse is in close proximity to the house and fits neatly into a nook created by existing stone retaining walls. It is also closely surrounded by existing woodland vegetation on three sides, which screens it from the street and partially from the neighbor to the south . In this location the playhouse does not fully comply with the zoning ordinance . The playhouse exceeds 15' in height at three corners because of the 6 ' grade drop at the retaining walls and the sloping grade above and below the walls . The playhouse is entered from the level of the house, and from this side the apparent height of the playhouse is 12' . From the south side, or looking from the woodland below the house, the height varies from 15 ' to 20 ' . The deck setback from the side property line to the south is 11 ' , under the required 15' . The undersized nature of the lot contributes to this tight fit. In the chosen location, however, the playhouse is partially screened from the neighbor to ' the south by woodland vegetation and by the small gorge that runs between the two properties . i ' I PLOT ' PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : 1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure ( s ) or 29 Distance of structures from : or addition( s) . a . Road, 5 . Nanes of neighbors who bound lot . b . Both side lot lines , 6 . Setback of neighbors . C . Rear of lot . 7 . Street name and number . 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines . SSE A-tl'�C.�IBG DRAW ► � l,1-s r J I " Signature of Owner/Appellant : L' Date : Signature of Appellant /Agent : Date : 1 hg Z.13 S1N913H vsnAV0 do 39tf II1A 901 V0dH11 1ND11 731W ww3a 01MIS10 ' 1NDn 64WD714 Iota XDIMN3a �� Ia 10 1wDTT .ea N MOl I fy j e {0 i A • m 1 an Vol do Ow Vol p e I O Z lost gas 0 got Ala All CY •• � � �. s 'n CY — tidelands Vol to tttt� t, off tttIttt� go. 1 1 p . . Flo ° dolt m = — — dod It tot a 1e� », to I _ 1 N 11 — ,�r77 1 p •• � / p6 � N N _ 1 e • .° TIDY OIyO ! nu u. I .. Ao soo — RENWICX .� i S M a CD 11 a III t li • 11 ' 0• _ ` ��\ _ a S2 II = 11 i 3 • 11 1 • II ..• . �IND Olt W n I 1 ; • • 1 1 �p15TRC �/�� co W • I • I an s 1 ,Np ER �/ to > t^� r •, ' GLACE r A �e MEIOHTs O/ W 1 a • T t 11 , R1 DIST5H �fk 1 � ,o• LIDH�� I HE�DHTS �, at _ Y s I Sit N Y O I J i N co _ tl0tlH11 d0 dobcc IZ,n. Is w C4",,r. S=q otd PuwGr, � . e, {z . e. 4a Mao h� • a !} a r { v i { a� q IT WM ' t f "3G�E�•D ` TH[tDUlg4d TU P ldfi FOR ISIV $L. Nr�V4 k 11 1W.J do 13P 'I Y4 x 6 �LYd ! �4sG11•� - - 2.N . - (O ; b poST l-ypp, Lm" 4-V4 Ark NrvpWan w 2-P 8 FA&-& o4 2r' � ' Jmisrt, I (v "..O,. G. . , ¢ - ZFq FA-SCAA , oA ! 0 4 " _ No-r1 - : ALL .F*X& AA.J14 LL) PA 09< !/4p 1 + � — . _. � � � ,A � rev C P9S o , Koslowski /&yd Residence Playhouse—Flans 18 Renwick Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Prepared by: Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Scale: as shown Date: Sept. 23, 1993 1345 Macklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 i OF i o ° �EVer� ia� WEATH is z,. •� \ � of i '�-� •�,, • b1{Oo>7 s-rvc�A. .d�ID9t;, ,�+3 : S�Eia�ll�� . td . t C!� M VIM • �Tn�AA. , tJJVty � r � 1 s ' m Q r r — S r ,�� . t 4 Ik t ' Y ?ter o f FP� 1 is • ! r y ___ •.. i � S �, . .to_ , . FR "�` f :veil 1 l . , is - - - - - a• a. • K 10 a% Y i. s is is, n � I _ insiii s � s( ty g 1:�°►uc? Z, PpEr S I L, z, 4 � v (04' I 04 is 4 Ni —M `Icd 'GONO �� j4 — 5 D U H Wirt.... O T F NoV� M SrOrrc' { 10*x Iod wlt-t, I x . TRIM I is • •r� �Ir E• �•i'l•. _ _ �y in smimisismi � Otd b immirismaNiii P is, 1 • 4•• ,.'. t W . I ego Is %' is.M90 w�t,t� may- Ir /' ( I II So Vr)4 IGI�V*41M ON 11: ' s sIfIssssL XosloWsld Bovd residence . . - •, Playhouse— Elevations 18 Renwick Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Prepared by: Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Scale: as shown Date: Sept. 23, 1993 1345 Macklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 - -- -�P'- .•OF Fes' 00. p q8. 2 II � � U 11 5• ASPT SLEVAr1ON 3 a rNG,- , _- FP 9� • Z (ms v w WAW) I F � — IN FRO" r I I I I ,,,rc<_ . I F.. 3 NOKT14 P=LEVArIOhl 1/4 on Koslovvski /Dovd Residence Playhouse—glevations 18 Renwick Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Prepared by: Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Scale: as shown Date: Sept. 23, 1993 1345 Macklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 14 1 CK lit i } i •1 J zs t y � � 0 O { N � 4 .r , a it T . � tv z tu fti..,' i : t .4i I •� p(�j � P,'' era f i 6. a°�'� 4I cis ao Z ,' `, fi g • C4 Vo, _ Ilk L is lit IL or Lh N N - i!t LIN N � O � � IL \ N � N •- . ^, of A ` J ti J ' it O � t- /r�1ln ii t/# (� r to d 4 a TO kin s County DEPARTMENT : ' PLANNING 11 L 121 %, E I as t Court Street w York "14850 R6CEIVtD James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX (607) 274-5578 NOV 5 : 1993 November 4 , 1993 TOWN OF ITHACA Mr. Andy Frost BUILDING/ZONING Town of Ithaca 126 E . Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to 5239 -1 and - m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Special Approval : Playhouse at 18 Renwick Heights Road Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to 5239 - 1 and - m of the New York State General Municipal Law . The proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests . Therefore , no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record . Sincerely , 9-0,VYL'� t-' /r5 James Hanson , Jr. Commissioner of Planning 4ft to Recycled paper o IL _ l TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 100900 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273 - 1783 CHECK S P E C I A L A P P R O V A L ZONING : A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been informed that authorization is required to : 6ONSI"KUL1" A I'I ,AYi4ouso& wWA F# l�rNr ( EFbJ IS ' MtA a PSU x 59TSA [ OF 11I - ON A N0NVn0NEQKMIN6r L40r at IB �Z,9MWICK HE I (tHTS KDAD , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . as shocm on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents . The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to : X11 54 Article ( s ) IV Section ( s ) I3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization . ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) .vC p AirA GHE 17 swrATgmr NT By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application . 6 - 5 3 Signature of Owner / Appellant : %S / o14�e Date : l0 Signature of Appellant / Agent : /� nU��'wW� "11zbW13K1 WO(. Date : � d� 15113 Home Telephone Number : Work Telephone Number : NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months , the approval will expire . t KOSLOWSKI / BOYD PLAYHOUSE Statement of Practical Difficulties The proposed location of playhouse offers the best fit with site. The grade drops steeply away from the house towards the side and back yards, and the playhouse provides a way to get from the house level to the woodland 10 feet below. In the chosen location, the playhouse is in close proximity to the house and fits neatly into a nook created by existing stone retaining walls. It is also closely surrounded by existing woodland vegetation on three sides, which screens it from the street and partially from the neighbor to the south . In this location the playhouse does not fully comply with the zoning ordinance. The playhouse exceeds 15 ' in height at three corners because of the 6 ' grade drop at the retaining walls and the sloping grade above and below the walls . The playhouse is entered from the level of the house, and from this side the apparent height of the playhouse is 12' . From the south side, or looking from the woodland below the house, the height varies from 15' to 20 ' . The deck setback from the side property line to the south is 11 ', under the required 15 ' . The undersized nature of the lot contributes to this tight fit. In the chosen location, however , the playhouse is partially screened from the neighbor to the south by woodland vegetation and by the small gorge that runs between the two properties . t LiTown Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) I . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : SA96AKA KOSL.OWSKI &om.0 RICAHAIM goro I K0SL0WSI< I / goYP PLAYHOVs1.. 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map ) : 1b kaNWIGK HEIGrHTS KDAP Tax Parcel Number : 17 - 3 - 3I 4 . Is Proposed Action : ® NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION/ ALTER ATfON 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose , present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : 604Ss "KUC.TION OF A 61 s.F rL0AYg0V-SE w14ok q4 , 5 -45F OF: A &SOUAT"P,v b>:CKINft, PLAYPDVSE IS L0644TPtP ON SL00t4 i f70e1104 OF KFSIPE1S!11AL_ L4LTF Ate — I . O VVzc Sim is F� bF VVIA1 r � I ( Attach separate sheet( s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project :) i I 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0- 5 yrs) . OO 4 Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres 010 yrs) Acres 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? ' YES NON If no , describe conflict briefly : rGAYHDUSFE 5XC"t7S IS' IN 44V lrHT" AT TWO L4)Z N E�cS i 17EC4C- S5150r sACK. IS 11 ' - IZ ' PKO M S ) dF. V)COMKIT W NEC . � I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : I i Public Road ? YES NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential E] Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park /Forest /Open Space Other Please describe : 1 1 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO � If yes , list agency name and permit / approval /funding : 12 . Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES [:J NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOVLEDGE i Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : EAKSAKA 905LOWSKI I Signature : � � / Date : PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes , coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617.6? YES NO X If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any, C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten , If legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels , existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: See attached . C2- Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See attached . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly: See attached . C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly : See attached . C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : See attached . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - CS ? Explain briefly: See attached . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly : See attached . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO X If yes , explain briefly: See attached . E. Comments of staff CAC other attached. (Check as applicable . ) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, Important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (le, urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (I) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments %as necessary the reasons supporting this de mination. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Prep is Signature ( If different from Responsible Officer Edward Austen , Chairman Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date : Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART 11 - Environmental Assessment B . Koslowski/R. Boyd 18 Renwick Heights Road Variance to Construct a Playhouse with Height exceeding 15 " and a Deck Setback of 11 " on a Non-conforming Lot A. Action is Unlisted B . Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following: C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels , existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? None anticipated. C2. Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological, historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? The proposed playhouse would be situated in a forested side yard, with the proposed deck to extend within 11 to 12 feet of the property to the south. The residence to the south (# 14) is situated approximately 50 feet away from the proposed new deck and playhouse, across a small wooded ravine and a small paved parking area adjacent to # 14. There is sufficient distance and mature tree cover between the proposed playhouse and the neighboring property to the west to act as a buffer for this use. The proposed height of the structure may make it visible from the sidewalk and street to the east, although this could be screened by additional landscaping. This proposed structure will not be visible from the property to the north. C31 Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species? The surrounding vegetation with be preserved. No rare, threatened, or endangered species are known to exist on the site. 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? There will be a minor increase in intensity of use of land. The proposed playhouse would be situated among mature trees, thereby limiting its visibility from adjacent properties. Additional landscaping could provide screening from the street. C51 Growth subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the Proposed action? This proposal does not include plumbing or electrical connections , and appears to be only for the use stated, a playhouse for a child. C61 Long term short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? None anticipated. C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D. Is there , or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III - Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Louise Raimondo, Planner 1 Review Date: November 1 , 1993 siw3N von ).d7 d0 39VITA as V0YH1� 1MUI1 SlNfl13N ej, wN3tl 7411S10 1Moll &IWm3M °• 71,1InW3tl � � Itl N1 1Nq7Ttea � NMOl 1 I `� t .. If • 1 N A I ° 001 sell~ r Y I O rn e o �I . .« 3n_&C c ,. 1 Alt 41111111,11411, CIA cli u � • 1 to lIJ1,MN CD 0 to got 1 ` M It a CIA Val Ts as 064 boo Sol e a we too i ' ,Mr` t It 1 r•. — �-- it 6 1 ZQ N A � L : • / � • N 1 ran , sit" N N • • OQ ! t•P at' I a to tool _AE=N7Gf Y 1 DRIVE \ CD O 1 N II N 1, II L IC 1 tat Ills� It aa • t7 1 - 1 • • 1 1 1 O. 0 �/'� \ W . J 3; = • I I °O = \ in s 1 s00 IEP in PLACE \ r ' 1 �• ME\OH�� o%E� N �. 1Y O Pf�W\CK = � Q \ •. h 0 PENVI1d1' % M VVI 11 � N to, \c� 1 , �• p\S41 511irk 0 I HE\pHSb 2 t � co a € x d0 N /� ,.. a " J K.o , a . e, K • Q. aG-Y4i11 � -0. _ aw 6rVAKFagAIL.l . 46S 17 rAito 1 N k _ ,:t:, r•- �� wq+e src�•wN ; - �NVo✓ P. M)! tf v 4 I . ' 1 V4 r T WIT µ.Dolt Nslve B�vYfi: ' - 1 w It _ .Lx 8 i 5/4 x G Pr-4,L4 I SGIA F7(z) z• IOstuF.v ant # (or �oy-r ly p, Ll 2r 8 M&& A w2r: if, ro _ . 2r8 FAS, IA EMt , M . a -. . l� Rtt.lN /T ' PRMSSvxg w r'R TBD gY FvKAMINer pLAN - , . %V..1t r--Y--- L.grov_r --tN. . . �.�it.p�_ :. !/4 " a 1 ' - p " --� I,, .Iyy, L .Aa r ! PR -�a ."CO14 Y671,"I Koslowski /Boyd Residence Playhouse—Plans 18 Renwick Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Prepared by: Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Scale: as shown Date: Sept. 23, 1993 1345 Macklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 - SO U�- o 4 WAI.Q� y $I� OF lo - ' -7Yz." T° 3 C : . . .. W0017 S'tDi Y1'. .HpDiZ, ,qsy ` PIPP ail, f Y x � . Ij t In It 1Vr.°Oh F TT'9d --= loo• o - . . __ � . _.._ . . �'Uprtzb�,at.t,. , ::r?�VAt6. - S P . F P.2I v I To/ty I .�"�D6n tsErAIL Z . WWW Ito -M v v e •; FLL �'OS� 'IN -�GONGIitv'jE- 1Ml;,QT- S4,- VAJ I D N 50V I- H Wi1 [.l . OF IIOVsE 13 � �OND s ` f • , kklklY pox 1W W, -i I x TkI M \ IV _ P' r - . , e wd Eve 6 " ti i � A A'T"' mt -.-MK; lel'�W . �0�� Y•;. Y m f i' i 1 ! I .,•r a %11 .�. ({ ti t _ r ti ll I � U 5o U'r'N �L.�V�T10Pd 9/4 N -C 1 o W n ' Xmlowsld /Eovd Residence Playhouse—Elevations 18 Renwick Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Prepared by: Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Scale: as shown Date: Sept. 23, 1993 1345 Macklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 -- _ wry . _._ .._ _ ._._ . _.-._ _ _ ____ _ _ - - •__-- 100. p II II APB;,.. ,� ( I V I I ! 11 s. Ae7T aLEVArioN � ' �xfii�4 NA,r.�3,�itetZ r \ lr 44bD81� E3E\'ONb .r CC AT rom --- " 01c► v� {�osTSO l F � ("Lwow WAW) 1 1 I I NOKTN P-J_EVATlON Koslowski /Dowd Residence Playhouse—Elevations 18 Renwick Heights Road Ithaca, New York 14850 Prepared by: Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Scale: as shown Date: Sept. 23, 1993 1345 Macklenburg Road Ithaca, New York 14850 O , v4 TI 3 . J loom to 3 W eon '• Kam'° ` ' a. i•_ �- � � . �, u vc ICE Elm' Wz R. r° cX g V4 114 Al Alm U Vol Iwo �tm� J al 0 `� o x is �- K A r V n[ s Sq J IN lei IN j24 z 1� u 0,111 1 2 � 1 N $m % �. r LL St. .d � m w •Q 4 J N ,, IL VA %4 to = k VIA 11- 0J N J LL Ak qqr