Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (21) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 57.-1-33 147 Pine Tree Rd Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 147 Pine Tree Rd 57.-1-33 with no subdivision or readdressing. History: 2009 – Area Variance for existing garage - Approved 1993 – Height Variance for fence – Approved 2' ZBA Final 12-21-2009 Page 3 of 9 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character orto nearby properties given that these additional signs are either difficult to see or impossible to see from the public right-of-way, and 3. That the request is not substantial given the size of the facility, and 4. That there will not be adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and Niefer Nays: None APPEAL of Judy Mauk, requesting a variance from the Code of the Town of Ithaca, Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(c), to allow insufficient side yard setback for an existing garage at 147 Pine Tree Rd, Tax Parcel #57.-1-33, Medium Density Residential,Zone (MDR). - Steve Mauk, 147 Pine Tree Road: Mr. Mauk gave a brief overview stating that the garage was originally built in the 1950's with an addition added in 1984 with the same dimensions. When he went to re-roof the garage, it was discovered that there was an issue with the setbacks. Mr. Mauk was confused because a building permit was submitted, approved and a certificate of occupancy issued back in 1984 for the addition. Chairman Sigel explained that when the addition was added, the setback changed and sometimes these issues come up because they were missed. Chairman Sigel opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Frank Baldwin, 149 Pine Tree Road: Mr. Baldwin stated the following: "I appreciate that the town is being a bit more alert and monitoring what's going on. We never knew that construction was going to occur until it occurred. We lost our sun from the southern exposure of our house. Shortly before that, we built another room, a bedroom, which had a solar brick wall, which caught the sun to give us heat in the evening. We are not interested having the illegal construction torn down, we are interested in the process that-the town-goes-through-to approve construction,and specifically,-I-am-concerned--- --, - - - about a completely unrelated thing that is dangerous, and that's a slab of stone that was put on a bike trail near Tudor Park. There is a lot of loose stone on this bike trail. If a bike comes down and a guy hits his head on the corner of the stone bridge that comes to one person's house, he's gonna get killed. This is something that I'm concerned about mostly. How did this get approved? i;, ZBA Final 12-21-2009 Page 4 of 9 Blythe Baldwin: The whole addition thing is ancient history. I think the point we want to make is that the town needs to be vigilant with things that are happening, not notice them 25 years later. The reason that Frank is bringing up the whole bridge thing is this is the perfect thing [inaudible], people slip. The point we are trying to make is, the town needs to be vigilant as these things occur, and 25 years later, it's kind of silly, especially for Steve and Judy to be down here. We just want the town to be on top of things, that's all. • There was no one else wishing to address the board at this time and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bates asked the Baldwins for additional details and then stated that he would turn the picture and their contact information over the Director of Public Works. Adopted'Resolution ZBA Resolution No 2009—053 Area Variance Judy Mauk. 147 PIne,Tree Rd, TP# 57:1-33` December 21, 2009 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this board grant the appeal of Judy Mauk, requesting a variance from Town Code 270-71 to allow insufficient side yard setback for an existing garage at 147 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel 57-1-33 medium-density residential zone, with the following: CONDITIONS: 1. That the setback be no less than 11 '/a feet, and 2. that there be no enlargement of the non-conformity within the required 15 foot side yard setback. FINDINGS: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically; 1. The benefit which the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of being allowed ---- ------- ------ -to maintain-a-25-year-old-addition, cannot-be-achieved by any other feasible ---- - - means, other than this variance because anything else would require the addition to be removed, and 2. that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, given that the expansion has been in place for 25 year, and /) ZBA Final 12-21-2009 Page 5 of 9 3. that the request is not substantial being approximately 3 feet of the 15 foot required setback, and 4. that there will not be adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. that while the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and Niefer Nays: None Motion passed unanimously. APPEAL of Nicholas DeMuth. Mary Russell, Agent; requesting Area Variances from the Code of the Town of Ithaca. Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71 (e) to be allowed accessory buildings in the front yard. Property located at 101 Spruce Way. Tax Parcel #42:1-2.4. Medium Density Residential. (MDR). Nicholas DeMuth, 101 Spruce Way and Mary Russell, Attorney: Ms. Russell gave an overview of the appeal stating that because there is a NYSEG easement running across the rear yard of this property, it is difficult for the applicant to have accessory buildings in the rear yard. The easement is 30 foot wide with not only wires, but a gas line underneath. Ms. Russell had an updated survey map that she gave to the board which also showed a stockade fence that does not line up with the property line. Discussion followed. Mr. Bates pointed out that a building permit is not required for either of the structures because they are below the size threshold. The shed has been there for 10 years or so and the gazebo was erected in the past year. The board discussed several aspects of the appeal. Board Member Krantz stated that the purpose of the rule that you don't want to have accessory buildings in the front yard or side yard, is to keep the neighborhood attractive, and it seems to me that a small gazebo like this is really not making the neighborhood less attractive. If anything, it adds a little attractiveness to it. He added that all of the neighbors are supportive of the gazebo remaining. — - The-board then discussed whether-the-structures-were-moveable-and-itwasdetermined - - that they were, although it would be•quite expensive due to the size of the gazebo and the fence. - The board was concerned about setting precedent and discussed what kind of limitations could be placed on the variance such as a sunset or time limit to move the FILE ma DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZBA RESOLUTION NO12009—053 Area Variance CJ-udy Mau u 147 Pine Tree Rd Tax Parcel#57:1-33 ' December 21, 2009 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Jim Niefer. RESOLVED that this board grant the appeal of Judy Mauk, requesting a variance • from Town Code 270-71 to allow insufficient side yard setback for an existing garage at 147 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel 57-1-33 medium-density residential zone, with the following: CONDITIONS: 1. That the setback be no less than 11 1/2 feet, and 2. that there be no enlargement of the non-conformity within the required 15 foot side yard setback. FINDINGS: The benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Specifically; 1. The benefit which the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of being allowed to maintain a 25-year old addition, cannot be achieved by any other feasible means, other than this variance because anything else would require the addition to be removed, and ,2. that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, given that the expansion has been in place for 25 year, and 3. that the request is not substantial being approximately 3 feet of the 15 foot required setback, and 4. that there will not be adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. that while the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Sigel, Krantz, Ellsworth, Mountin and Niefer Nays: None Motion passed unanimously. a STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA: I, Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting the 21st day of December 2009. r 0 Deputy Town Clerk, Town of Ithaca - TOWN OF ITHACA � � 7, ,,r7r--) oy-si k- 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA,N.Y. 14850 ®� 5 2009 . 0 1 �3 1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 BUILDING • PiZONIN -73.17.83 I HIGHWAY(Roads,Parks&Trans,Water&Sewer)273-1656 TOWN 4r� FAX(607)273-1704 _J CODE OF Jrl� --- -- --a-- — -- EWFORC MENT Z of SUBMIT THIS ONLY AF®TER:g(�OAp py���pRa� BUILDING/SIGN Form: DETERMINATION /DENIAL FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF GOR (2) REFERRAL FROM PT AND LANNNING BOARD BASED UPON SITE PLAN OR SUBDIVISION REVIEW. ZBA Appearance Fee: $100 - -For Office-Use:Onl •;_, -`=: -- y - -�`Foc Office Use Only -, Property-islocatedwithin-oradjacentto:..:,• . Please check all that apply: :__ m Datelteceiv4::% •1 l:-5 69 X. Area Variance , ' CodnLy',,____ ..., _ - -� ' .- ,,A --t- - -Gashhor-Check No:=,0O•S 155 9 _Use Variance - A:-- :- - -::Zoning:Disti cr., J i D _ -_ 155 q Sign Variance CEA " _ - : ' - - - - Applicable'Section(s)of Town Code: - Sprinkler Variance . - -- Forest.H -_ " " .- •�•:- ' _ -= . , Specialome:Historic_District = -,__ t2o it :-fit _ 7 Approval _ `' _``-' -. - -- - - -:-�y 7- � �:=�=.�. `.State.Pgr-iiitiotlier;munici - - - --- - The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to Corrcc-+ 5-e+ 194c.k i55,ae at 14 1 R:n e. Tree RD. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. S7- ) - 33 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows(please attach any additional sheets as necessary): Xpcots o.-. n-c ac1:-t•Zonq ) 1;JiI Space. Gj,oVe garaSQ s G.4dej i,, 19eA . Per,,,,,,.i' w0.S 7SSNc col ►nSQ2c—t'�ort w,e(Jre cieme. 'CIA 4 C.D. leas . \SSN,e A . .Prope.r S-e-- 1etc k 1 ,cos ✓e VEr- a c Jrgs-s¢c a Crux i Se+ ba< k ;s 12 '. By filing this application,I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: V k � ,v\% 1 Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: 4 / Ail/AA/0A earls,. Date: //`-r` 0 9 Print Name Here: S t'e V€ rel a v►k ----SV\)\ Th%)`(.__ Home/Cell Telephone Number: Z 1 " 3-7 7 g Work Telephone Number NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will expire. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 4-12-08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE CRITERIA. FORM - (to be completed by Applicant) Applicant: -Pa 1, , Pet q,• Co Ast-r'Ac.+t a_ Address of Property Concerning Appeal: 11+`1 9 ^Q. Tree. TZP Tax Map No.: S 1 -1— .73 TEST:No area variance will be granted without a 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 No4 Reasons: 2. Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No x_ Reasons: 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial: Yes No Reasons: 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?: Yes No X Reasons: 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes b! No Reasons: Z?o? ire rM;-k an`.1 ;ns a�;oY, u w 4S ea �e,d �2rr1�`� fi de s n+ S �� g ,-o u e l bK+ -tb,,e Se+ ba c t< mee--r roper S-e+ .6gcK. P Revised 4-12-08 -.....,,,,, • O8 hO 'S'7.2 'V;PO'N r = . r 8 O/.JVMON 77VDS N ��c7�i7f; . • ,S8 a3!f/d1�'d c86/r8 Alnr +� ,:-.... = •:: /413N z f t.�-. . ,► '0) SN/irJW01.'r/.96�H1./ .1O NµQl • ', -.:;f r?'i�i`.. i•Ziv - • • O� 3��1 3N/e L h/ ;as 0o ./ (Se/e-LS'S) Z£-/-Gs d �nns 6y�� /� S VS/ $ / 'Y V1c� - N r � = 0•` rci, . nu of j, 05-z --:M,S/S' lV • ' G) �r~ d'E � D1. i R f. r N• 0 1 k 3 (Lir . :-) 1 . c ,-,1 a kt; S I . n,X II G •cr= C In. *'cl, 1 .. i t A \ _ 7 N/7 gMQ a . 8� i "3 .1a p~L'k APS7�--Y b/N�73H 48 'M s27aJdi"-, 2 .1/0 son•a 7 - ,>� s J . k! > f g<� c 33 t/dd9 9n/LQ E '.\ X 7�k I c Li i • N7C1A4 f r� '� �°I. •r OOHS ,' \ N rN (>d.r WI O.SZ ---•-- S • N N h .. • (sit-/8 . • AE -/-cs 7 7(',Nadari -6ci) fi 7 6J tv/M a 7b'9 J J W-i A7& 4 ••Z/r '.› N Ndz/d „VN 4 y 0 • P --.- �.."'..M.-.�....,- ' D I i - fr -vf 4.., ate+• 1. ..i.•.ii..r `. .f -� _yr, + _ , 0,144: ' ; 1.- ‘44.1 Air -4: - ,,--v..:,,z14„,, = .. 1 r - `ii * ice 41k,b ill 4 y.,* ` W-sd-,„ t. IY. _ • fr ihkr. I _ III ! I _ +afi-. °4t. AO 1l 1 ilA l 1 y a- I .` Skt r�I -..` 4'F P n 4/ Tree l id.r. !� h . ll• , lit ., : - :, 1, "4- ,7 w a: .. i Jr Si I OFF`W ma�yy 1; �Y+ I's # 101 III 3. , fir{: }:' 'l '1t .. ..-bi h )�3 r.i - - •-� • t 1 �4 Ill I - A " iit;. f I is do New York f .. • x , . 42 2 44,1 f" N, 76 27143,664' afl 't A FRIED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Data ) 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1993 C1© t:nc c) I [Am.A THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE BEFORE THE BOARD ON NOVEMBER 10, 1993: APPEAL OF STEVEN MAUK, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 13, SECTION 65, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF 7 FEET 6 INCHES + (MAXIMUM 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, 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 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, WHEREAS 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 WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 + FEET (30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED) AT 221 SAND BANK ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 35-2-12, 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 FARMS HORSE TRAINING FACILITY AT 340 WARREN ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 68-1-2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. SHOULD AN INTERPRETATION BE MADE THAT FINDS THE OPERATION IN VIOLATION OF SAID- ORDINANCE, THE APPELLANTS THEN REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V, SECTION 19, PARA- GRAPH 6, TO BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT A RIDING ACADEMY AND A FACILITY TO BOARD AND TRAIN HORSES. ADJOURNED TO JANUARY 12, 1994. - I ' HW) TOWN Of ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Date '1 1 1 4 I n, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • NOVEMBER 10, 1993 Clerk Tho IC'44 war Austen, Harry Ellsworth, Robert J. Hines, Edward King, Pete Scala, Town Attorney John C. Barney, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost. OTHERS: Amy Nettleton, Mariette Geldenhuys, Gary and Donna Duffy, Jody Kessler, Daniel Tourance, Blythe Baldwin, Betty and Larry Fabbroni, Douglas Finch. Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. and stated that all posting, publication, and notification of the public hearings were completed and are in order. The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF STEVEN MAUK, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE 13, SECTION 65, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A FENCE WITH A HEIGHT OF 7 IN ET 6 INCHES + (MAXIMUM 6 FEET HEIGHT PERMITTED) AT 147 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 57-1-33, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-15. THE FENCE WILL1BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY'S REAR YARD AND WILL RUN ALONG THE SIDE LOT LINES. Douglas Finch introduced himself to the Board as being the contractor for the Mauks and representing them at this meeting. Mr. Finch asked the Board to look at the sheet with the property plan which shows the deck in the dotted outline. He said that the deck is running approximately from the Baldwin property line, about 2 feet inside the Mauk/Baldwin boundary, approximately 60 feet attached to the house, all the way down and running approximately 25 feet from the Shefter property line. He said the deck is approximately 18 feet wide. He continued that there is a fence on either end of the deck. Mr. Finch said the variance is needed on the Baldwin side because the deck itself is 16 inches off the ground and at 6 feet, the fence would be pretty much useless for what it was designed for. He said the fence on the Shefter property is at a total height of 6 feet. An architectural detail has been asked to be put on that end of the fence which is in the rough sketch. According to Mr. Finch, this sketch shows both views and the top rail, a 2 X 4 laid horizontally, is the detail. Chairman Austen asked the distance to the top of the board fence, and Mr. Finch said that it was 6 feet. He said that on the Shefter side it is 6 feet and on the Baldwin side it would be approximately 7 foot, 6 inches. Chairman Austen then said then the top rail is another foot or so, and Mr. Frost indicated that it was about 10 inches. Mr. King asked if the ornamentation increased the height of the fence on the Shefter side about 10 inches, and Mr. Finch said he would guess that technically it does. Mr. Finch said that it was his opinion that it does. Mr. Frost said he does not typically count the supporting posts as the height, but he does count anything ornamental to the height. Mr. Finch said they have spoken to both of the neighbors and they seem to be in agreement with the plan as dram in the rough sketches before the Board. Mr. Hines asked the meaning of the last paragraph of the Shefter letter, and Mr. Finch said that the yards extend from the back of the house 250 feet from the road, probably 150 feet from the back of the house, with the grade going level out from the house for about 18-to-20 feet and then rises 3 feet and then goes back to the rear Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1993 property boundary and in•the sketch which says view towards Shefter you can see the fence climbing the grade. He continued that past that point there is a wire fence which keeps the two yards separate. He said that it is his belief that they did not want the board fence to continue the rest of the way up the yard from the top of the short grade, all the way to the rear boundary, thus completely blocking the yards apart. Therefore, to comply with them, the Mauks would be limiting the length of the fence, basically ending where it shows in the drawing marked "View Towards Shefter." Mr. Finch said that he also believes that the Shefters would not like any fence to be built there in the future and that the Mauks do not have a problem with this. Mr. King wanted to know how far, on the north line, would the fence be built. He wanted to know if it would be going clear to the east line of the property on the Baldwins' side, and Mr. Finch said that the fence ends approximately the same distance from the house as the Shefter side. Mr. Finch said the fence climbs the grade, which is approximately 20 feet from the house, which would add another 8 feet to the top of the grade. Since Mr. King had nothing that indicated the grade to him, he asked Mr. Finch the length of the fence in linear feet. Mr. Finch said that, on the Baldwin side, coming off the face of the house, the length of the fence would be approxi- mately 24 feet, ending behind the shrubbery (roughly drawn in the sketch) . He said that the shrubbery is approximately at the top of the short increase in grade. Discussion took place as to where the wood fence would end, as shown in the pictures. Mr. King wanted to know if there was any intent to extend the fence easterly from what he saw in the picture, and Mr. Finch said there was no such intent. Mr. King asked that, on the south side, would the fence be the same way to which Mr. Finch answered that it would because they are approximately the same length. Mr. Finch explained the approximate 3 foot grade and how it runs straight across the yard with both fences ending at the top of the grade. Chairman Austen wanted an indication as to where the fence would run which 1fr. Finch clarified with the use of the photographs. Mr. Finch explained to Mr. King and Chairman Austen how the fences would join into the house. Attorney-Barney stated that it appeared that the south line was a little longer, and 11r. Finch said the drawing was pretty rough and not to scale. Attorney Barney said the view, however, shows three panels on the Baldwin side and four panels on the Shefter side. Mr. Finch explained the location of the house on the lot in that the east face of the house is not parallel to the rear property line. Chairman Austen read the September 3, 1993 letter from Frank and Blythe C. Baldwin into the record. Chairman Austen then read the September 24, 1993 letter from Martin and Susan H. Shefter into the record. Chairman Austen opened the public hearing. Blythe Baldwin of 149 Pine Tree Road asked to speak on this matter. Mrs. Baldwin stated that the Baldwins are perfectly happy with what is being built, with the concern that the variance be limited to what is already built. She reiterated her letter that the Baldwins want the top of the fence to remain horizontal, the way it now is. She continued that her fear is that if the variance is not carefully worded, it might give some future property owner the right to have a seven foot, six inch fence going up the hill and all around the periphery of the property. She said that, as it is now, the top part of the fence is seven feet, six inches and that as the hill climbs, the top of the fence remains horizontal, so that in the back of the yard, the fence is lower. She further stated that, as the contractor said, the fence ends 24 feet away from the house which is just fine, but if the Board does not word the variance carefully, it could give some future owner of 147 Pine Tree Road the right to build a seven foot, six inch fence Town of Ithaca - 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1993 • all around which, according to Mrs. Baldwin will make the property look like a barracks or some kind of a correctional facility. Therefore, the Baldwins do not want that, and thus the Baldwins do not want to have a loophole for the future. Chairman Austen asked if the fence on her side was completed to which Mrs. Baldwin said that it was and that the Baldwins are perfectly happy with it. With no one else wishing to address the Board, Chairman Austen closed the public hearing. Chairman Austen read the November 4, 1993 letter from James Hanson, Jr., Commissioner of the Tompkins County Planning Department into the record. Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Edward King. RESOLVED, that a negative determination of environmental significance be made based on the Environmental Assessment form by Louise Raimondo on November 1, 1993 and based on the information submitted with this application. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Hines, King, Scala, Ellsworth, Austen. NAYS - None. The motion carried unanimously. MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Robert Hines. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the appellant, Steven Mauk, a variance from the 6 feet height limitation of a fence, permitting the construction and continuance on the property at 147 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57-1-33, Residence District R-15, with the following conditions and finding: 1) That the fence is approximately 7 feet, 10 inches above grade on the north property line, with the 10 inches being to accommodate the trim or decoration along the top of the fence. 2) That the fence is to extend no more than three panels, or 24 feet, easterly from a line which would be in line with the east/easterly or back wall of the two-car garage on the property and permitting that fence to close and connect with the garage. 3) That, on the south line, the fence will exceed no more than 7 feet, 10 inches, with the 10 inches in each case being to accommodate the trim or decoration along the top of the fence. 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 wall 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. 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 + MEET (15 YEET 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, 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. Ms. Nettleton stated that they want to build a playhouse for their son at their home. Ms. 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. Ms. Nettleton stated that the whole area is pretty well wooded with mature evergreens and other shade trees which provide some screening amongst the properties. Ms. 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. Ms. 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 20 feet, continuing to drop dorm to the houses that front on Lake Street. Ms. 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 Town of Ithaca - 5 Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1993 of the setting. Ms. 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 down the grade to the playhouse below. Ms. 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, Ms. Nettleton feels that they allow to get the playhouse close to the house and provide a way down into the woods. . Ms. 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. Ms. Nettleton said that it will be only looking from the woods that one will see the high corner. Mr. Scala asked Ms. Nettleton if the playhouse would be up on posts without any footings. Ms. Nettleton said the posts are the footings. Mr. Scala followed that the playhouse would just be up on "stilts", and Ms. 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 down to lower the playhouse to the foundation wall. 1-is. 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. Ms. Nettleton asked if the Chairman was asking if they lower 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 why is the playhouse not closer to the house, and why does the playhouse have to be on that side of the retaining wall? Ms. 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. Ms. Nettleton stated that the playhouse would then be jammed or pushed up tightly against the house. Mr. Scala said that the appellants wanted the playhouse close to the house. Ms. Nettleton said that the appellants also wanted passage through and circulation around the house. Mr. 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. Ms. 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 down in the ravine and the west disappears. He continued that the house adjacent to this property, south of it, is quite a distance south. Ms. 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 Ms. Nettleton the approximate distance from the south - TOWN-OF ITHACA - _ . ' ',TEE: $80.00' -,` • ' 126 East Seneca Street, - RECEIVED: _-_q J 1 G J q 3 Ithaca, New York 14850 _ _ , '., CASH ( ) . (607) 273-1783 " . , - ,. 'CHECK. . ( 773 ) . APPEAL ' ' - • . . ' ZONING: _ • . to the , Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only '. 'and the Zoning Board of Appeals1�(��� , of• the ' ' . • .` , Town of -Ithaca, New York ' Having been denied permission to:. .Ex C.EEZ) b O - 4e_, c I'1 3L - , . , . _ . . ,- __ . . , at J 7Li PII'Je T 'Roc) , ' , Town of Ithaca-Tax k.J �!Parcel No. - 1 33 , .. as shown on-the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting ,documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s). 13 '' -, Section(s) +a, of the Town-of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully, submits ,this Appeal from such denial .and,' in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the •Zoning Ordinance would, impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: ' n ' '(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary: ) A - Ce -o.i- 'only" 4.4. o A .4.4. . Fm'Ak- Ball Wilt di Jt' o o u r w ra wt u/1 oAl y be f !a a6ov+e CitCk -levels-L deSu e. -Eo 4v,1d 6 - avvi 7EcK -le've./ . - This -Ceance. io -fie Ada.t►�isf-heAvy veee-' Ai (see/44014,so sI I) e-�4 74 prnlaer-Wes only asahiti rt v�.c►t, -r ,8 dims situ-Pe ,1,r�ee. 40,4,v e P lam. in tort-65 • T4e & J'4. ce he 1 - vi 1 104 '' 6 . riidc4v-4Ef T 00 SH,Efrr- Si, 614a1K l_ralo.) Se,'e .a c c.. a `141 o na-Ek tj , 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. - -9/ /- Signature of 0 Al- 3 '- ; caner/Appellant: i' . : - Date: ' --Signature of Appellant/Agent: s ' 'G0 , - .- � = 7 - ' " ' Date: . - Hole,Telephone Number:4 77 3/ 79' - Work Telephone Number: oZ 74"',3ZZ=3 , .NOTE: : , If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not c_om_mence. within/ - ' - - 1 R innnth a_ the 'sari anae r.i 1.1 cavrni.rp_ ,`-.,... . ,,. ., �i. / 5 , .• ,.•'' , •„,,..$ - "'... v , . •- ..--., _ , ......., 4 "''.., •••••••• •i . ,-, ..ti'' ‘;e• .;',.' ........, a..= . . .-.., ,..,, . -7; ,.e- . tt '-7-1 .• . ..-., `a .. -, ., i = C:. . ........ • -41 1=',... . •. - '? ' -.I- - ".... ' .,` •• ' !.,-... . .., . ....,: ...... „ . ;ar,- '',.'• .. , . ::, ..,.. t, ..,. ..... '7 Arr ),...or 7.... .... r.;. ' t•-• t r': V • .4',.. .•-' '-:' -.•"- ..''f • . ._ ,f• .., ... t,... .• s=, ..,` , . 4 , -5' 5 j.•• 14,..i ..)•,`" ''' •I . ,,, ,4— e.''- . -,- ••," 1.1. . ...-:-..., .."---' ''.' ". ,.....-••••," -. ,'If ; .— ..--, •-' „r -"- ''''' ',' -,,, A - Ilt i'' ,, , VI.,r- 1 rr '.-/Irrr •Zr,'' ..t.... I: '' c;„'''' --• x;' .... ... t., :,-,. " ' _..4.•,' , .-—; �1 r • *The main purpose of building this fence is privacy, both visual and auditory. With the construction or additions over the years to both the Baldwin and Mauk properties, the two houses have become quite close. The Baldwins bedroom is,in fact,very close to the proposed fence. Our deck will undoubtedly allow us to spend more time outside, creating a higher noise level between the two properties. Since the deck is approximately 14 inches from grade level, a 6 foot fence would become only about 41 feet above the deck. Therefore a 6 root structure would allow us to view over the fence into the Baldwin property and sound would be carrying over the fence. A 6 fence would serve little of the intended purpose of visual and auditory privacy. By building the fence 6 feet above deck height, this problem would be solved. The Baidwins have submitted a letter to show their approval of the design and fence height. The plan for a fence on the Shelter side would be identical, except that the fence would only need to be 6 feet from grade, since the deck would not extend to that side. On both fences, however, we envision an architectural detail piece at a 10-12 inch height above the top of the fence boards. This detail piece, which would parallel the top of the fence and run the full length, would add a finishing touch to an otherwise simple design. It should be state that the space from the top of the fence to the bottom of this architectural detail piece would be open. The Shelters have submitted a letter to show their approval of the design and fence height on their side,as well. I think that the design and height of the fences are crucial to our deck plan. Both sets of neighbors have been consulted extensively during the planning. The original design has been altered several times to adapt suggestions of these neighbors into our plan. The exceptions to the six-foot fence height limit are logical,reasonable,necessary, and made with the approval of the bordering property owners. I ask that you grant this appeal and thank you for your consideration of this matter. • . _ _ _ _'j I F _ _:j. - -1` -- - _- 1 I. -_._ - T- ' -'t- - - -17 -- - - - All - -- - - '1 ±' - I -- _ - T'-�+_ -'`-r 11 1 -:{'•~tit=,__ - - it_^:. .=_r_ r Y- _T PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN: 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimensions and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addition(s). a. Road, 5. Naves of neighbors who bound lot. b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and nurber. 3. North arrow. 8. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. S -C '>7�7 �9-C//C,a S w2VE-Y A4)44" r Se 5.�,,r,,re w� r a.. +C , Ace de �`1ro w�► ' 6=12- iv►c .e.5 i c;, i --h,�.;�. , I A-�K p v'l?p r o 4 ho-{ s id&s . j . s 8 i i Signature of Owner/Appel 5,1461.91.k. _lr -ppel`IVant: '`•�: Date:'' a/ / Signature of Appellant/Agent: -D.).- -? _ _,. - -r-•--J - Date: _- •_ : , < r-_,- .-- .. _ ;'ai-. " _ ;' .... .. + Atg-GG'&......_-,..._.._;,,. ::.,__..... ,---;r', i,Wt..>.+-:.,....,,:k _. s �1z-x..: A , b _-. .._, • r • (r� ~ �. 9 SL• c i ; ( rjOh 1 t ` �2 v ( ft 'LI NEADwQEt Wile /7.j?3 N#r C. JR. g i z rHE C. 6At 01Vin/ 1 6'/- 7(05) t'-4* V ORA0N ��� — ` �_`�Y'�T`��l�vl�j _ Ir. ��r G ,c`ER� • \'<.\-\\ . DRiv� cA Aa� r D. - l ' -'� `�\ I i e • 1 � Oesliogy ) 1)cceF:,) I L An/DS O f Q C i FRAME 57-y-33 (336-293) �;• �wEtc//v4 ST-�V T od cK •' , ; it I v.) : - - - - ± ,Itl nhk •• • 115 _. I •f . . _ C �t , _ . .., . ..„,„„,.......,_ . 4./ : . i • .... . 2-5- v' (1,-(),--. I ....0 .6..,_ 0 `�a`S0l �1 �C►ACL , , �y I _ ® — N F MAiPT/N A. 3' SU,SAN /f SNf FFEF� . s�-�-sz s -2•�s) SURVEY MAP ••4s�E 0 kE ''•. 0 ADw(LL rNc yT f +....• • To WV OF /TH4CA,70M1f ,NS CO, _ '�I NEW YORK , JULY 88/983 PP,EMRfI 8Y , • ' ;. a, ; SCIA E HOYYARD R. SC�r''v.1 o vi N•YS.PE. a-i•s. 0V37A n t� • • 1/T1 c i N\-\\\\ , .'..- _- - ,,. .,,,.. ,...,/ ., ipows.--.,_....na . _.-.-'_.. '1- ' -- ` ,.. ` - - ./ ,.,- _. ,-- =�1 � ' //^tee' ` c_101001 .._ /� i - ^ ---,-......,• Li j, ,,.. ...,,,„ t ,.. , ,. 'N ' , ',/ , •‘,4 ' " . h. :.'i. , , ,, - I /I . , :, I 1 1! -,A it ' j - f . . i/ti. i1....fra-hj-_-allS _f_411.7.._c_n_ 17,_,.:_‘'._,._'7,-"_./--) -_.-_:___;:,...i._i ..,;(v4. / ;. , 1. \, l , ;-= \ �aa 1 r '- yl ',,\-- •-------,\:\, \\..„2c--\11- 4:-_,----1,-- - 1 .-1, -I .--.. i 1 -. t , ".•.., "I--1`.: �`\ 1 ! `- I. - - // 1 I 1 i ' ( t 1 f . l� :� =j I !l J Rev. 10/90 l. I Town Assigned Project ID Number I • Tovn of Ithaca Environmental-Review . ' SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .FORM - For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Tovn of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY _ PART I — Project information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) - 1. Applicant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: - STJiJ M4 • Dec-k 4- ce s 3. Precise Location(Street Address and Road Intersections,prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): • 141 . P,t' `T?e - RP . , E-r 4r,•4- , Ape- ,Parcel Number: 5 7- I-33 4. Is Proposed Action: El NEW El EXPANSION Q MODIFICATION/ALTE.RATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other I jec a.4reievantitems) . ; aced de se-ri ivo.K -a.vl A cQo w wte.r4S ' " i i 1 . 1 (Attach separate sheets) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) A $m*47 por<`r ,v of propvtii lwm4 o►ly" or ceante , 6. Amount of Land Affected: initially (0-5 yrs) Acres' (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs)" Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently? 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? = _ YES E NO El If no, describe conflict briefly: , f • . N. 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: j ?' Public Road? YES El NO Y3 Public Water? YES Q NO 1:Yr ' Public Sewer? YES 0 -NO Q 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? 1N Residential 0 Commercial " Q Industrial ['Agriculture 0 Park/Forest/Open Space Q Other . Please describe: , r 1 1.-Does proposed action involve ea ermit,approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal,State,Local)? YES NO K If yes,list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of-the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO g i if yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. , . 1 I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE iS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): : STi5\/E,L) �/4 4K . - - - j Signature: Wad,,t5.„- Date': 9/624q3 1 PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? YES NO X If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any. C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached. C2- Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: See attached. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: See attached. C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: - See attached. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: See attached. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl - 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 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 (ie. 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 termination. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Pre er's Signature (If different from Responsible Officer) Edward Austen, Chairman N Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date: //tt/• /©(- /9Y-7 Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II - Environmental Assessment Steven Mauk 147 Pine Tree Road Variance to Exceed 6 Foot Fence Height A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following: Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing.traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? None anticipated. Adjacent residences may experience a reduction in noise levels from the Mauk residence due to the addition of the solid wood fence. C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources,- or community or neighborhood character? The fence is constructed_of quality wood, identical on both sides, and should,enhance the quality of life on both the Mauk=and neighboring properties. The fence is intended to screen a new deck area adjacent to the house from adjacent properties, and will not extend to the rear property line, thus maintaining the open character of the rear yards. C3. Vegetation or fauna,-fish, shellfish-or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated. C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? None anticipated. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Cl-05? None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D. .Is there, or is:there likely to be, controversy related to.potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. The property owners on both neighboring properties have submitted documentation stating that they have no objection to the proposed fence. 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 RECEIVED Tompkins Co n y NOV 5.1993 DEPART - PLANNING TOWN OF ITHACA ¢aii E� Go t str t BUILDING ZONING " �"' Ithaca,New 1�orlt 14// James W.Hanson,Jr. Telephone(607)274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX(607)274-5578 November 4, 1993 Mr. Andy Frost Town of Ithaca 126 E. Seneca S tr eet - Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Exceed 6 foot fence height: 147 Pine Tree Rd. Dear Mr.Frost: • This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to§239 -1 and-m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on'intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, çzn- James Hanson, Jr. Commissioner of Planning R ti Recycled paper -ainzocrs= INVESTIGATION Date: r1 1 `1 ) q3 _ ,s1 rl Owner/Defendant: e_ to c\ CC)1 a u. Address of Owner/Defendant: 1yr-1 e e._ • Address of Property (if different) : If there is a Complainant:- Name: E)Lj+fl9 f?cutr Address: y-1 9f1Q TC ee - Telephone Number: o-7• OF COMPLAINT: �1 -Ce C`�,T 4 \ \C�AE ��G� '� _ - • Complainant Notified: 2-6 93 S(Z'okx_. + c9-wi`_e-1/ RESULTS/ACTION/DATES: ) z-, \93 _c_ ,+vt _+ Y Pen,'" l 17 I n•w"�• 'a-?�+- �..-S aJl ve�.. Q -7( Zg 0t9 1c9 • J 2-5 53 e-v Por4 ` t. : 'nspector:- Date: "7 2 9 3 � • r7-. lit:•.a'. . • • !! „ ,II I 11 -- I I 1 I • — _ II I! } ,i `„ i-17 v c:,.s.-►„; w 1 `":—T �K -eir +7•!•C,,,.. i ....r.4.-4..'";=. .'. ,�-• `-r i I ,�� '� ;'a;i V" k 01~� .'i ,- ,i;:t.t1, ski. :" ft. 'r-e._.-" { �'L ..L. ,a k„4X7.0 w ..��,'. r.,,v-+z~ tit 7.•a �. ,rr r may .„ - -_,• _ " 41kt:L � 7 ' y• .7w • tid.•�t ,I .s''Tc .c.--T.,S,• •_ s _ I ' • 1 <?�' H`;t .`,iytA .Af L�.„ Zrv� � u 4Y' i_' I „ C- t �'1` 'r A_,^.. z yh �wr,41..yrry : Py tij L.'�t�y'�n7' •T'. .y,`1"..i -'-r" R ii•` s;s br' M1M t+ �•c.�w�`6"."t,.-•r` `a*. ' ' 't ii'.c^ .- }`a.-':'l ' i u ; T 4�4s w�f.. '-' >• ''';�.-.'' -a_. ,r I ` ; +`l I ' ' ht'' 1 -�, '..,:. -0-.. • --.."'""•.." --..) Fr r ref II'°-4••S 1-4 1 • f�= I �N �D� • f = r f: - ' vi f Y �k ': I� j� u ' j !=,, .,,.,, _. IL ; . .•.` Fr jV W la / _,It.,„ .,--,----,-.1. 1 4,...Nisk.- , - ......--..koweior,,,.. fr.,:. 74 ?"-/OV-1 . ck-174.:D ci _,,,,, ,7-74. ,- itim„......,..1 ..„.,,, . Viii,x. ' '_..„j ydi, ,,,, ;.\-\,,c . i.., il4tVi‘ ' "'=- -10'-'''..' i • `-.4, - -- ►I' '�'®�l,� ': per /�Jy' �, P. 1 �'�'A. ,lor� } !" • I i � * A- ram,. ` nrr 4 - f' .-.-_ V. -� -• 6�-` - �.» - t '' fir — -- - - - -_ - _ _ , 111 ` 4tp,' f� t f;yn ' 4 f''+ {'�—d T�' \ r.rAn�r_•_ _---��I \ y��g �j4.d"1' tilj ) ' '-a y. i --- T-04 1y,�,�y- M Y • Ir..;} A ern { I I I - •rrI-- - a_- 3 --- - - - - 1 - I ' 11 zb-01 --11 W2 - V?—z(-W3 -'DNl�Z 1 - `j(n3W Sara-4 5 - —