Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Use Variance 6/15/1994 t „ FILED - TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 1994 Data 71 0 1 3 1 / f `� ClerkfQ c H(?t CA* The following appeals were heard by the Board on June 15, 1994: APPEAL of the Country Club of Ithaca, Owner/Appellant, Neal Ryan, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 20 of the --Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a building height of 24 ± feet (15 feet maximum height permitted) at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.- 68-1-1.2, Residence District R-30. GRANTED. APPEAL of Daniel Yanarella, Owner/Appellant, David Kingsbury, Agent,: requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 12 of- the Town of; Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to modify a previously approved variance (granted on September 20, 1984) with the addition of a 4 foot x 14 foot storage area to an existing pottery workshop and to allow for a non resident, part-time employee at_ 137 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nb. 57-1-29, Residence District R-15. The previously approved variance allowed for a pottery workshop with a floor area of 308 square feet (200 square feet maximum area allowed) and did not allow for a non- resident employee. GRANTED WITH. CONDITIONS. • i - - Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 The second appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL of Daniel Yanarella, Owner/Appellant, David Kingsbury, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 12 of -the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to modify a previously approved - variance (granted on- September 20, 1984) with the addition of a 4 -foot x 16 foot storage area to an existing pottery workshop and to allow- for a non resident, part-time employee at 137 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Max Parcel No. 57-1-29, Residence District R-15. The previously approved variance allowed for a pottery workshop with a floor area of 308 square feet (200 square feet maximum area allowed)- and did not allow for a non-resident employee•. Mr. Hines asked if the Board could get some explanation of the relationship between the owner of the property and the agent, and Mr. Kingsbury stated Mr. Yanarella is his father-in-law. Chairman Austen said the applicant was looking for a 4' by 16' storage area and asked Mr. Kingsbury to tell the Board why it was needed. Mr. Kingsbury said he makes his living by making pottery and, in his present struc- ture which is 16 X 22 feet (smaller than the boardroom where the meeting is being held) , he has a number of•• pieces in process and many of them are wet. He makes pieces of pottery on the wheel and they have to dry in a very controlled fashion so that they don't warp or crack. In• this one open room with one heat source (which is propane) , Mr. Kingsbury said it is often difficult for him to dry things slow enough and in a controlled enough fashion. Basically, the addition would be filled with shelves so that pots can be put in there and the temperature and air flow around them can be controlled (Mr. Kingsbury said, in college, they called- it a wet room or a _ damp room) . On the floor, he would store all of his clay which he gets in 50' pound boxes. As it is now, they have to be stored under tables and under counters and it would just facilitate moving around in his studio a little bit better if he could store the clay and pots in process in the addition. Chairman Austen asked Mr. Kingsbury if he would control the environment in that room differently than in the work area and Mr. Kingsbury said yes, because it' wouldn't be exposed directly to the one heat source he has and he would be able to either 'close it off or open it and regulate the temperature as he needs to. Mr. Scala asked if these were electric or gas fired or something else and Mr. Kingsbury said the first firing is electric (he has a small electric kiln) -- that's called the visc fire, and then the second firing is gas. - Mr. Frost said access to the stairs is actually through the existing space now and it's not like you would go outside through the back and Mr. Kingsbury said that was right. Mr. Ellsworth wanted to make sure he was- reading the 1984 history of this site properly (from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals meeting minutes dated September 20, 1984) . Mr. Ellsworth said on September 20', 1984, there was an appeal by Mr. Kingsbury for a building permit for the construction of a pottery workshop and kiln which was denied and asked if that was correct, then Mr. Frost said it was actually granted an approval: Mr. Ellsworth asked if it was granted later on as what he was reading from stated it was denied, and Attorney Barney said what he was look- ing at was the notice of the Zoning Officer. Mr. Frost said the minutes noted above should indicate approval (Reference: Page 15 of the above- meeting minutes dated September 20, 1984) . - Mr. Scala asked if the small electric kiln was 220 volts and Mr. Kingsbury replied yes. Mr. Scala said like a kitchen oven, and Mr. Kingsbury said yes. 9 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 Chairman Austen said, in his application, Mr. Kingsbury also talked about an additional person he would like to have to work with and asked if this person would also be making pottery. Mr. Kingsbury replied, she is experienced in making pottery but she would do a mixture of things: she would help him clean in the studio and help glaze, and she knows all the facets of it because she has worked for other potteries. Mr. Kingsbury also said it would be a maximum of five hours per week. Mr. King asked Mr. Kingsbury if he lived on this property and if it is a single family home, and Mr. Kingsbury replied yes to both questions and said his wife and (1) 11-year old girl live with him. Mr. Scala asked where the pottery is sold and Mr. Kingsbury said mostly within a 50-mile radius. Mr. Scala asked if it was sold from the house or downtown or where and Mr. Kingsbury said people do stop at his house, but he usually makes a point of saying he is not allowed to sell off the property. Mr. Ellsworth told Mr. Kingsbury that he lives around the corner at 152 Honness Lane. Mr. Ellsworth said he walked up there but didn't go on the property because they have a dog who acted as if he wasn't welcome; however, he could see the display area very clearly and there is a whole wall of shelves (and maybe two walls, but he could see one wall very clearly) in an open carport with a roof and open ends. Mr. Ellsworth asked if this is Mr. Kingsbury's display area, and Mr. Kingsbury said that is like his warehouse and he needs to know what stock he has and that is his packing area and also where he ships from. Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Kingsbury if peo- ple went there to view his goods so they could go somewhere else to buy them and Mr. Kingsbury said, occasionally, people do come there but not at his invitation and he does not advertise. Mr. Ellsworth asked what he meant by occasionally and Mr. Kingsbury replied that he might have someone show up once a week. Mr. Scala asked if he sold the pottery downtown somewhere and Mr. Kingsbury replied that he is at a cooperative called Handwork. Mr. King said he didn't under- stand and asked Mr. Kingsbury where he sells and Mr. Kingsbury said mostly two places; the Ithaca Farmers Market, and a cooperative called Handwork (it's a craft cooperative and ' they have a store front downtown) . Mr. King asked where that was located and Mr. Kingsbury said it's right on the corner of State and Cayuga Streets, next to Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. Mr. Ellsworth asked, if one of the neighbors came and wanted to buy something from his packing area, would he sell to them and Mr. Kingsbury replied yes, he would. Unless ordered not to sell to neighbors, Mr. Kingsbury said (to be honest) he has in the past. Mr. Ellsworth said to Mr. Kingsbury, these "few" that come to your packing area, you would sell to them whoever they are (whether neighbors or otherwise) , and Mr. Kingsbury said yes. Mr. Scala asked if Mr. Kingsbury taught there, too, and Mr. Kingsbury replied that he does teach one of the neighbors eleven year old girl. Mr. Scala then asked if it was a regular school program to which Mr. Kingsbury replied no, but he was actually also teaching a fifty-seven year old woman from across the street. Chairman Austen read the letter from the Town Planner, Jonathan Kanter, dated June 10, 1994 (prior to reading the letter, Mr. Frost had requested that Mr. Kingsbury be allowed to read the letter as he had not known of its contents prior to the meeting) . Chairman Austen then opened the public hearing and invited Shirley Raffensperger to speak. 1 10 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 Shirley Raffensperger stated that she is representing her husband, Ed, and her- self at the meeting and that they resided at 139 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, New York, next door to the Kingsbury's. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she was really not attending the meeting to speak either for or against the request to modify the spe- - cial permit given to Mr. Kingsbury in 1984. She said her comments were not about whether or not they liked the ' Kingsbury's, because they do; or whether they are pleasant neighbors, -and they are; but to request that the Zoning Board of Appeals make their decision based on New York State and Town of Ithaca laws, ordinances, standards, criteria, and so forth and to apply them in an objective fashion consider- ing the incremental impact of the buildings and their use in relation to the intent of the zoning ordinance. Mrs. Raffensperger said she believed whether they, or any other neighbor, sup- port or object to the requested changes is far less pertinent than the standards the Zoning Board is required to apply to any such request. She said none of those involved will continue forever to own -the affected parcels of land and their buildings, but the- land use regulations of the Town, of Ithaca will continue and will affect our successors who have no way of being represented at the meeting tonight. She said, rather, the Board represents our successors and-;us and all the residents of the town. Mrs. Raffensperger said the 1984 special permit was -personal to David Kingsbury and contained a number of provisions for the eventual use of the land and so forth for the buildings. Additionally, the permit varied the regulations -- while 200 square feet of home occupation use is permitted within a residence in an R-15 zone, this special permit permitted a home occupation in two buildings outside of the resi- dence itself. Presently, one is 9 feet by 12 feet which is 108 square feet; one is 16 feet by 22 feet (and she had the wrong information on that from the minutes) but Mrs. Raffensperger said she believed that all adds up to 470 square feet. Mrs. Raffensperger said, in addition, she understands that the-carport is used for pottery display. The request is for an additional 64 square feet which is a- total of 500 and something square feet (she couldn't be exact since she had to revise her -figures) , not including the carport. The request specifically prohibited any non resident employees (and Mrs. Raffensperger -said she understands there is one presently) and that there would not be any retail sales from the location. Mrs. Raffensperger continued, saying she thinks neighbors are put in an extremely difficult position to come to a Zoning Board of Appeals and to provide information to the Board which may somehow or another seem derogatory to people they like and respect and have gotten along with over the years. Mrs. Raffensperger stated she heard Mr. Kingsbury say tonight that he does not advertise and she really had not intended to do this, but was going to present an example of advertisement to the Board (a postcard was passed to members of the Board addressed to Edgar & Shirley Raffensperger advertising a show and sale on Saturday, November 23, at 137 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca) . Mrs. Raffensperger then stated they had received the postcard adver- tisement some time ago, she did not know what there has 'been since, but she did know there have been sales in which there have been a number of vehicles. Mrs. Raffensperger said she was in a position where she might have come and complained about this (she had never done that previously) , but she really thought the Board needs to know fully exactly what has been going on and to judge for them- selves whether or not it's benign. She said that she had never come to complain 11 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 before the Board and that she doesn't complain about the dirt on her side porch because she is respectful of Mr. Kingsbury's artistic expertise and she does not want to be seen as being picky and unpleasant. However, considering the statements made at the meeting tonight, she really feels that the Board needs to be fully aware of • all circumstances. Mrs. Raffensperger said she requests first that the Board determine the present status of the permit requirements - for example, the actual size of the present buildings isn't even on the sketch map that was circulated during the meeting so she had made an error in going back to old minutes to determine the size of the buildings. Mrs. Raffensperger also said she does think that the history of compli- ance should be checked along with the other requirements. Mrs. Raffensperger contin- ued that she is very confused tonight with what this Board is actually doing. Her understanding was that Mr. Kingsbury received a special permit or approval in 1984; and, now, a variance is being discussed and she has forgotten the difference between those two kinds of procedures. Mrs. Raffensperger said she would ask that the Board review those differences tonight and the kinds of different considerations the Board would give, looking at those two different kinds of permits. • Chairman Austen then read a letter dated June 13, 1994 from Mary Margaret Fischer and Richard B. Fischer residing at 135 Pine Tree Road (Mr. Kingsbury's neighbors) , and addressed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Chairman Austen also read a memo dated May 23, 1994 from Candace E. Cornell, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board, Chair. With regard to the postcard advertisement which had been passed to members of the Board, Mr. Frost stated that it was not postmarked but showed a date of November 23, then asked Mr. Kingsbury what year that was from. Mrs. Raffensperger said it was from a long time ago and Mr. Kingsbury said that he had to confess, right after get- ting the variance, he did have a couple of sales. Mr. Kingsbury said he either over- looked it or it wasn't made clear to him that he couldn't have an occasional one or two-day sale as long as he didn't have a continual retail outlet. - Mr. Kingsbury said he did'get the sense that wasn't right, so he hasn't had any. in the last seven to nine years and he doesn't advertise and he does tell people that he is not supposed to sell from the location, but he does on occasion make a sale. Regarding the little building where he has the kilns in the front of the studio, Mr. Scala asked Mr. Kingsbury if that was one he built and Mr. Kingsbury replied that he had built them all. Mr. Frost said that was approved and the line notice advertises that Mr. Kingsbury is adding to the approved tangible 308 square feet a pottery shop within the approval (it should be in the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes dated September 20, 1994) and they did grant the kiln shed, 9 feet by 12 feet in size. Mr. Scala asked if they had allowed it to be located 7 feet from the prop- erty line, and Mr. Frost replied that it was to be located at least 6 feet north of the south property line. Mr. Scala then asked if it was supposed to be 10 feet from the property line and Mr. Frost said no, an accessory building in fact can be 3 feet. Mr. Frost then said the one clear point (which Mrs. Raffensperger brings up) is that this was done by special permit and noted that the Town Attorney may want to respond to that. Mr. Frost said (to his knowledge) the only thing you're limited, in terms of this particular use, is what was done in 1984 in his mind was actually a variance. If this application came before the Board today, Mr. Frost said we would 12 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 be looking at this as a' variance because there's no division he's aware of that would allow what used to be granted by special permit unless it was specified in the zoning ordinance as being allowed by special approval or, in the case where we have R-9 's, it has to be allowed by special permit occupancy to exceed what is allowed. In Mr. Frost's mind, it really is a variance' and not a special permit. Mr. Scala asked why the applicant needs the variance and Attorney Barney said you start with the limitations that are allowed in an R-15 zone and in Subdivision 12, Accessory Uses,_ Paragraph 5, the customary home occupation. But the use of the area is limited to 200 square feet, either dwelling or a garage area; and, to get beyond the 200 square feet, Attorney Barney said he assumed what happened in 1984 was basically an application to permit the use of some larger space than 200 square feet because, otherwise, the permit would not have been necessary. • Mr. Scala said that Mrs. Raffensperger had said something about 470 square feet. Attorney Barney said he had a little trouble with her calculations, too, and asked what the size was of the existing building. Mr. Frost replied that 308 square feet is what was granted but then you have to add, in terms of the total use of the property, the 9 feet by 12 feet shed. Attorney Barney then asked what the size of the pottery studio itself was and Mr. Kingsbury replied that the studio itself is presently 16 feet by 22 feet. Attorney Barney said the 9 feet by 12 feet shed would equal 108 square feet, so he calculated a total of 460 square feet not including the carport. Mr. Kingsbury said he didn' t know who is calling the carport a sales area but he has to be able to see his stock, he has the stock out on shelves. Attorney Barney said there is none located in the pottery studio or the kiln shed and Mr. Kingsbury said that is correct; then Attorney Barney said it is located elsewhere, and Mr. Kingsbury said that's right. Mr. Scala noted that it is part of the business, so that square footage is part of the business. Mr. Kingsbury said that the space is used for other things as well, and Mr. Scala replied that it's still part of the business. Mr. Frost stated it was a little difficult for him having to speak fairly but, when he went through that area, he was stepping over children's bicycles and remembered that he had seen stuff being stored there; he went back subsequently to take the pictures for the zoning board and saw stuff stored there, but not for this use. Mr. Ellsworth asked what the biggest area in the carport was used for and Mr. Frost stated, from what he saw, he was stepping over bicycles and children's things to move from the driveway up to the back of the building (and noted that he was try- ing to speak objectively without making a judgment) and that he had been stepping over personal belongings. Attorney Barney then asked if there were prices on the merchandise in the car- port and Mr. Kingsbury said there are on some items because he uses that area to unpack from a show and put them back on the shelves (and sometimes they still have price tags from the shows or from the store) . Attorney Barney asked if it was fair to say that some portion of the carport area was used in relation to his business and Mr. Kingsbury replied, yes. Attorney Barney said Mr. Kingsbury was using 460 square feet exclusively for his business and Mr. Ellsworth agreed that it was well over the 200 feet allowed already. 'Mr. Frost said what disturbs him, too, is that the approval was for the pottery workshop building to be 14 feet by 22 feet in size (and said he was looking at the site sketch in the 1984 files) , then Mr. Kingsbury apolo- gized and said the building is presently 14 feet by 22 feet and not 16 feet by 22 feet as he had stated earlier. 13 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 Mr. Frost then said 14 feet by 22 feet (308 square feet) is correct according to the 1984 files and you then add the kiln, which is 108 square feet, for a total of 416 square feet. Mr. Ellsworth noted that it was still well over the 200 square feet allowed and Mr. Frost agreed but said what Mr. Kingsbury got approval for was a 14 foot by 22 foot workshop and tonight he is appealing to enlarge that with the addi- tion of a 4 foot by 16 foot (64 square feet) storage area and, though separate, was the granting of a 1984 appeal (which he is not modifying) for a 9 by 12 foot kiln shed. Mr. Hines asked if the issue wasn't what activity, aside from the normal growth of business, brings the applicant in front of the board today. Mr. Frost said Mr. Kingsbury made inquiry to his office to ask about adding on to the pottery workshop. Mr. Hines said he understood that but, legally, Mr. Kingsbury has not displayed any particular hardship that is provoked as a result of something extraneous to his own activity and it's a happy circumstance that business is good, but it hardly serves as a basis for expanding under the law when you're already 50 percent over the permitted limit to begin with. Mr. Hines said, in any event, one would like to hear evidence about why it's critical that this addition take place other than for convenience of the operation of the business which may well be over what it was 10 years ago. Mr. Hines said he felt it is good that Mr. Kingsbury's business is expanding but it seemed to him unavailing in an application to further expand or obtain approval for an additional expansion when, really, it isn' t precipitated by something which the applicant had no control over. Mr. Hines then asked Mr. Kingsbury if he wasn't pre- cipitating the need to come before the board and Mr. Kingsbury said yes. Mr. Scala stated that Mr. Kingsbury was not very far from needing to have some- one help him in the shop and expanding his work and that's really what the board is saying, that he is expanding his level of effort. Mr. Kingsbury said no, he was not doing that and Mr. Scala asked if the additional help was just for housekeeping. Mr. Kingsbury said he has had the discussion with his wife that he's been thinking of cutting back the scale of his business; she works full-time, he works full-time at this, and family life is often left out. Mr. Kingsbury then declared that he was not looking to expand his business, that he was looking to make it more comfortable in his present level of activity. Mrs. Raffensperger then asked if she could have the board enter into the record a letter directed to Mr. Kingsbury dated December 3, 1985 from Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector, Town of Ithaca. One portion of the letter read as follows: ... "in no way shall this shop attract any traffic and there shall be no retail selling at this location." Mrs. Raffensperger said she thought this letter should be entered into the record considering the discussion regarding lack of understanding about retail selling. Mr. Kingsbury said he believed he had received the letter after one of those sales that he had shortly after setting up. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she was not sure the facility was built at the time the letter was written and Mr. Kingsbury replied that he had sales before the facility was built. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he thought Mr. Cartee (Town of Ithaca Building Inspector at that time) had a hard time doing it, but he finally made him aware that he couldn't have those types of 14 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 sales. Mr. Kingsbury also said to Mrs. Raffensperger that he hoped she could attest to the fact that he hadn't been conducting sales since that time and she replied that she honestly doesn't watch and hasn' t complained, but she thought the Board should know all the facts for the record (Mr. Kingsbury agreed) . Mr. Hines then stated to Chairman Austen that, once again, wasn't what the Board wanted to hear evidence of hardship and Chairman Austen agreed. Mr. Kingsbury said, you want to hear evidence of hardship? Mr. Hines said he believed that was what is relevant and Mr. Scala said Mr. Kingsbury needs an argument as to why he has to add another 4 feet and that one of the possible arguments is hardship. Mr. Scala continued that Mr. Kingsbury had mentioned housekeeping, to get better storage, etc. , but it doesn't sound like Mr. Kingsbury is hurting. Mr. Kingsbury replied that no, he wasn't hurting and -- to be quite honest -- the happiness of all his neighbors is very important to him; so, if anyone objects to this, he will withdraw his appeal. Mr. Hines stated it was the Board that Mr. Kingsbury had to worry about objecting. Mr. Kingsbury said, when he thought of adding this 4 foot extension, he honestly thought that it would be just a matter of getting a building permit; and, had he foreseen all of this procedure, he probably wouldn't have initiated the application. He said, however, he would like the space and it would make his operation much more comfortable; he wouldn' t have to step over his clay that he's storing, he wouldn't lose as many pots because they're within direct siting of his heat source, and it would just make his operation more comfortable. Mr. Frost said, when Mr. Kingsbury had called to inquire about the permit, his desire was to go up and see what he was talking about since this kind of inquiry resulted in his pulling the file which was the old zoning file. Mr. Frost said he then went to the property and, having read the minutes; within the minutes, Mr. Kingsbury did represent that there were no employee at that 1984 hearing but Mr. Frost did see a woman doing pottery. At that point, Mr. Frost said we then have two issues: 1) Mr. Kingsbury's date to come back to the Board to seek a variance to enlarge the area that was approved in 1984; and 2) at the same time, he encouraged Mr. Kingsbury (since Mr. Frost saw the employee) to either terminate the employee or seek a variance from the Board. • Mr. Scala asked- what" Mr. Kingsbury's option would be if the Board did not grant the permit to add the 4 feet and wanted to know if he could use all of the carport or - what other option he had if he couldn't add the 4 feet by 16 feet addition. Mr. Kingsbury replied the option would be to continue as he is as far as production. Mr. Scala asked if this was primarily for storage and Mr. Kingsbury replied that he would store clay low and drying pots up high. Chairman Austen asked if there was a way Mr. Kingsbury's storage method could be modified and possibly put a barrier between his curing pots and the heat source. Mr. Kingsbury said that he does, he has mobile shelving units and he tries to wheel them as far away as possible; however, when you're in a 14 by 22 foot building, you don't get very far away from your heat source. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he also drapes with plastic and it works, it's just inconvenient and he often ruins some of the pieces because the plastic kind of sticks to the sides of the wet pots and he doesn't see it; then, when he goes to uncover them, they're destroyed. 15 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 Mr. Scala asked what was stopping Mr. Kingsbury from just putting up a utility shed somewhere else on the property. Mr. Frost said if it was just a personal util- ity shed and nothing else, there was nothing stopping him as long as he put it in a location that complied with the ordinance. Mr. Frost said he believed Mr. Kingsbury was aware that he had an operation that called for a building permit and that's why he is appearing before the Board. Mr. Ellsworth said it appeared to him that what's there already is way out of control according to Article 4 for residential district R-15, Section 12, Item 5 and then proceeded to read same to the board members. Mr. Ellsworth said it reads " . . . a customary home occupation", then it goes on to describe several different trades (pottery making was not listed) and "that there be no outside storage", then Mr. Ellsworth stated it appeared to him that the carport was used for storage (or part of the carport) . From what he saw from the road since he couldn't go on the property because of the dog, Mr. Ellsworth said there was quite a large wall of storage, packing, and whatever. Mr. Ellsworth continued reading from Article 4, . . . "the home trades (and it doesn' t specifically say pottery making, but it says other types of home trades) are to be conducted over an area not exceeding 200 square feet" . Mr. Ellsworth said if something previously was approved that had a variance, etc. , then that's ok; but, it appears that it's expanding beyond what was approved before. It's expanded to a carport and so on. Mr. Ellsworth stated that it appeared to him that what's there already is well beyond the spirit of what was passed before by a vari- ance or special appeal and now we have another situation where the owner is appearing before the Board to add on top of already existing problems. Mr. King asked Mr. Ellsworth if the carport where Mr. Kingsbury's goods are stored was visible right from the street and the response was yes. Mr. King asked if you could see prices and Mr. Ellsworth said no, not from the street. Mr. King said, in other words, there are small stickers which you'd have to be up close to see and Mr. Ellsworth said, when you're standing 30 to 40 feet from the objects, the prices were not visible. Mr. King then asked Mr. Ellsworth if the display looked to him as though it's a storefront almost where people could come and buy something and Mr. Ellsworth responded that a nice set of shelves had been made that extend for a long way and also extend pretty high, and there's a pottery object in each slot up there. Mr. King asked if Mr. Ellsworth had said to himself, here's an emporium for the pur- chase of pottery and Mr. Ellsworth said he was just looking to see where the building was, whether it's sheltered to the next door neighbor closest (which is Dr. Fischer, 7 feet to his property line) , and then he even walked back once to look again at the display. Mr. Hines stated he felt all of the comments are interesting and germane but, along with what Mrs. Raffensperger has said, really relates to whether Mr. Kingsbury is in violation of the existing situation (which it sounds to Mr. Hines as if he might very well be) . Mr. Hines said, that is not necessarily before the Board and we still have yet to hear evidence of any convincing nature as to the hardships which would otherwise provoke us into favorable action. Mr. Hines said he did not chair this meeting, but he would prefer not to hear alot more evidence about a violation which may be standing until he heard whether or not there was any hardship indepen- dent of it. 16 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 Mr. King said he thought they were talking about the operation, not the violation. Mr. Hines said it sounded to him like most of what they were talking - about is whether Mr. Kingsbury does, in fact, exceed the previously granted permis- sion and is the extent of the operation, either in issuing or by growth over a period of time, beyond that which was contemplated and the answer seems to be (from the tes- timony and the observations) , yes. Mr. Hines then continued that the question is how does that have anything to do "with the application tonight and it would have some relevance in the fact that the Board is not supposed to grant permission to people who are in violation, but he didn' t see nor had he heard anything which would tilt the scales in support of favorable action to the appellant because he had not heard Mr. Kingsbury state anything about having a serious problem here which needs remedia- tion other than his business seems to be better served if it were larger or had more space, which hardly seems like hardship. • Mr. King said he thought Mr. Kingsbury was quite explicit about showing the need for a drying or a wet room (it's called a slow dry room) further away from the kiln and out from underfoot and he's talking about that expansion at the rear of the property which doesn't impact any neighbor immediately other than Dr. Fischer who has written favorably regarding the requested addition. Mr. King said he thought Mr. Kingsbury had shown thardship in his operation and you have to remember that Section 12, Subdivision 5 says our citizens have a right to conduct home occupations but it's circumscribed. Mr. King said, ten years ago, we said -- if you want to build some- thing way out in the back yard that's a little bit bigger to upgrade -a pottery shop which seems to maybe require more than 200 square feet -- that would be ok within limits. Mr. King said,he thought what is distressing, if at all, about it now is in view of the fact that the testimony is that any public invitation wasmade ten years ago and has not been repeated and Mr. Kingsbury does not generally sell to people. Mr. King said, in other words, it's not getting way .out of hand here but the use of the open storage in the carport is clearly violating Subdivision 5. Mr. King said he thought Mr. Kingsbury should be brought back into compliance with Subdivision 5 and remove the storage from public view in the carport, however he does that. Mr. King said he saw no harm in granting him' the small addition which would mean so much to him in order to have a little more freedom to operate but, as far as the employee goes, that's clearly forbidden under the rule for home occupation and we should not grant that. Mr. Hines wanted to a'sk a question (and said this is a very' compelling argument) . He said this has been going on for ten years, what is it that has hap- p6ned to provoke this need that wasn't true eight years ago.' Mr. King said he was Pot a historian and Mr. Hines gave the example that, if you limp, you don't wait eight years to come in and say I need a different shoe -- here's a man who has oper- ated a kiln, thrown pottery, or whatever for'. ten years and then comes before the board and says, by the way, it's extremely inconvenient to do this in this way and, in fact, it elevates itself to the level of hardship and I would prefer to have some other place to dry my pots so they don't get damaged. Then, of course, the response is, what were you doing four years ago? It's changed in such a way that now it has become a hardship. Mr. Hines said, in other words, Mr. Kingsbury is a good advocate but are the facts supporting his argument? 6 17 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 Mr. Scala said, to get these items in perspective, you're looking at 25, 000 square feet of property on which Mr. Kingsbury now has roughly 416 square feet in the form of a couple of sheds. The applicant is asking for 56 more square feet which Mr. Scala feels is trivial and, to improve his quality (whatever the justification is) , it's worth doing. Mr. Scala said this does not justify hanging his wares out the carport and Mr. Kingsbury would have to clean his act up, but the rest of it should be acceptable. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Scala if he was suggesting that consideration be given to the external non resident employee, and Mr. Scala asked where that issue came in. Mr. Ellsworth said Mr. Kingsbury has a non resident employee about five hours per week and Mr. Scala asked if he was talking about Mr. Kingsbury's wife. Mr. Ellsworth said no, she is a resident and Mr. King said we're not concerned with a non-employee. Mr. Scala asked if there was a restriction against having employees, and Mr. Frost said the zoning board limits the home occupation to residents of the premises only. Mr. Scala said then it should be fairly clear cut, Mr. Kingsbury can't store his pottery items in the carport and have it visible for sale and he can' t have an employee. - Mr. King asked that the applicant address the question, how has the situation changed recently such that what was good enough for him ten years ago is no longer quite sufficient. Mr. Kingsbury said, basically, he's ten years older and the pro- cess of making pots is hard enough when you're young; when you're old (he is 46) , it's more and more difficult for him to carry pots around, to try to get them in strategic locations, covering, uncovering, wheeling things around, stepping over boxes of clay, etc. Mr. Kingsbury said he was of a mind to be more comfortable in his procedures. Attorney Barney asked if any thought had ever been given to moving his entire operation to some other location and Mr. Kingsbury said yes, he had thought about it but he and his family liked the neighborhood and wanted to stay there. Mrs. Raffensperger then commented that she had not come to the meeting to oppose or make any kind of statement, as she had mentioned before. However, she said Mr. King seems to want to trivialize some of the elements that have gone into this. She said she does not make any complaints about any violations of the previous permit until she heard at the meeting statements that Mr. Kingsbury made such as, "I never sold any pottery" . Mr. Kingsbury then stated to Mrs. Raffensperger that he had never said that and asked her if he hadn't said earlier in the meeting that he had sold pottery. Mrs. Raffensperger then continued that she tried to make the point to the Zoning Board of Appeals (which is an opinion that she has held for many years) that it really is not pertinent and neighbors should not be put in this position, making comments for or against a particular variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals, as she understands it, has very strict kinds of criteria for making decisions about vari- ances and special permits and all she is asking tonight is that, not just in her own interest or in the interest of the neighborhood -- but in the interest of the entire Town of Ithaca and this Zoning Board -- that the Board apply those criteria and that it not become the kind of personalized discussion which, unfortunately, it did dete- riorate into. Mr. Kingsbury asked permission to speak and then stated he really took excep- tion to the notion that, from the street, you can look in his carport and it invites you to buy pots; you have to really be stretching to see the pottery from the road, and he has no signs and he never advertises for any kind of retail sales. Chairman Austen then closed the public hearing. 6 r , Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 Chairman Austen read Parts II -and III of the Environmental Assessment Form done byiLouise Raimondo, Planner I, dated June 10, 1994 and asked that a motion be made. MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala, seconded by Mr. Edward King. , RESOLVED; that the Board'adopt the recommendations of Louise Raimondo, Planner I and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the appeal by Daniel Yanarella, Owner/Appellant (David Kingsbury, Agent) for the property at 137 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57-1-29, Residence District R-15. - - • With no other discussion, Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows: AYES - Austen, Ellsworth, King, Scala. ABSTAIN - Hines. The motion was carried. With- no additional discussion required, Chairman Austen then asked for a motion on the appeal. - MOTION By Mr. Pete Scala, seconded by Mr. Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that the Board grant the applicant, Daniel Yanarella, Owner/Appellant, David Kingsbury, -Agent, a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to modify a previously approved variance (granted on September 20, 1984) with the addition of a:•4 foot x 14 foot storage area to an existing pottery workshop (which would add 56 square feet to an existing workshop area of 416 square feet) and to deny the request for a non resident, part-time employee at 137 - Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57-1-29, Residence District R-15 subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. By testimony of the applicant, it is confirmed that the existing building is 14 feet by 22 feet in size and not 16 feet by 22 feet. Therefore, the appeal has been modified to request the addition of a 4 foot by 14 foot storage area, and the proposed addition would not extend beyond the existing walls of the present building. 2. The applicant has indicated the difficulty in managing the pottery - (particularly when "green") and in trying to handle, sort, and transport the pottery. 3 . A better storage space is needed to improve quality and prevent damage. This requirement is not viewed as being due to an increase in sales but, rather, due to quality control. 19 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals June 15, 1994 4. With the condition that there will be no storage in the carport or any other location that would extend the business as it now exists. 5. With the condition that there will be no non resident, part-time employ- - - ees allowed to work at this property. However, resident family members are allowed. 6. With the condition that there will be no advertising of the pottery items for sale or priced items visible. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Austen, Ellsworth, King, Scala. NAYS - Hines. • The motion was carried. Before the vote on the motion, Mr. Kingsbury had asked to interject a statement and was advised by Chairman Austen that he could not do so when a motion is on the floor. After the vote, Chairman Austen restated the conditions under which the motion was carried to Mr. Kingsbury who advised what he had wanted to say is that, without being able to store his pots somewhere once they're finished, he would suffer a hardship and that he was going to sacrifice the addition in order to, be able to continue to store pots in his carport. Chairman Austen then stated, unfortunately, the code does not allow for the storage there . . . period, and it was never granted that Mr. Kingsbury be allowed to use the carport as a storage area. Therefore, it wouldn't make any difference whether Mr. Kingsbury had the addition or not; pottery storage in the carport would still have to be eliminated. Chairman Austen then asked Mr. Kingsbury if he had a place where he displayed the pottery downtown to which Mr. Kingsbury replied yes, but he honestly does not use his carport to sell and that it is more of a nuisance for him to deal with people coming there and looking for pots. Mr. Scala said, as long as Mr. Kingsbury recog- nizes that the code says you can only have 200 square feet; as it is now, Mr. Kingsbury is more than double that and the Board is allowing him to extend another ten percent. Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9:15 PM. U _ C1 . � { Y landa M. McLaughlin Recording Secretary J E ward Austen, C airman S • TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $80.00 �1 r 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 519 31 CH Ithaca, New York 14850 � �'�/n CASH - ( 4 (607) 273-1783 CHECK - ( ) APPEAL _ ZONING: to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer For Office Use Only and the I Zoning Board of Appeals /01�; fr e iJ q, ,,4-mil of the 9-o-0 -&y 71-o 'Aa.,42 home_ mccu fi Town of Ithaca, New York f v cLiv 0441. .ci.. exc-e,ecijAl 2o0 pq.it �� -/� 1-0 1 R1W Having been denied permission to: �ons�"ruCt a /6 qddi�6Ui r v pd �v- )OfK,shop okd ?D d1/OedJ a 1C7YI fG,sd - cGM 4r�- gip warms 6 at 1 3-1 P?cm.P_Tc-e Q ,. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ' -1"1 gq' hou�/ 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) - :5r , Section(s) 1L , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary. ) r 4 i(f� r G 'ice G&)o u lcti brpri.mari/K e. . cl r it c , 7� cdo67C I6)00k, not .66, efr 1. 6?-e� - 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: Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: ell. Date: ��cRtS/7/4 Home Telephone Number: R 73 T 72 3 Work elephone Number: -5 tiNlE.- NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 1R mnnthc_ tha varianra will nvnira ' I I I I I I Tow Assigned Project ID Number Rev. 10/5C n 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: ctivio 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections,prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): /2 7 Po) Tree ied, Riceca Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is Proposed Action: NEW ( EXPANSION MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): - smee// * ic�vt 5- }c/6( ovi e i'i /o resew s (c) r'i in ,'ov- Svtor e of wI� Nlals Cci�yJ vs rP i J � � y pyy Po &,zS mogs. (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (>10 yrs) Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently? • p0' 2esto(e, ffi Z ( 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES El NO � If no, describe conflict briefly: -- i 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO E Public Water? YES NO JJ Public Sewer? YES El NO Fi 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? l�'�' Residential El Commercial Q 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)?��r YES JJ NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: `8Wlet oT CA� acct- 6©a.( eer:ffrW2 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES El NO n 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 yy��`� Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): .L.J I(t_\L� (tki6 sa u ley ___pabrre/ 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 ?< 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, It 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 applicable.) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (le. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. ?< Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this a ermination.�] Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature (If different from Responsible Officer) E dusten, Chairman N e itle of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date: OS�,/%V Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency PART II - Environmental Assessment David Kingsbury, Agent Daniel Yanarella, Owner 137 Pine Tree Road Modification of Variance Approved on September 20,1984 and to Allow for a Non-Resident Part-Time Employee 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? No significant adverse impacts to air quality, surface or groundwater quantity or quality, noise levels, solid waste production or disposal, erosion or flooding potential are anticipated as a result of this project. Traffic patterns will not be altered significantly with the addition of one part- time employee, but it should be noted that there is very limited parking on the site, with a very steep driveway and narrow road shoulders along Pine Tree Road, which is frequented by fast- moving traffic. The car port area has been converted to storage and a pottery display area, and is therefore not available for parking. During a site visit conducted on June 9, 1994, staff noticed that a display area of pottery, with prices shown, is currently set up in the car port on the property, although Mr. Kingsbury told staff that customers came to his property only on rare occasions. C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, other natural and cultural resources, and community and neighborhood character will not be significantly adversely affected by this proposal. 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? A variance for this use of the property by Mr. Kingsbury was approved in 1984, and the proposed 4 foot by 16 foot addition will not signify a significant change in use or intensity of use, nor would the addition of one part-time employee. However, staff noted a pottery display area in the car port, and public displays are not permitted under Article IV, Section 12 (5.) of the Zoning Ordinance. This commercial use of the property is not permitted under the existing variance or proposed modifications to the variance and may signify a significant change from residential to a commercial use. (See attached memo from the Town Planner). 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 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: June 10, 1994 OF IT (Mirk 9 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 ZONING 273-1783 FAX(607)273-1704 TOWN OF ITHACA MEMORANDUM TO: Edward Austen, Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals- FROM: Jonathan Kanter, Town Planner DATE: June 10, 1994 RE: Modification of Variance Granted to David Kingsbury, 137 Pine Tree Road The small expansion of David Kingsbury's pottery shop is not a significant change in use. However, allowing a non-resident employee to work on the premises is clearly not permitted under Article IV, Section 12 (5.) of the Town of Ithaca,Zoning Ordinance. _ Additionally, the Ordinance clearly states that no goods or products are to be publicly, displayed or advertised for sale. -During a site visit conducted on June 9, 1994, my staff noted that a display area of pottery, with prices shown, is currently set,up in the car port on the property, although Mr: Kingsbury told staff that customers came to his property only on rare occasions. It appears that this use of the property is expanding beyond that ofa customary home occupation or mechanical trade, and into that of a commercial use on a residential property. Planning strongly recommends that this modification to the variance granted on September 20, 1984 be granted only if the non-resident employee and display area are not permitted. Parking on the site is very limited, with a very steep driveway and narrow road shoulders along Pine Tree Road, frequented by fast-moving traffic. The car port area has been converted to storage and a pottery display area, and is therefore not available for parking. Allowing this use of the property to continue to expand into a commercial use would set an undesirable precedent in a residential zone, and is not recommended. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like clarification of any of the above points. pc: A. Frost IV ii ,., : . FTOP 1i 0i,, PLOT PLAN INFORMATION II*0 BE SHOWN: � �� a 'N f �o r 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimensions and location f pro'•sed structure(s) or 2. Distances of structures from: or addition(s). a. Road, - 5. Names of neighbors tsho and 1• . b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and number. 3. North a row. 8. Show existing structures in co rasting lines. q` ex+ea4 -- - I ti<<X 1�f ' Poa� • 5-luta �ti "771 j - I.shec(,. i , -,::„S"-17 •;.-,,. ":-__ .‹.......L_____Lotri-CL . ,jo- kY i• ' 9 r a, ErrJ ;e r .� 1 fer4V is 1 �` /Ga . . 1 I 5.1' / - ., d tSW(r ttause , , ; i , , , ( , , i., : , 1 • ,ecAnispei - - 0 . , _ :_ _____ , . c\ • , . , l 3 7 Pi We, Tree ►e . dvie., • • Si nature of Owner/Appellant: J^ 9 PPellant: �Jl 'v` ' Date: ,3,/4��/9�' Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 , 1984 7: 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of -the Zoning Board of, Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Thursday, September 20 , 1984 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side) , Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters : APPEAL of Scott Chaffee, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Certificate of Occupancy for premises with a side yard less than 15 feet at •1584 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56-3-16 . Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Gloria C. Howell, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Certificate of Occupancy for premises with a side yard less than 15 feet at 120 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-59-2-10 . Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section 14 , and Article XIV, Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. ADJOURNED APPEAL (from August 22 , 1984) of John and Kim Klein, Appellants, in re the construction of a fence greater than six feet in height at 1103 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-43-2-1 . APPEAL of Daniel Yanerella, Appellant, David Kingsbury, as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of a pottery workshop and kiln (Home Occupation) with an area greater than 200 square feet at 137 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-29 . Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 12, paragraph 5 , and Article XIV, Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . ADJOURNED APPEAL (from May 16 , 1984) of Eastern Heights Associates in re the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by more than three (3) unrelated persons at 202 Eastern Heights Drive (sometimes referred to as 104 Sharlene Road) , Town of Ithaca Tax ' Parcel No. 6-57-1-8 . 108 . (continued on Page 2) r p '"-Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Notice of Public Hearings September 20 , 1984 ADJOURNED APPEAL (from May 16 , 1984) of ;Eastern Heights Associates -in re the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by more than three (3) unrelated - persons at 204 Eastern Heights Drive, Town Of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-8. 107 . / ADJOURNED APPEAL (from May 16 , 1984) of Eastern Heights Associates in re the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by 'more -than three (3) unrelated persons at 206 Eastern Heights Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel- No. 6-57-1-8 . 106. ADJOURNED APPEAL (from May 16 , 1984) of Eastern Heights Associates in re the occupancy of a two-family dwelling by more than three (3) unrelated persons at 225 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-8. 68. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m. , and said place, hear all persons in support of such -matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca Dated: September 12, 1984 Publish: September 15 , 1984 Zoning Board of Appeals 10 September 20 , 1984 ' APPEAL OF DANIEL YANERELLA, APPELLANT, DAVID KINGSBURY, AS AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A POTTERY WORKSHOP AND KILN (HOME OCCUPATION) WITH AN AREA GREATER THAN 200 SQUARE FEET AT 137 PINE TREE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-29 . PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 12 , PARAGRAPH 5 , AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 7 :40 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Kingsbury was present . For the record, the Board members each had before him/her a copy of the following documents. 1 . Appeal Form as signed and submitted by David Kingsbury under date of September 10 , 1984 , reading as follows : " . . .Having been denied permission to construct a pottery workshop and kiln at 137 Pine Tree Road. . .Without the proposed workshop and kiln I will ' not be able to make pottery which amounts to about half of my families [sic. ] income. Beyond the income pottery is a great love of mine. " 2 . Statement attached to Appeal Form, as follows : "9/10/84 Information concerning the proposed workshop at 137 Pine Tree Rd. The workshop will measure 16 ' x 24 ' . It will be an open undivided space. It will be conventionally framed with 2 x 4 studs , - 2 x 8 joists and rafters supported midway. The structure will sit on eight piers consisting of pressure treated 6 x 6 set in concrete, three and a half feet in the ground. It will have 100 amp . service. My only electrical needs are for lights, one potter ' s wheel and a small electric kiln. The shop will be wired to code by an electrician. The exterior will be either tongue and groove stained to match the house or cedar shingles. The roof will be a simple shed roof slopping [sic. ] from eleven feet to seven feet. I plan to use roll roofing half lap. The interior will be sheet rocked and painted. The floor will be 5/8 ' [sic . ] particle board with 5/8" plywood on top painted with an enamal [sic. ] paint. The shop will be fully insulated with 6" in the floor and ceiling and 31/2 in the walls. The heat source will be a thermostatically controlled propane space heater properly vented. The kiln will be about 45 cubic feet. It will fire -on propane through four burners equipped with pilot lights and a safety shut off system. The kiln will be constructed of K-23 bricks. These bricks [are] highly refractory and insulative. A brick may be red hot at one end, and may be picked up bare handed at the other. Consequently even though temperatures may reach 2300° F inside, the outside of the kiln will be between 100° and 200 ° F. - ' Zoning Board of Appeals 11 September 20 , 1984 Since these bricks are very vulnerable to weather I must build a small shed to protect the kiln. This shed will be 9 ' x 12 ' and also conventionally framed with 2 x 4 studs and 2 x 6 rafters. It however will not be insulated or sheet rocked or wired for electricity. It will be sidded [sic. ] the same as the workshop. The construction of both structures will be done in a mannor [sic. ] such that both are safe, durable and asthetically [sic. ] pleasing. The planned location comes after weeks of consideration on several factors. I need to unload clay and load finished pottery so I need to be somewhat close to my driveway. N.Y.S.E.G. has a pumping station and easement on the left side of my lot; so that area is unavailable. The propane tank must also go near the driveway so the truck can get close enough to fill it. My wife and I plan to use the center of the back yard for lawn guarden [sic. ] and fruit trees. , So my proposed location is really the only practical choice. This location by the way would put it 60 ' from my nearest neighbor's house. My neighbor, Mr. Richard Fisher [Fischer] , is a noted environmentalist at Cornell. We have discussed my plans and not only has he no objections but has offerred [sic. ] to help me build it. Concerning my ability to build the structures I can say that I have worked for builders in the past and have built several structures entirely by myself; two of which were studios much like this one. I have built two other kilns and helped to build three others for schools and fellow potters . In conclusion, I feel totally qualified to construct and operate the proposed pottery workshop. I will be the only one to work in this workshop and in no way will this shop attract any traffic. There will be no retail selling at this location. " 3 . Site Plan attached to Appeal Form setting forth both existing and proposed structures , footages involved, natural gas pipe line, and names of two abutting neighbors -- Raffensperger and Fischer. 4 . Survey Map, No. 137 Pine Tree Road, dated May 20 , 1982, signed , and sealed by Clarence W. Brashear, L.L.S. Vice Chairman Hewett invited Mr. Kingsbury to speak to the Board and asked him if he had anything to add. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he was not sure what people knew, however, he would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Kingsbury stated that some people are thinking about this as light industrial , but this is very small, just he, making pots. Mr. Kingsbury stated that there would be no traffic. Vice Chairman Hewett asked Mr. Kingsbury if he worked alone, to which Mr. Kingsbury responded, yes. Mr. Kingsbury stated that twice a month there is a firing cycle encompassing twelve hours, and, during that twelve-hour firing cycle there is 20 minutes , called reduction, when there is any visible smoke. Mr. Kingsbury stated that the smoke Zoning Board of Appeals 12 September 20 , 1984 is barely visible, being comparable to what you would see out of a gas pipe. Vice Chairman Hewett commented that it would seem as if a wisp of smoke might be visible at certain times . Mr. King asked Mr. Kingsbury why he would propose locating it so close to the lot line, noting that the plot plan shows the workshop 5 feet from the lot line and the kiln 4 feet from the lot line. Mr. Kingsbury explained that when he drew up the original plot description for Mr. Cartee, he was going on the location of a fence that was existing, however , the Survey shows the fence 3 feet inside at its east end and 1 foot inside at its west end, therefore, the kiln will be 6 feet inside the lot line and the studio 7 ' to 8 ' inside the lot line. Mr. King pointed out that Mr. Kingsbury had 50 to 60 feet available. Mr. Kingsbury, commenting that the backyard is a problem, stated that the level area is little and then there are tiers and then it levels off again, and also, to the extreme left NYSEG has a pumping station. Mr. Kingsbury stated that the pumping station is hideous and he would like to keep it covered by foliage and have the center of the lot into lawn, at least, and possibly garden space. Mr. Kingsbury stated that if he moved it into the center it would negate the area for that use. Mr. Kingsbury stated that, since the border where his proposed studio would be is pretty much woods, next to Mr. Fischer' s property, he talked with him and he has no problem. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he had a signed statement from Mr. Fischer here tonight. Mr. Kingsbury presented the following note dated Sept. 20 , 1984 , signed by Richard B. Fischer: "To: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board Having discussed with David Kingsbury, the plans and objectives of his proposed pottery workshop, I find nothing objectionable enough to stop the project. He has expressed the intension [sic. ] to make the structures unobtrusive and asthetically [sic. ] pleasing. The workshop, he assures me, will not increase traffic at all and is minimally polluting. " Mr. Kingsbury stated that Mr. Fischer has even offered to help him build it. Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against the pottery workshop and kiln as proposed by Mr. Kingsbury. Mrs . Shirley Raffensperger, 139 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she lives on the other side of Mr. Kingsbury. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that Mr. Kingsbury had visited her husband and her and has discussed this proposal with them, and, on the basis of that discussion, they have no substantial objection to his proposal as it is now presented, however, they do have certain concerns with respect to the future. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that, if the property is sold with the two buildings in place as accessory buildings , then there would be the question of what use might eventually be made of such a large accessory building previously used for a home occupation. Continuing, Mrs . Raffensperger offered that, if the property were sold, the two accessory buildings would be r Zoning Board of Appeals 13 September 20 , 1984 considered part of the cost, and so, she could envision an argument for their use, based on hardship, made to the Board of Appeals that could lead incrementally to a use that the immediate neighbors, the community, and the Board of Appeals would not have considered acceptable as a first case. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that, therefore , she would request that the Board consider not the issuance of a variance but of a special use permit, personal to Mr. Kingsbury, restricting the use to the one he described and to him only. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she would also suggest that the Board consider requiring that if that particular use is not continued by the applicant, Mr. Kingsbury, or, if the property is sold, the use would revert to that permitted in the Town Zoning Ordinance for an accessory - building, which does not include a home occupation, but to uses customarily incidental to those of the prime building -- a residence. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that she also believed that, on occasion, a renewal date for a special permit is established and she would request the Board to consider that also, so that, in this case, it can be determined, from time to time, that the regulations of Section 12, paragraph 5 , Home Occupation, are being met over the period of the permit. Mr. Robert Cooke, 142 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and stated that the sentiments expressed by Mrs. Raffensperger were his also. Mr. Cooke stated that he would agree with there being future protection. Mr. King asked Mr. Kingsbury what the cost of construction of- these buildings might be. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he bought the kiln and the shed and the studio costs would make a total of, perhaps, around $2 ,600. 00 . Mr. King, noting that the kiln is personal property and could be moved, surmised that, with the other buildings, the cost might be around $2 , 000 . 00 . Mr. Kingsbury agreed. Mr. King wondered if Mr. Kingsbury realized that these would be limited use buildings, personal to him, adding that, also, as a permit, it is revocable, so, if his operation is objectionable, the Board could say -- "Stop it. " Mr. Kingsbury indicated that he realized the limitations. Mr. Kingsbury stated that if the operation is objectionable, that is not the place for him. Mr. Kingsbury asked what the period of time would be that the review would be done and stated that he did not expect to start before next year. Vice Chairman Hewett read into the record the following letter, dated September 18 , 1984 , received from and signed by Frank R. Liguori, Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, to Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector. "Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. - Case: Area variance appeal of Daniel Yanerella at 137 Pine Tree Road (county highway) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore, no Zoning Board of Appeals 14 September 20 , 1984 recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without prejudice. " Mr. King noted that the studio is proposed to be 384 square feet in size. Mr. Kingsbury stated that the size of the pottery workshop has been decreased from 16 ' x 24 ' to 14 ' x 22 ' , which is 308 square feet. Mr. Kingsbury stated that the location toward the rear is contingent upon the propane tank, a 500-gallon tank, which has to be close to the lot line because of the sharp tiers. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he has talked to Mr. Fischer about how to hide it. Noting the absence of the propane tank on the plot plan, Mr. King stated that he tended to think that final plans with specific dimensions should be submitted. Mr. King stated that the Board is relying a lot on Professor Fischer' s letter that as long as it looks good, it is okay. Mr. King stated that he would like to see plans that he [Fischer] could approve. Indicating the plot plan before the Board, Mr. Kingsbury stated that everything here is accurate. Mr. Cartee stated that the location of the kiln and the structure, the workshop, could be better controlled with better plans relative to the submission for a building permit. Mr. Cartee offered that since this project will be going into the winter, Mr. Kingsbury may wish to delay on the location of the propane tank. Mr. Kingsbury responded that this will be his third kiln and he is qualified to handle it. Mr. Kingsbury stated that the propane supplier is Suburban Propane, a qualifed firm, and they feel that 10 feet is adequate space. Mr. Kingsbury stated that, when you walk his property, there is little property to work with insofar as dropping the tank. Mr. King, commenting that Mr. Kingsbury did a good job on the drawing and in submitting the Survey, stated that he would still prefer a better sketch and having Professor Fischer accompany him. Mr. Kingsbury replied that he certainly agreed that the sketch could be better, but, defering another month would be a severe hardship. Mr. Kingsbury pointed out that Christmas is coming and he has to create his wares in time for that. Mr. King wondered why Mr. Kingsbury was concerned with Christmas when he [King] had thought he [Kingsbury] had said he was deferring the project until next year. Mr. Kingsbury explained that that was not what he meant, and stated that the kiln goes up right now, adding that that is a very simple matter. Mr. King asked Mr. Kingsbury when he moved into the house, to which Mr. Kingsbury replied, in July. Mr. King asked Mr. Kingsbury where he operated before, with Mr. Kingsbury responding, on South Titus Avenue, and adding, however, that he used a kiln out of town. Mr. King asked Mr. Kingsbury if he bought the house. Mr. Kingsbury stated that he did not buy the house; his father owns it . Mrs . Raffensperger asked if she could comment and was asked to do so. Mrs. Raffensperger stated that there appeared to be both a use and an area variance involved in this matter. . Zoning Board of Appeals 15 September 20 , 1984 Mr. Kingsbury stated that he would also like to say that Professor Fischer is completely aware of what is being done. Mrs . Reuning stated that she thought the Board could be very careful about a resolution to protect the neighbors and the community. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, THAT, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a special , revocable, permit to the applicant, David Kingsbury, which shall be personal to him, to erect his proposed pottery workshop building, on property known as 137 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-29 , such pottery workshop building to be 14 feet by 22 feet in size and to be locatedhat least 7 feet north of the south property line and as otherwise indicated on the sketch which accompanies his application, and to permit, likewise, the erection of his proposed kiln shed, 9 feet by 12 feet in size, to be located at least 6 feet north of the south property line; these buildings to be used for the pottery fabrication indicated, but, THAT, said Board of Appeals conditions the issuance of said special, revocable, personal, permit upon Mr. Kingsbury ' s presenting to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer another detailed sketch showing the correct property line location and the correct locations and dimensions of the proposed buildings as they will finally be erected and indicating thereon, also, the size and location of the propane tank, and further, that such sketch also indicate suitable fencing and screening of the propane tank, at a minimum, and the other buildings as Mr. Kingsbury proposes to screen them also, and further, that such final plan bear the written approval of Mr. Kingsbury' s nearest neighbor, Mr. Richard B. Fischer, and further, that Mr. Kingsbury present such final plan to the Building Inspector for his approval before any construction begins, and, THAT, it is a further condition of said special , revocable, personal, permit that the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer be notified promptly upon activation of the kiln and that he be given ample opportunity, over a two-year period, to view the kiln in operation (including the "wisp" of smoke) , and further , THAT, this grant of special permit shall be reviewed at least annually hereafter by said Board of Appeals, the review to be in the form of an informal report to said Board by the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Hewett, Reuning, King. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals 16 September 20 , 1984 Mrs . Raffensperger requested permission to ask whether it was implicit in the Resolution that the use for the buildings is incidental to the residence. Mr. King responded to Mrs. Raffensperger ' s question, stating that he thought that that went without saying. Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Yanerella/Kingsbury Appeal duly closed at 8 : 15 p.m. ADJOURNED APPEAL (FROM MAY 16 , 1984) OF EASTERN HEIGHTS ASSOCIATES IN RE THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING BY MORE THAN THREE (3) UNRELATED PERSONS AT 202 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE (SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS 104 SHARLENE ROAD) , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-57-1-8. 108 . Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above-noted matter duly opened at 8 :16 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Mark Goldfarb, as Agent for Eastern Heights Associates, was present. Vice Chairman Hewett asked Mr. Goldfarb to report on the status of the Appeal. Mr. Goldfarb appeared before the Board and stated that he was the property manager for these particular properties and, at the present time, at 202 Eastern Heights Drive, there is one person residing in the house. Mr. King asked how long it has been in sole occupancy, with Mr. Goldfarb responding, since August 31st. Mr. King asked if there were a lease. Mr. Goldfarb stated that there was a lease in effect until the summer of 1985 . Mr. Goldfarb stated that the other apartment is vacant, adding that he will try to lease it. Mr. King asked Mr. Goldfarb if there- were a limitation in the lease as to occupancy. Mr. Goldfarb responded that there was, one additional person. Mr. Goldfarb submitted a copy of the lease between Eastern Heights Associates and Ted SooHoo , dated August 16 , 1984 , for the record. Mr. King stated that the rider says: "RIDER to lease for 2nd floor at 104 Sharlene Road, Ithaca -- This is an additional agreement to become part of the lease dated August 16 , 1984 for the rental of the upper apartment at. 104 Sharlene Road, Ithaca, New York, for the term commencing 8-31-84 and ending 6-30-84 [sic. ] [1985 noted in pen] between Eastern Heights Associates as Landlord and Ted SooHoo as tenant. ¶As both parties of the lease are aware of The Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance (Article IV, Section 11 (2a) (3) ) limiting occupancy of the house in question to no more than three (3) un-related occupants, the tenants hereby agree and guarantee that they will limit the occupancy of their apartment to two (2) un-related people so the other unit in the house may be rented to a family and the entire house will be in compliance with local zoning ordinances in regard to the number of un-related occupants . In the case of a sub-lease, the tenant shall be responsible for enforcement of this covenant in regards to the sub-tenant (s) . " MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Frank R. Liguori PE Commissioner of Planning Lim%arn) Ith.T.84-22 J _ September 18, 1984 REE)@ -ROYEEI SEP 2 01984 MI To: Lewis D. Cartee, Building Inspector �° Town of Ithaca TOWN (�� I1-I-lAC,q - 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239-1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. - Case: Area variance appeal of Daniel Yanerella at 137 Pine Tree Road (county highway) This will acknowledge receipt of the proposal for review under Section 239-m. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, county, or state interest. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without :prejudice. • • Respect-ully submitte Frank R. Liguori,uori Commissioner Tompkins County`Planning Department - 128 East Buffalo Street, Ithaca, New York 14850 Telephone(607)274-5286/274-5287 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14350 December 3, 1985 Mr. David Kingsbury 137 Pine Tree Road Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Building Permit for Kiln and Workshop Dear Mr. Kingsbury: As a follow-up to our conversation, your building permit has expired and will be extended until January 30, 1986, at your request . I will remind you that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals granted you a special , "revocable" , permit to erect the kiln and workshop and such permit shall be personal to you and this special permit shall be reviewed annually. Further, the workshop is for your personal use and in no way shall this shop attract any traffic and there shall be no • retail selling at this location. If you fail to comply with the conditions of the special permit , I have no choice but to recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the special permit be revoked. I have enclosed a copy of the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 20, 1984, for your information and records. Please call me if you have any questions. Very truly yours usx Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector LDC/nf enclosure xc - Henry Aron, Chairman and Members, Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $10.00 r� • 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: 1'/O- ��" Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH - ( ) (607) 273-1747 CHECK - ( ) A P P -E A L ZONING: to the For Office Use Only Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York * * * * •* Having been denied permission to anyawidc, G6,01424010 • Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. '-.1' 7-/- , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of': Article(s) , Section(s) . of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such -denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : /[//}////1�p/'/� fg ���. y♦'�[f�Ja� f /l �/�`�//�/�n fp� �+- ��ry� 4////���(/,(/�j//� j..- /j/J/J ,(y!�''�♦ y! ///! 1 1�✓ e,:f .�f /YJ �O u.'V Cam( �' V(J�/,,.�i 0.�s� Yu.-J���rigv^ f-t-•y w..s - b,�/ �i"�..+i.dt•J• •s�,C„ C-•�J � +� k /� /f..•'/omits f.' Y'�' f,'f"+"!`'`-'�`! Lit.:•" 9: xrr�: +�.Y- -d-c *��r` 2:i'_(r,. /.t.F-: '-I,Ff /1.�__../ (/Y C+f Jl/'✓f� •/tom /� �•f /' :71 �,� f, ,(�J�/'•,I�,'e .,i ' .F. • r• 7. Dated: • Xt ?//6)„,141>di Signed:, i fzejL, � i��=:•"Y:;����• ;_:�'��; .� ,/ / 1 ____fizeraded ?AV" �dda� dr z37 6,4:e_. 2e crk air-L4140 6eti meey,e /cc () %d ce,4, 9de/tc "„„„" zoed a2(54 saa-a,L, /itaeeitte". ,e4adei/a , 6),21.- tdzi cX6 .-ref .Axt egnmet, 611 yfrmeoti, ead( iet&e /eo ePArr /ae4vcCe. /17-" o* _ ,eZeee -e. fi-ea a/Le„ Zeg4, /00-e&id aed 0A/Ld -dee&ce: 4-11-c, \IX-0 zarvii zadti em6.. arfrc . ieetzice;vyc ,zoet/ue- a lc zdae& ,4fr-teitu J'k .zeovi €7 21 e 42 _,A,-a4 .e212ed _ozoo71 .eJ-e-/07Q.‘-'7 /646)4c____WLe)&14-__Agi/ � e�..�. i/a-a.pz., c_�. .2eG°�`�'f � /� oalG f 5S "��P. A .s/ 1 I I I . , I I I\' v> , ,, . _ , , I I k N „ ,, - - I I I • , . I , k, LF I" a \ I ,.., : I• I I zJ. . 44, „LizteA sz,ad- f<s AL ad( zie,/‘ _ oh_de , aed, 14' kTo. ithAz a,,Ad • ,tali �e qua° !,e1-74 ed. sae Q/14.4, 1114 "Le a� e�G �p /Vic° al- � o�u. . Car�a¢g��,zU� e,.erk , deefek vie_ 6,e64ede_1 Pik_ Zed ,.el/ _ mmcN_aaa E Weeee Azelieda a/z.e. peyzp sueadec Huod-1a a_,,oAtpLai1 oda] fizertzd /64_, c).°L 4edJ' h :iAhz ' a:d ono- cem-- - 162 /.cP �.� ar a= t $ • 07X6 44,, .4/" fir+ a ct'/ -B. % .� _p`.�e. . 66 .idaiykce • ao Cttaldefr. eauaf c9tm*- e /0'-Gad a __ • xPf �e �' e Ni �z �roi ,o.�cll ✓Pf 4,5-d r itry74 2 2 , 7707-42nwr 077- 52 f77(/ t 00-e-if—au/ *Pr Pwat "V- fg° ,2147z2 pi-plc-try 4 rn Pr771Vr7 .?/2t7 y ?)()7 P,7 r- 9P771F 1 /77Tirr" 177H ??I'AOry i92,1,77,1-41th41:711 11-W r?44p79 09 74, ."77- V7ap2-2V17—AV-<77' -X(27-477X21 pyk • r /'-'7P°-°7iwdo� u �/ • , • effil f1449 '1474974 rvf. Y=4 /‘' � 3T*" 'mod o' fw' f Ru/ 1,711- Z _-3VW 7"6! v7k2° erin4j -Q-V72 -Pqm/ rvz7- 719-727?7/V p27/74 (%Ti 4cr 4971:1 71747 "02"., "ko piveuvern7?—e Tray '514S'4 Azr77-?m�'�Fr % :3:-P"t7o wawa° i Zwe &Jaded "04_ fet66440 WLe._ iaebdt aJrid hateic laza ,de/Z-42., 4V-,195- y40e/2 _ M-Zze-g Zde Yka 69te, kL4 < tom _ _ � /te a m Auld _ friL �c a/x4 ilAet, QAAci Yile_jo/zoilovecia axviAdur„. J-e, ale. ii2624 WLe aA,te, /let &AL 4v6e, frze- ilet4zA/ VkA h-Cee6(iv • • ?- i .0 . I IJ 1 ' 1, D , I lilt A !IiiiiII1II /111111 111111111 111 PP , /I iiii� . ,,. R �Ilrlk 1 , ,, , ,,, . , , , , , r/ Po.-4 • r. a Id WI J. 11 v: 1 rs 2.l „ ,' fc liL • k , { - , 1 �, 1 ayH . • • F..rtt 1- (:ire, '/1' ) - , ___ -_ ' BALDWIN - 1.110 .589 1AGE "205 : . ° FENCE POST (R.41 • i ' • 3.7' W 'LY OF' ...� a OLD PIPE , '- CORNER 4 � - S 2 23'W t 100' FOUND LEANTO o _ a* ATTACHED `I0 ADJACENT SHED _ Z ' , 1�� IS OVER GAS 1.5':,) - BOUNDARY _ w 'I REGULATOR p " o 0 HOUSE , z w CRAIG a FRANCES A.p Z l z MC HENRY. _ F-O 10 J . RAFFEN$PENCER : JIP DEEDS BK.372 PG.I86 '3*-1 H '` • . Q a p - (aO.) ®• ice)) ` TAX MAP NO. 57.I-29 1F- - < J cc I I,. 0.57 ORES ± , . ; 11I p EISCHER ; (RO,) �' •l a R , i Z - NO.137 p I • Q ' - PATIO - R I .! 1'k ' . 1- if_44V' 980' MEAS. FROM ® II. 50's -• j OLD PIPE AT S.W. o� I - I . CORNER' OF CORNELL.ap ' - _ - UNIV. PARCEL TO c� 1 ' 0 1 POINT OF BEGINING I - ' 39 $` _•' 1 - - - ALONG HIGHWAY LINE FENCE CORNER I' I ��-PIPE 5 OLD PIPE • I . ,i o/ : O =o_ - HIGHWAY LINE N 2 23 E 100 ALONG "_ ~ PINE TREE; ROAD • - - •- , - •_- - TO ELLIS HOLLOW RD -• - - TO . SLATERVILLE'RD-- — SURVEY• - MAP. = _, - - - NOo ..I37 ' PINE TREE ROAD - , • = MIL LOT- 96 TOWN OF ITHACA i h '•-- - TOMPKINS' COUNTY NEW YORK - ' . , _ :/° �-,r• .:, . • '20 1982" i . •- ` �-. - ry SCALE I" =J30' L_ � . MAY-- - ; ., � �, •,•� a�y`, r. �,.: " : . , , . L- i!. 4\4'. .--' 1.1%OA"' V �✓l. 't'l' .:noy ' t.• .. : Z