Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (22) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 54.-7-35.1 258 Pennsylvania Ave Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 258 Pennsylvania Ave 54.-7-35.1. Formerly 54.-7-35.2 and readdressing from 270 Pennsylvania Ave. History: 1985 – Special Approval for subdivision - Approved 1983 – Special Approval for 4 family equal sized units - Approved TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1985 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, September 18, 1985, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from August 21, 1985), with clarified Notice, of James Iacovelli, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling in Residence District R15 on a portion of the foundation of an existing barn with side yard and rear yard deficiencies, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-22.41, said parcel location being designated as "Slaterville Road" on 1985 Town of Ithaca Assessment Roll, however, having frontage on both Slaterville Road and Pine Tree Road, said parcel being located between 1476 Slaterville Road and 110 Pine Tree Road and between 1476 Slaterville Road and 1462 Slaterville Road. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Joseph Freedman, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Special Permit for the occupancy of a single family dwelling, in Residence District R9, by five unrelated persons, at 230-232 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels Zo. 6-54-7-13 and 6-54-7-14 (Old Ithaca Land Company Tract Parcels No. 87 and 88), such Special Permit being applied for pursuant to Article III, Section 4, Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. Permit is denied under Article -III, Section 4, Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc., Appellant, Robert I. Williamson, Esq., Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to maintain two (2) existing billboards, in Residence District R30, on premises owned by Sam and Eleanor Matychak, (Continued on Page Two) Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Public Hearings, September 18, 1985 Page Two at 1180 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-36-1-8. Permission is denied under Section 8.01-1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980. APPEAL Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc., Appellant, Robert I. Williamson, Esq., Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to maintain seven (7) existing billboards, in Residence District R30, on premises owned by R H P Properties, Inc., at 1325 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-28-1-25. Permission is denied under Section 8.01-1 of the Town -of Ithaca Sign Law, Local Law No. 6-1980. APPEAL of Anthony A. and Barbara A. Schultz, Appellants, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Certificate of Occupancy for a four -unit dwelling structure on lots numbered 30, 31, and a portion of 32, said lots being those shown on map entitled "Lands of the Ithaca Land Company", filed in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office on July 12, 1895, said lots and portion being those proposed to be subdivided from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35 (270 Pennsylvania Avenue) comprised of five lots numbered 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 on said map of the Lands of the Ithaca Land Company. Certificate is denied pursuant to a grant of variance set down by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on September 14, 1983, whereby the construction of said four -unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, was permitted with the understanding that said grant of variance encompassed all five lots numbered 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, on said map of the Lands of the Ithaca Land Company, and, in accordance with Article XIV, Section 76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. a 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 10, 1985 Publish: September 13, 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals 20 September 18, 1985 RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the application by Park for variance in the case of seven billboards at 1325 Mecklenburg Road be and hereby is denied, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the decision of the Building Inspector be and hereby is affirmed. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Park Appeal with respect to the seven billboards on Mecklenburg Road duly closed at 9:04 p.m. APPEAL OF ANTHONY A. AND BARBARA A. SCHULTZ, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A FOUR -UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE ON LOTS NUMBERED 30, 31, AND A PORTION OF 32, SAID LOTS BEING THOSE SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED "LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY", FILED IN THE TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE ON JULY 12, 1895, SAID LOTS AND PORTION BEING THOSE PROPOSED TO BE SUBDIVIDED FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-54-7-35 (270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE) COMPRISED OF FIVE LOTS NUMBERED 30, 31, 32, 33, AND 34 ON SAID MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY. CERTIFICATE IS DENIED PURSUANT TO A GRANT OF VARIANCE SET DOWN BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1983, WHEREBY THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID FOUR -UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6-54-7-35, WAS PERMITTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SAID GRANT OF VARIANCE ENCOMPASSED ALL. FIVE LOTS NUMBERED 30, 31, 32, 33, AND 34, ON SAID MAP OF THE LANDS OF THE ITHACA LAND COMPANY, AND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 76,.OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:05 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mrs. Barbara Schultz and Attorney Paul Tavelli were present. Chairman Aron noted that there was no one present from the public or the media. Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Barbara A. Schultz under date of September 9, 1985, as follows: "...Having been denied permission to Subdivide for Sale at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Ithaca NY 14850, Town of Ithaca Tai: Parcel No. 6-54-7-35,...The necessary subdivision, in order to sell the apartment building would result in no change whatsoever to the five lots included on the variance dated 9/14/83 in terms of further development. As a matter of fact, this subdivision would further enhance that prohibition. The side yard measurements indicated on the attached map would be most beneficial to each new parcel. Zoning Board of Appeals 19 September 18, 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals make a positive declaration of environmental impact. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Edward Austen. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Williamson stated that, on those boards on the Mecklenburg Road, he wanted the Board to know that they are on a Federal -Aid Primary Highway, and pointed out that he had attached to the Appeal a 1981 letter from the New York State Department of Transportation: Attorney Williamson stated that removal of the boards at this location would eliminate an income to Park Outdoor of approximately $13,000.00 per annum. Attorney Williamson stated that the boards are important in that they advertise local businesses, mentioning Watt Distributing and Gallagher Television, as well as public service ads for the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force. Attorney Williamson stated that the boards present no harm to the neighborhood; they do not contravene the intent of the sign ordinance, and they are not a traffic hazard. Attorney Williamson stated that State permits are required for these boards which are on Route 79 and those permits have been obtained from the State Department of Transportation, are current, and are paid for and up-to-date. Attorney Williamson, commenting that he did not wish to be repititious, stated that Park is a local business and the boards advertise local businesses and provide a public service also. Attorney Williamson noted that taxes are paid, and added that the Mecklenburg Road land is owned by Park with taxes paid on the land plus the boards. Chairman Aron asked if anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke. Mr. King wondered if there were any factor in this case which would change the Board's findings as in the other matter on Route 96B. Mr. Austen stated that he did not see any change, adding that these seven. billboards were not conducive to, the view of the countryside up there. Mr. King stated that he would say the traffic hazard is definite and described the narrow, winding road up there. Mr. Daniels stated that it has never been proved that billboards have caused.an accident. Mr. Austen stated that these billboards have been in violation of the Town Sign Law for the past thirteen years and any rebuilding has been in violation of that. Mr. Austen stated that he did not see any difference here from what we had on 96B. Mr. King stated that he agreed with those findings. Mrs. Reuning stated that she also agreed. MOTION by Mr. Edward Austen, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: Zoning Board of Appeals 21 September 18, 1985 ;tPlease see letter attached to this appeal." Chairman Aron stated that he would not read aloud the referenced letter attached to the Appeal, however, he asked that it be entered into the record. Said letter follows: "270 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 September 5, 1985 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Members of the Zoning Board: On September 14, 1983, your Board granted a Variance from Article III, Section 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a four unit multiple residence at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel number 6-54-7-35. The requirements pertaining to life and safety in multiple dwellings (New York State Code, etc.) and for appropriate landscaping were met at the time of construction and subsequent issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The- other stipulation in the variance was that 'said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots herein cited...' These are Lots 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. At the time of the hearing, we took this to mean that there would be no further development of these five lots. In July of this year, we accepted a purchase offer on the apartment building. This offer is contingent upon, among other things, the subdivision of that property from our home. In applying for a subdivision hearing, the Town Planner scheduled only a Sketch Plan Review (not a public hearing) as. he felt that such a division was impossible based on this wording in the variance. Please understand that, at the time of the hearing, we never understood this to be the case. We concurred with the opinion that the five lots should not be developed any further, but we were never given the impression that the sale of either the apartment building or the house would be forbidden. In any case, it has been suggested that we .come before you for an amendment of the variance granted in 1983 which would allow the property to be subdivided for sale, We must state, at this time, that we are rather uncomfortable with having to proceed 'backwards' in a sense regarding the subdivision hearing, etc., but we were unaware until the Agenda of the Planning Board had been set that there was a problem here. After much consideration, we feel that the best way to divide the property would be to cut Lot 32 in half, giving 25 feet to each new parcel. This does several things. First, it uses the roadway as the natural boundary that it has become. Second, it insures an ample side yard to the east for the apartment building and to the west for the house. Third, this division would, of course be subject to Zoning Board of Appeals 22 September 18, 1985 'access to the public on a roadway' as now exists in the deed to Lot 32. This access cannot be changed. Fourth, this division would leave ample side yard to the east for the house. Please see the map attached to this letter. We feel that the halving of Lot 32 would be the best way of dividing this property for sale. It would accomplish the Zoning Board's objective of no further development of these -lots, and also give us the opportunity to pursue the sale of our property. Parenthetically, our house pre -dates any zoning regulations and Mr. Cartee has brought the matter of the front yard depth to our attention. It is his opinion that even though the house pre -dates the requirements, that this matter should also be brought to the Board's attention. This was not a problem when we purchased the house thirteen years ago, but apparently it is now an issue which might also be addressed at this hearing. Please accept our apologies for appearing before the Planning Board first, but we were unaware that our intended sale of this property and the subdivision it requires would be a matter for your Board to consider. Sincerely, (sgd.) Barbara A. Schultz (sgd.) Anthony A. Schultz" Chairman Aron read aloud the Zoning Board of Appeals' Resolution duly adopted at its September 14, 1983 meeting, as follows: "RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article III, Section 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four -unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, said parcel being comprised of five lots numbered 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in 1895, said four -unit dwelling to be constructed upon old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof and which are a part of said Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, as shown on Plan S-1, titled 'Site Plan - Proposed Apartm't. for A.A. Schultz', Tallman & Tallman, Registered Architects, Ithaca, N.Y., Scale 1" = 301, proposed and presented to said Board of Appeals on September 14, 1983 by Anthony A. Schultz, Appellant, with the understanding that said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots hereinabove cited, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that said grant is conditioned upon there being, for the benefit of future neighbors, both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area west of the proposed driveway shown on said Site Plan and there being both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area north of the proposed structure such that, visually, its mass and scale is broken up, and Zoning Board of Appeals 23 September 18, 1985 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a building permit shall be applied for by the Appellant, and all requirements of the New York State Building Construction, Energy Conservation, and Fire Prevention Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings and any requirements of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and/or the Town Engineer, shall be met." Chariman Aron noted that, at that meeting in 1983, both Mr. and Mrs. Schultz were present and had no objections to the Resolution as it was adopted. Mrs. Schultz stated that that was correct, as they understood it. Chairman Aron stated that he would now read the Resolutions adopted by the Planning Board at its meeting last evening, September 17, 1985. Attorney Tavelli stated that since they were given a copy of those Resolutions by the Secretary, they would waive the reading of the Planning Board Resolutions. Chairman Aron agreed and stated that they should be entered as part of the record. The Planning Board Resolutions follow: "MOTION by Mrs. Grigorov: WHEREAS: Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn 1. This project is an Unlisted Action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on September 17, 1985. 2. A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project. 2. That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made. Aye - May, Baker, Grigorov, Langhans, Mazza, Klein. Nay - None. Abstain - Schultz. CARRIED." "MOTION by Mr. Edward Piazza, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov: WHEREAS: 1. The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance. Zoning Board of Appeals 24 September 18, 1985 2. The Planning Board has reviewed a sketch plat for this proposed subdivision at its meeting of September 3, 1985. 3. The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed subdivision at a Public Hearing on September 17, 1985. 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a Public Hearing for September 18, 1985, to hear an Appeal from the subdividers concerning the terms of a variance granted September 14, 1983. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval and waive, and hereby does waive, Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of the lands of Anthony and Barbara Schultz as proposed, being the subdivision of one parcel known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, said parcel being comprised of five (5) Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no. 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, into two parcels, one of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no. 30, 31, and one-half (25') of 32, and the second of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no. 33, 34, and the other half (25') of 32, IF and only IF the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variance that is requested by said Anthony and Barbara Schultz, such request to be before said Board of Appeals on September 18, 1985, and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Approval, with condition, granted herein be and hereby is contingent upon there being no further subdivision or building of dwelling units on all the parcels concerned in this subdivision, and 2. That there be something placed of record in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office to that effect, and 3. That, upon the meeting of the condition and contingencies set herein, a Final Subdivision Map be filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk and no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued until. proof of such filing has been submitted to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector. Aye - May, Baker, Grigorov, Langhans, Mazza, Klein. Nay - None. Abstain - Schultz. CARRIED:" Chairman Aron stated that the Board had before it an Appeal from a previous Appeal and he would ask the Board whether it should re -hear the matter at this time. Zoning Board of Appeals 25 September 18, 1985 Attorney Tavelli, noting that he was not present at the time of the September 1983 hearing, stated that he did not think in their wildest dreams. that the Schultzes ever thought they could not sell_ the apartment on the other side of the road.. Attorney Tavelli stated. that he did not think they saw it as a package. Attorney Tavelli stated that he saw this hearing as a clarification of the 7.983 variance, not as a re -hearing. Attorney Tavelli stated that the Schultzes came to him with respect to this matter and, upon review, he did not see this matter as an additional variance, but a clarification that the wording -- with the understanding. that this encompasses all five lots -- meant no further development. Chairman Aron noted that there are five parcels involved here. Attorney Tavelli stated that there were always the five old parcels but there is only one parcel now. Chairman Aron, noting again that there are five parcels in the one parcel, stated that in order to rescind the 1983 Resolution, the Board. has to agree to re --hear the case. Attorney Tavelli stated that he understood what the Chair -man was saying, however, he did not agree. Mr. King stated that he did not think the Board needed to have a formal re -hearing. Mr. King stated that he would think the Board could just interpret that variance if that is what the problem is Attorney Tavelli stated that he saw it that way, adding that it is one parcel with five old lots in it. Attorney Tavelli stated that a Certificate of Occupancy had been 7_ssu.ed by the Building Inspector for the whole lot, but not for this apartment, Mr. ]Ging wished to have it clear what the Schultzes wanted to do now, wondering if they wanted to go before the Planning Board. Attorney Tavelli, commenting that that was not the case, stated that the Planning Board had already approved the subdivision at its meeting last evening. Mrs.. Schultz stated that she went to the Planning Board for a hearing on the subdivision of the one lot into two lots on September 3rd, but: the Planner had set a sketch plan review rather than a public hearing and so time went by. Mrs. Schultz stated that the closing was supposed to have occurred last Monday. Mrs. Schultz stated that she then had to go to the next Planning Board meeting which was last night to get that Board to conditionally subdivide the parcel based on what the Zoning Board of Appeals vrould do, Chairman Aron reviewed the Site Plan with Mrs. Schultz noting that there would be a 20 -foot side yard for the apartment after the subdivision. Mrs. Schultz stated that that was not correct and pointed out on the survey that there would be a 45 -foot easterly side yard, that is, to the mi:d-dle of Lot #32, 25 feet of which would be added to Lot #31, and the other 25 feet of Lot #32 would be added to Lot #33, Chairman Aron noted that the site plan shows that nothing is to be built in Lot #32. Mrs. Schultz stated that that was correct, adding that nothing can be built on Lot #32. Attorney Tavelli stated that any building on old. lot 32 is restricted in the Deed. Chairman Aron commented that if there is nothing to be built on this property, the density would remain the same as it is today. Attorney Tavelli stated that that was correct, adding that there wi_11 Zoning Board of Appeals 26 September 18, 1.985 be no more traffic. Chairman Aron noted that, actually, nothing changes. Mr. King asked if there were restrictive covenants that went with the variance. It was noted that no restrictive covenants had been required by the Board at the time of the grant of variance. Chairman Aron stated that he had a memo from the Town Planner, Mr. Lovi, adding that he [Aron] had asked him [Lovi] to do some research for him. Chairman. Aron read the memo, as follows: "MEMORANDUM: TO: Henry Aron FROM: Peter M. Lovi, Town Planner_ DATE: ISeptember 5, 1985 RE: Barbara and Anthony Schultz 2 -lot subdivision 270 Pennsylvania Avenue If the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to rehear this case and amend its variance of September 14, 1983 it may want to consider the following approach: 1. Grant a variance for the construction of a four -unit apartment house on lots #30 and #31 subject to a restrictive covenant to be placed in the deed or deeds for the five lots presently known [as] 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, 2. This restrictive covenant should state that each dwelling unit in the four -unit apartment may be occupied by no more than.0 a) a single family and one unrelated person, or b) two unrelated persons. 3* This restrictive covenant should also state that the one -family house presently owned by Anthony and Barbara Schultz may not be remodelled or rebuilt as a tVlo-family house nor_ may it be occupied by more than a single family and two unrelated persons, 4. This restrictive covenant should also allow that in the event of any land subdivision, title to lots #32 and #34 shall remain with the one -family dwell.L , presently owned by Mir,. and Mrs. Schultz and that these lots must be maintained as permanent open space subject to any existing easements or rights -oft -way. 5. This covenant restricting occupancy in the four, -unit apartment house should be made a part of each and every lease whether such leases are granted by the present owners or by any subsequent owners. 6. This restrictive covenant should be enforceable by any owner or lessee of land or real property on lots #30-#34,. 7. The amendment of the present variance should state that it is the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit the property Zoning Board of Appeals 27 to be subdivided such that lots #30 and parcel and lots #32, #33, and #34 are However, the Zoning Board of Appeals development of these lots to no more presently exist on these five parcels." September 18, 1985 #31 are one distinct a separate parcel, is restricting the dwelling units than Attorney Tavelli asked Chairman Aron to read point #3 again, which he did -- "3. This restrictive covenant should also state that the one -family house presently owned by Anthony and Barbara Schultz may not be remodelled or rebuilt as a two-family house nor may it be occupied by more than a single family and two unrelated persons." Attorney Tavelli asked why this point was included, asking further, if the Town Zoning permits it, why put that in? Mr. King stated that he did not see any need for imposing section #3. Chairman Aron asked if the Board agreed that #3 should be striken. The Board members agreed to strike #3. With respect to point #4 -- ["4. This restrictive covenant should also allow that in the event of any land subdivision, title to lots #32 and #34 shall remain with the one -family dwelling presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Schultz and that these lots must be maintained as permanent open space subject to any existing easements or rights-of-way."], Attorney Tavelli stated that it would be acceptable as long as that does not mean you cannot put up a garage, a swimming pool, or an accessory building. Attorney Tavelli stated that the term "permanent open space" scared him a little bit. Mr. King and Chairman Aron suggested that the last part of point #4 read -- "...must be maintained as one parcel." The Secretary noted that it should also read "...title to one-half of lot #32 and lot #34..." The Board concurred with the suggested changes. With respect to point #5, Mr. King suggested that it be striken; Chairman Aron agreed, as did the Board members. After discussion, it was agreed by all that point 11T6 should be striken. It appearing that point #7 was acceptable to the Board, Town Attorney Barney stated that he would point out that #7 is not consistent with the earlier portion where the Board said that there could be a two-family house if otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. The Board members agreed that the last sentence in #7 should be deleted, and also that reference be made to "one-half of lot #32" and the words "easterly" and "westerly" be added. MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that the variance granted by said Board of Appeals at Public Hearing duly held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on September 14, 1983, with respect to property owned by Anthony A. Schultz and Barbara A. Schultz, delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, and comprised of five lots numbered 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office in 1895, permitting the construction of a four -unit dwelling structure on old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof, be and hereby is amended, such that: Zoning Board of Appeals W September 18, 1985 1. The variance for the four -unit apartment house on old. lots numbered 30, 31, is subject to a Restrictive Covenant to be placed in the deed or deeds for the five old lots presently known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue; 2. Said Restrictive Covenant shall state that each dwelling unit in the four -unit apartment may be occupied by no more than.0 a) a single family and one unrelated person, or b) two unrelated persons; 3. Said Restrictive Covenant shall also state that in the event of any land subdivision, title to old lots numbered 34 and the easterly half of 32 shall remain presently owned by Anthony A. situated on old lot numbered 33, maintained as one parcel; with the one -family dwelling and Barbara A. Schultz and ands that these lots must be 4. It is the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeals, by this amendment of said variance granted on -September 14, 1983, that the subdivision of the subject property, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, be permitted such that old lots numbered 30, 31, and the westerly half (251) of 32 are one distinct parcel, and old lots numbered 33, 34, and the easterly half of 32 are a separate parcel; AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that there be delivered to the applicant a copy of the requested Restrictive Covenant terms and, upon receipt of a duly executed and recordable Covenant complying with those terms and there being a proper subdivision map filed, the Building Inspector can issue a Certificate of Occupancy. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Aron, Austen, King, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Schultz Appeal duly closed at 9:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Aron declared the September 18, 1985 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Henry Aron, Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, September 14, 1983, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Jack D. Hewett, Edward N. Austen, Joan G. Reuning, Lewis D. Cartee (Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: Albert Hoefer Jr., Aubrey Brickhouse, Avinash Thukral, Paul Warren, Barbara A. Schultz, Anthony A. Schultz, H.L. Babcock, Carol Babcock, Barbara A. Joseph, Roger T. Joseph, William E. Murray, Bernie Charton, Lyman Baker, Jean Baker, Ted Marchell, Betty M. Hartsock, Michael W. Duttweiler, Dalva Hedlund, Richard Essen, Harry R. Keller, Harold R. Weisbaum, Esq., Katherine Anderson, Bill Anderson, Chairman Aron having previously informed the Board that he might be a little late because of out -of -Town business, Vice Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 6, 1983 and September 9, 1983, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon all the various neighbors of each of the properties in question, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Clerks. of the Town of Ulysses and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and upon each of the Appellants (and Agents, if any), as parties to the actions, on September 8, 1983. It was noted that each Board member had received with his/her Agenda copies of all documents received with respect to each Appeal. Vice -Chairman Hewett announced that the Cowell Appeal with respect to property at 1496 Trumansburg Road will not be heard due to the inability of the parties to be present. He stated that the matter will be rescheduled and republished. APPEAL OF ANTHONY A. AND BARBARA SCHULTZ, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6-54-7-35. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, 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 7:08 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Mr. Schultz was present Zoning Board of Appeals 2 September 14, 1983 and was asked to appear before the Board. Mr. Schultz referenced his Appeal Form, dated September 2, 1983 and attachments as follows: 1. Site Plan: Proposed Apartment for A.A. Schultz, Pennsylvania Ave., Lots #30, #31, ,#32, #33, #34, Drawing S-1, prepared by Tallman & Tallman, Registered Architects, 2. Completed Environmental Assessment Form (Short Form), dated 8/26/83. 3. Statement of Appeal (set forth below). -- "This property is located in an R-9 District, and is 250' x 120', consisting of five lots, each 50' x 1201. By using three lots of this property, we would have sufficient square footage to build two two-family dwellings. At maximum capacity, these dwellings could be rented to, for example, a six -member family, plus two other persons, for a total of sixteen persons on the three lot parcel. Our proposal is to construct one building containing four apartments. These apartments would be rented to two unrelated persons each. This would depend on the market at the time of completion, however, this is our plan. The possibility of rental to large families would be minimized by our.desires and the size of each apartment unit. The structure would impact us as direct neighbors as much as any other property owner in the neighborhood. To the south there is, and would remain, a heavy shrub -tree border between the properties, and our structure would not block any view. We are neighbors to the east. To the north, the house is totally rented (there has always been an apartment in it). To the west, the nearest dwelling is about 350' away. Further, and of equal importance, our proximity will allow us to closely supervise the property. This one multiple residence would actually be more in conformance with the character of the neighborhood than two closely -spaced two-family residences would be. The houses at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue are, at present, large and well spaced. This structure would be 24' x 60' in area, which -is not much larger than a moderately sized home with attached garage. It would also be on a large lot. At present, the house across the street (north) is completely rental property, and the house to the northeast has a basement apartment. At least five other houses on Pennsylvania are now rented, and there is a long established multiple dwelling on the street. Regarding traffic and parking: If granted the variance to build one multiple dwelling, we would be able to site the parking area at the rear of the building (south side), thereby minimizing the temptation for roadside parking and also minimizing visual impact on the neighbors. Were we to build two two-family dwellings, we would not. be able to provide this protection, and we would also have to create two separate entrances rather than one.. The increase in traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue would most likely be the same in either construction case. As to the practical difficulties involved in building two two-family dwellings instead of a multiple dwelling, we must Zoning Board of.Appeals 3 September 14, 1983 include: a. Cost factors - in terms of actual construction costs, the two separate units would increase costs approximately 30-350; b. Two separate units would require a greater maintenance time and cost. It must be noted here that we have held this property for ten years, and it is at this point that we are able to invest in improving it. We would like to do that to our maximum advantage. We feel that a variance to construct this multiple dwelling at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue should be granted as it does not materially change the character of the neighborhood, there is precedent for this variance on nearby Kendall Avenue, there is already a multiple residence at 225 Pennsylvania Avenue, the parcel is served by both public water and sewer, five of the nine closest neighbors will not be impacted at all by any increase in traffic due to this construction. It is our full intention to require very strict leases, including provision for.no pets, and in every way to attempt to maintain the quiet and almost rural atmosphere which presently exists as we are, and will continue to be, residents of Pennsylvania Avenue. One final consideration is the fact that a portion of one lot is used as a right-of-way to houses located south of our property. The placing of a multiple dwelling within the confines of the total 250' x 120' parcel, along with the existing house, would require no changes in this right-of-way situation." Mr. Schultz verbally stated the reasons for his Appeal as described in his written statement noting that he and Mrs. Schultz felt that it would be within the legal aspects of the property involved to build two separate houses but that, in itself, they felt, was a little bit non -conforming with the neighborhood because houses in the neighborhood are well spaced. He noted that they could build two very similar structures to be side by side on each of two of the lots shown. Mr. Schultz stated that by constructing what they propose, they would have something more in conformation with the neighborhood because the proposed structure still looks like a house and would not impact the neighborhood quite so much as two structures. Mr. Schultz stated that the structure as placed on the parcel allows for provision of off-street parking which is a concern of those living on the street itself. Mr. Schultz commented that there are similar type buildings in the area so there has been a precedent for utilizing more than one lot in this manner. Mr. Schultz stated that the zoning in the area is R-9 and in his reading of the zoning it would be within the legalities to build on these lots the two two-family houses as mentioned but they would prefer, rather than that, to have one building. Mr. Schultz described a minimal impact on the neighborhood by having the proposed structure facing north which would be the view of the Lake and noting that what would be seen would be another household comparable in design. Mr. Schultz stated that that house is a full rental unit. He stated that, to the west, the nearest house is 350' away. Mr. Schultz noted the driveway on the site plan which the Board had before them and stated the site plan does not show the shrubbery, however, he would state that, Zoning Board of Appeals El September 14, 1983 to alleviate the sight impact of the driveway, Northern Spruce would be planted. Mr. Schultz pointed out that the neighbors to the south would have no view of the house at all and described the heavy trees and shrubbery existing. Mr. Schultz described the right-of-way located on his lot #32 which provides access to houses located south of his property. Mr. Schultz noted that they would be their own neighbors to the east, pointing out that his house is due east. He stated that the impact on the neighbors that would be, in essence, to the northeast, would be minimal. Mrs. Reuning asked Mr. Schultz to specifically point out his house, which he did.. Continuing, Mr. Schultz spoke to the matter of hardship as to substantial costs in terms of placing two separate entities on the property available. Mr. Schultz stated that the density would not increase in terms of occupancy and with one house there would be more open space; two houses would be close to each other. Mr. Schultz stated that there is also precedence for this type of building and described another similar one on Kendall Avenue, one block away. Mr. Schultz stated that as a resident he would prefer one structure as opposed to two structures. Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Schultz Appeal, Mr. Lyman Baker, 257 Pennsylvania Avenue, spoke from the floor and stated that he was the second adjacent neighbor. Mr. Baker stated that between his house and Mr. Schultz's house the road curves and heads in a southerly direction and is not really a part of Pennsylvania Avenue, adding that he would like to know what is going to happen to that road. Mr. Baker stated that his second question was just cohere does the driveway go into the dwelling. Mr..Schultz stated that Mr. Baker's property is due north of his property and the proposed driveway, in essence, is directly across from the Baker driveway. Mr. Baker stated that that answers his second question, and asked again what will happen to the non -road, which Mr. Schultz names as being his property, when this building is built. Mrs. Reuning commented that as she drove on this road she noticed that the houses beyond have numbers. Mr. Schultz stated that the Town does not own any of the "road". Mrs. Reuning asked what the peoples' mailing addresses are. The assumption appeared to be that the addresses are Pennsylvania Avenue, Mr. Schultz stated that he pays Town taxes on that driveway; it is a driveway. Mr. Aron arrived and took over the Chair. Mr. Austen asked Mr. Schultz who uses this private road. Mr. Schultz stated that the residents of the four houses above him use it and mentioned Owens, Baker, and two others whom he did Zoning Board of Appeals 5 September 14, 1983 not name. Mr. Austen asked if this were a permanent easement type of thing. Mr. Schultz stated that it is, adding that it is a private right of way to four people from Schultz as owner of lot #32. Mr. Schultz stated that his proposal is not to touch the easement at all. Mr. Aron, indicating lot #32 asked Mr. Schultz again if he owns that he did. Mr. Aron asked him if Mr. Schultz replied, yes, on the site plan before him, that lot. Mr. Schultz stated he pays taxes on it, to which Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak for or against the Schultz Appeal. No one spoke. Chairman Aron asked if the Board wished to turn to the matter of the Environmental Assessment Form (Short Form) relative to the Schultz proposal. Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency with respect to review under SEQRA in this matter. Chairman Aron noted that all questions on the form submitted had been answered "no"; the form had been signed by Anthony A. Schultz on 8/26/83, and the matter had been reviewed by Mr. Fabbroni, the Town Engineer, on September 6, 1983, with the following recommendation made: "Negative Declaration recommended with some consideration for landscaping area west of driveway (for future neighbors) and area north of building to break mass and scale of building." MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed construction of a four unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form (Short Form) as completed by Anthony A. Schultz, Appellant, and as reviewed by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, the Town Engineer; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617, this action is classified as Unlisted; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above-mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and, therefore, will not require further environmental review. There being no further discussion, on, . Aye - Aron, Hewett, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. the Chair called for a The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals 6 September 14, 19834' Mr. Austen commented that the proposal seems to involve two lots and not three. Mr. Schultz stated that it is really three lots, in essence, that are involved with the proposal. Mr. Schultz added that he might, but not necessarily will, change the driveway location. MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article III, Section 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four -unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue; Town of Ithaca Tar. Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, said parcel being comprised of five lots numbered 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in 1895, said four -unit dwelling to be constructed upon old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof and which are a part of said Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, as shown on Plan S-1, titled "Site Plan - Proposed Apartm't. for A.A. Schultz", Tallman & Tallman, Registered Architects, Ithaca, N.Y., Scale 1" = 308, proposed and presented to said Board of Appeals on September 14, 1983 by Anthony A. Schultz, Appellant, with the understanding that said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots hereinabove cited, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that said grant is conditioned upon there being, for the benefit of future neighbors, both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area west of the proposed driveway shown on said Site Plan and there being both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area north of the proposed structure such that, visually, its mass and scale is broken up, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a building permit shall be applied for by the Appellant and all requirements of the New York State Building Construction, Energy Conservation, and Fire Prevention Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings and any requirements of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and/or the Town Engineer, shall be met. There being no further discussion, the Chair called. for a vote. Aye - Aron, Hewett, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Schultz Appeal duly closed at 7:32 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Aron announced that the Appeal of John T. and Mary Cowell, Lloyd and Suzanne Fitzsimmons, as Agents, will not be SC yUL ? Z SCHU4 T i 9// 9194.r ,SCNLj 4 TL :Z. 13. Iq - TZ. 2,/9.A ?z 2 40 od 0 Iq i TOWN OF I THACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 A P P E A L to the Building Inspector and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to SJR at ai i Parcel No. /o - Sq — 7 - FEE.: $100� RECEIVED: qq. CASH CHECK - () ZONING: For Office Use Only Town of Ithaca Tax 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: Dated: Q Signed: 270 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, New York 14850 September 5, 1985 Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Members of the Zoning Board: On September 14, 1983, your Board granted a Variance from Article III, Section 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordincance to permit construction of a four unit multiple residence at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel number 6-54-7-35. The requirements pertaining to life and safety in multiple dwel- lings(New York State Code, etc.) and for appropriate landscaping were met at the time of construction and subsequent issuance of the Certificate of Occu- pancy. The other stipulation in the variance was that "said proposal encom- passes all five of the old lots herein cited..." These are Lots 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34. At the time of the hearing, we took this to mean that there would be no further development of these'five lots. In July of this year, we accepted a,:apurchase offer on the apartment buil- ding. This offer is contingent upon, among other things, the subdivision of that property from our home. In applying for a subdivision hearing, the Town Planner scheduled only a Sketch Plan Review(not a public hearing)as he felt that such a division was impossible based on this wording in the variance. Please understand that, at the time of the hearing, we never understood this to be the case. We concurred with the opinion that the five lots should not be developed any further, but we were never .given the impression that the sale of either the apartment building or the house would be forbidden. In any case, it has been suggested that we come before you for an amend- ment of the variance granted in 1983.which would allow the property to be subdivided for sale. We -must state, at this time, that we are rather uncom- fortable with having to proceed ".backwards" in a sense regarding the subdi- vision hearing,;etc., but we were unaware until the Agenda.of the Planning Board had been set'that there was a problem here. After much consideration, we feel that. the best way to divide the property would be to cut Lot 32 in half, giving 25 feet to each new parcel_ This does several things. First, it uses the roadway as the natural boundary that it has become. Second, it insures an ample side yard.:.to:the:east for the apart- ment building and to the west for the house. Third, this division would, of course be subject to "access to the public on a roadway" as now exists in the deed to Lot 32. This access cannot be changed. Fourth, this division would leave ample side yard•_ to the east for the house.. Please see the map attached to this letter. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board September 5, 1985 Page 2. We feel that the halving property for sale. It would further development of these the sale of our property. of Lot 32 would be the best way.of'dividing this accomplish the Zoning Board's objective of no lots, and also give us the opportunity to pursue Please accept our -apologies for appearing but we were unaware that our intended sale of it requires would be.a matter for your Board before the Planning Board first, this property and the subdivision o consider. Sincerely, L2 bara A. Anthony A. Schultz Parenthetically, our house pre -dates any zoning regulations and Mr. Cartee has opinion brought the matter of the front yeard that even.though the house pre=dates depth to our attention. the requirements,'that It is his this mat- ter should also be brought to the Board's attention. This was not a prob- lem when we purchased the house thirteen years ago, but apparently it is now an issue which might also be addressed at this hearing. Please accept our -apologies for appearing but we were unaware that our intended sale of it requires would be.a matter for your Board before the Planning Board first, this property and the subdivision o consider. Sincerely, L2 bara A. Anthony A. Schultz MEMORANDUM: T0: FROM : DATE: RE: Henry Aron Peter M. Lovi, Town Planner September 5, 1985 TLOW0 Barbara and Anthony Schultz 2-l0 270 Pennsylvania Avenue subdivision If the Zoning Board of Appeals decides to rehear this case and amend its variance of September 14, 1983 it may want to consider the following approach: Y 1. Grant a variance for the construction of a four -unit apartment house on lots #30 and #31 subject to a restrictive covenant to be placed in the deed or deeds for the five lots presently known 270 Pennsylvania Avenue. 2. This restrictive covenant should state that each dwelling unit in the four -unit apartment may be occupied by, no more than: a) a single family and one unrelated person, or b) two unrelated persons. 3. This rest-Tictive cove ant should so state that the one-family\`house presently own by Anthony�a Barbar ScYiultz may note remo eled-fir rebu' It as' a two a ply houlse/nor may/it be occupied by more than a single family and 'two unrelated person's 4. This restrictive covenant should also allow th in the event of any land subdivision, title to lots/- 2and #34 shall remain with the one -family dwelling pre ently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Schultz and that these lots must be maintained ass —pe-r-ma�en`open spaoe_�ect to—any existing�ease.ments r ofway. 5. TPis,covienant restricting oc upancy i�noo � e four -un i' apar,�tment house should be mad a part of ach and eve y � Pease wY%ether suc leases are ranted by he present a ners orby Iny,/subsequent owners..6 Th ris ive�co enant /sho�i\ld be�orc able b a owner • or) 5 �i �� y or lessee of land or eal property on lots #30-f34�� 7. The amendment of the present variance should state that it iS the intent of the Zoning Board of Appeals to permit the property to be subd'-vi ch that lots #30 and #31 are one distinct parcel and�los�1 #33, and #34 are a separate parcel.i96aever�, the-�e1ng=Road A€-�,z� Qai G G rA +rtr�i�,7g f-hP development of these lots to n-e_more--dwe-l-1rng`urrit-s--t-h-an- pre sently­ exis-t an�fhese� ive-pa-roe-l-s-.— .- f RESOLUTIONS: Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 17, 1985 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN THE MATTER OF: (1) PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for a two -lot subdivision of lands at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35. Anthony and Barbara Schultz, Owners/Subdividers. MOTION by Mrs. Virginia Langhans, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov: WHEREAS: 1. This project is an Unlisted Action for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on September 17, 1985. 2. A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the Town Planner, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of this project. 2. That this project is determined to have no significant impact on the environment and a negative declaration of environmental significance shall be and hereby is made. Aye - May, Baker, Grigorov, Langhans, Mazza, Klein. Nay - None. Abstain - Schultz. CARRIED. (2) MOTION by Mr. Edward Mazza, seconded by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov: WHEREAS: 1. The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form for this proposed subdivision and has made a determination of negative environmental significance. 2. The Planning Board has reviewed a sketch plat for this proposed subdivision at its meeting of September 3, 1985. f Planning Board 2 September 17, 1985 3. The Planning Board has reviewed this proposed subdivision at a Public Hearing on September 17, 1985. 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals has scheduled a Public Hearing for September 18, 1985, to hear an Appeal from the subdividers concerning the terms of a variance granted September 14, 1983. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval and waive, and hereby does waive, Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of the lands of Anthony and Barbara Schultz as proposed, being the subdivision of one parcel known as 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, and delineated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, said parcel being comprised of five (5) Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no. 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34, into two parcels, one of which will be comprised of Ithaca Land Company Tract parcels no. 30, 31, and one-half (251) of 32, and the second of which will be comprised of Ithaca. Land Company Tract parcels no. 33, 34, and the other half (25') of 32, IF and only IF the Zoning Board of Appeals grants the variance that is requested by said Anthony and Barbara Schultz, such request to be before said Board of Appeals on September 18, 1985, and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Approval, with condition, granted herein be and hereby is contingent upon there being no further subdivision or building of dwelling units on all the parcels concerned in this subdivision, and 2. That there be something placed of record in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office to that effect, and 3. That, upon the meeting of the condition and contingencies set herein, a Final Subdivision Map be filed in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk_ and no Certificate of Occupancy may be issued until proof of such filing has been submitted to the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector. Aye - May, Baker, Grigorov, Langhans, Mazza, Klein. Nay - None. Abstain - Schultz. CARRIED. Planning Board 3 September 17, 1985 IN THE MATTER OF: SIGN REVIEW BOARD: Review of Appeal of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. in re Billboards at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and 1180 Danby Road. MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May, seconded by Mr. James Baker: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in its capacity as the Sign Review Board pursuant to Section 9.02-1 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that the Appeals of Park Outdoor Advertising of New York, Inc. in re billboards, seven at 1325 Mecklenburg Road and two at 1180 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-28--1-25 and 6-36-1-8, respectively, be denied in concurrence with the Town of Ithaca Sign Law as in violation of Section 8.01-1 thereof. Aye - May, Schultz, Baker, Grigorov, Langhans, Mazza, Klein. Nay - None. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, September 18, 1985. ' "TT*'/ KIl�37 e,DJEVAi: ItSAVt W &:5 A.WD 1....0&Q 'SQC. 0r. PA ' wa 11p0e, o� I . here`ly certify to Fl�7r. ht✓:.,•. 'i:'�:CL�. t�. �14Z.°?► �. Caw4vkw; or '•'lt�`� S> ••e. 41.3?..I am z, 'scens d 2dnc! surveyor, hew York State ! icense YC y,• .J`� �![`•,�f�% Itk�4R 1?l�g7 RC1 ' and ?hs* t`?I S tT+'+n r7►•r-pCt l Y d�`': i 11.?ti? PS an actun] yv' '. O �, I rl'' ►1 0 n �l ground 01! n .. �r ` -, r ► . ;4 S Vbo the r d wade ti r:lo or undeo d i rec* su�,cry I ;ion th. 'it wns areparepto'An accordanci.'w1,t' he current code of ,o c:� �- •� _� • ti. !�i'f1C`: CP ¢nr 1.�ne! 'Of! slarve�vs r.., r�o;er by Ftp "?ew Yprk State • " s r �� '`� �wj� •' •12 AsspAglS :fon O" Pr'0'"f�5;'On�i C;"La SV' VoYt�'r5i n!1 t�ldt fours 0 ,�.• . .. �.., L d d n 's ^ �,,'#`` •:• ,��,° +' v ;' 41-Sln encroafl!?�n"s either way c1cross oropArty lines except �-. �1 n ' 'E% '`� r ��.�•� a.1 shc3w.n !ipreon, PtM '3 g SI.G'v� ; _ .. .� ,.� ,DATED.) �,& �ig ArN . //'rte1119*46 &1 give, y 44 �!1 r; • % t i LoftL 94 ► ,j S� 1 1.4 Ig _y 1 "� �••aFggoggIIp "It V40 ELI let bee) A 1> low Ago go .4 r i' a , J _, ;i`w :• ���r�•�'� .o •Pv ✓moi 11 go 1•- } �??'rPtR/ Q V ' • ' •'-•` , L. -Y err bl•► quo"SAM tib y` -'� ! -2 iI b- _ Ire IL p j• r • oil - iAl do region _ Ir oo ft r Ao oil d ' 1 :J 6'4 it Ft I VA At i I! r 1 !, � ' t � def •� /�� i ; � , E (� ,� X1 :A�, A11 -`?pr ►�d1�li w. •M,. j 1 b 1 y-- Flow of ,F,,rn„trly d e >oo .►CM sat /y(!I i r ' tJ � � a • i t TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14,.1983 7:00 P.Me By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, September 14, 1983, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., commencing at 7:00 p.m., on the following -matters: APPEAL of Anthony A. and Barbara Schultz, Appellants; from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of a four unit dwelling structure' at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35. Permit is denied under Article III, Section 41, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordindnce.. APPEAL of Dr. Michael A. Goodfriend, Appellant, Ted Marchell,'as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying Sign Permit for the erection of a six square foot sign at 1212 TrumteLlisburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-26-3-8.2.. Permit is denied under Section 4.01-1(a) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law. APPEAL of John T. and Mary Cowell, Appellants, Lloyd and Suzanne Fitzsimmons, as Agents, from the decision -of th( Building Inspector denying permission to operate a small wholesale business In an existing barn of approximately 3,500 square feet, at 1496 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1-7.4 Permission is denied under Article XI, Section 51 (Article V, Section 19, being the operative regulation) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Harold L. Babcock, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of a garage, with work shop area, in a front yard with setback less than 30 feet, at 262 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-5-18. Permit is denied under Article V, Section 21, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Harry R. Keller, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Building Permit for the erection of a fence greater than six feet in height, at 213 Texas Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-71-1-6. Permit is denied under Article XIII, Section 65, and. Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Dalva Hedlund, Appellant, Harold Weisbaum, Esq., as Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a Certificate of Compliance for premises with rear yard 7 ess tiltxn 30 .Cr:e t. in depth and '('.runt yard less than 25 feet in depth, at 400 Coddington Roacl, now known as 201 Northvie�; Roacl 11'est I ( cont i nue(l ) Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Notice of Public Hearings September 14, 1983 Page Two Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-42-1-9.12. Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 76, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Dalva Hedlund, Appellant, Harold Weisbaum, Esq., as Agent, from the decision of the Building Ins-%ector denying permission for more than three unrelated persons to occupy a two-family dwelling at 400 Coddington Road, now known as 201 Northview Road West, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-42-1-9.1 Permission is denied under Article IV, Section 11, paragraph 2a, sub -section 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, as amended May 11, 1970. 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. Dated: September 6, 1983 Publish: September 9, 1983 Lewis D. Cartee Building Inspector Town of Ithaca s TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 14, 1983 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, September 14, 1983, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Henry Aron, Jack D. Hewett, Edward N. Austen, Joan G. Reuning, Lewis D. Cartee (Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: Albert Hoefer Jr., Aubrey Brickhouse, Avinash Thukral, Paul Warren, Barbara A. Schultz, Anthony A. Schultz, H.L. Babcock, Carol Babcock, Barbara A. Joseph, Roger T. Joseph, William E. Murray, Bernie Charton, Lyman Baker, Jean Baker, Ted Marchell, Betty M. Hartsock, Michael W. Duttweiler, Dalva Hedlund, Richard Essen, Harry R. Keller, Harold R. Weisbaum, Esq., Katherine Anderson, Bill Anderson. Chairman Aron having previously informed the Board that he might be a little late because of out -of -Town business, Vice Chairman Hewett declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 6, 1983 and September 9, 1983, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon all the various neighbors of each of the properties in question, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Clerks of the Town of Ulysses and the Village of Cayuga Heights, and upon each of the Appellants (and Agents, if any), as parties to the actions, on September 8, 1983. It was noted that each Board member had received with his/her Agenda copies of all documents received with respect to each Appeal. Vice -Chairman Hewett announced that the Cowell Appeal with respect to property at 1496 Trumansburg Road will not be heard due to the inability of the parties to be present. He stated that the matter will be rescheduled and republished. APPEAL OF ANTHONY A. AND BARBARA SCHULTZ, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR UNIT DWELLING STRUCTURE AT 270 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-54-7-35. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, 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 7:08 p.m. and read aloud the Notice as published and as noted above. Mr. Schultz was present Zoning Board of Appeals 2 September 14, 1983 and was asked to appear before the Board. Mr. Schultz referenced his Appeal Form, dated September 2, 1983 and attachments as follows: 1. Site Plan: Proposed Apartment for A.A. Schultz, Pennsylvania Ave., Lots #30, #31, #32, #33, #34, Drawing S-1, prepared by Tallman & Tallman, Registered Architects. 2. Completed Environmental Assessment Form (Short Form), dated 8/26/83. 3. Statement of Appeal (set forth below), -- "This property is located in an R-9 District, and is 250' x 120', consisting of five lots, each 50' x 1201. By using three lots of this property, we would have sufficient square footage to build two two-family dwellings. At maximum capacity, these dwellings could be rented to, for example, a six -member family, plus two other persons, for a total of sixteen persons on the three lot parcel. Our proposal is to construct one building containing four apartments. These apartments would be rented to two unrelated persons each. This would depend on the market at the time of completion, however, this is our plan. The possibility of rental to large families would be minimized by our desires and the size of each apartment unit. The structure would impact us as direct neighbors as much as any other property owner in the neighborhood. To the south there is, and would remain, a heavy shrub -tree border between the properties, and our structure would not block any view. We are neighbors to the east. To the north, the house is totally rented (there has always been an apartment in it). To the west, the nearest dwelling is about 350' away. Further, and of equal importance, our proximity will allow us to closely supervise the property. This one multiple residence would actually be more in conformance with the character of the neighborhood than two closely -spaced two-family residences would be. The houses at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue are, at present, large and well spaced. This structure would be 24' x 60' in area, which is not much larger than a moderately sized home with attached garage. It would also be on a large lot. At present, the house across the street (north) is completely rental property, and the house to the northeast has a basement apartment. At least five other houses on Pennsylvania are now rented, and there is a long established multiple dwelling on the street. Regarding traffic and parking: If granted the variance to build one multiple dwelling, we would be able to site the parking area at the rear of the building (south side), thereby minimizing the .temptation for roadside parking and also minimizing visual impact on the neighbors. Were we to build two two-family dwellings, we would not be able to provide this protection, and we would also have to create two separate entrances rather than one. The increase in traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue would most likely be the same in either construction case. As to the practical difficulties involved in building two two-family dwellings instead of a multiple dwelling, we must Zoning Board of Appeals 3 September 14, 1983 include: a. Cost factors - in terms of actual construction costs, the two separate units would increase costs approximately 30-35%; b. Two separate units would require a greater maintenance time and cost. It must be noted here that we have held this property for ten years, and it is at this point that we are able to invest in improving it. We would like to do that to our maximum advantage. We feel that a variance to construct this multiple dwelling at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue should be granted as it does not materially change the character of the neighborhood, there is precedent for this variance on nearby Kendall Avenue, there is already a multiple residence at 225 Pennsylvania Avenue, the parcel is served by both public water and sewer, five of the nine closest neighbors will not be impacted at all by any increase in traffic due to this construction. It is our full intention to require very strict leases, including provision for no pets, and in every way to attempt to maintain the quiet and almost rural atmosphere which presently exists as we are, and will continue to be, residents of Pennsylvania Avenue. One final consideration is the fact that a portion of one lot is used as a right-of-way to houses located south of our property. The placing of a multiple dwelling within the confines of the total 250' x 120' parcel, along with the existing house, would require no changes in this right-of-way situation." Mr. Schultz verbally stated the reasons for his Appeal as described in his written statement noting that he and Mrs. Schultz felt that it would be within the legal aspects of the property involved to build two separate houses but that, in itself, they felt, was a little bit non -conforming with the neighborhood because houses in the neighborhood are well spaced. He noted that they could build two very similar structures to be side by side on each of two of the lots shown. Mr. Schultz stated that by constructing what they propose, they would have something more in conformation with the neighborhood because the proposed structure still looks like a house and would not impact the neighborhood quite so much as two structures. Mr. Schultz stated that the structure as placed on the parcel allows for provision of off-street parking which is a concern of those living on the street itself. Mr. Schultz commented that there are similar type buildings in the area so there has been a precedent for utilizing more than one lot in this manner. Mr. Schultz stated that the zoning in the area is R-9 and in his reading of the zoning it would be within the legalities to build on these lots the two two-family houses as mentioned but they would prefer, rather than that, to have one building. Mr. Schultz described a minimal impact on the neighborhood by having the proposed structure facing north which would be the view of the Lake and noting that what would be seen would be another household comparable in design. Mr. Schultz stated that that house is a full rental unit. He stated that, to the west, the nearest house is 350' away. Mr. Schultz noted the driveway on the site plan which the Board had before them and stated the site plan does not show the shrubbery, however, he would state that, Zoning Board of Appeals 4 September 14, 1983 to alleviate the sight impact of the driveway, Northern Spruce would be planted. Mr. Schultz pointed out that the neighbors to the south would have no view of the house at all and described the heavy trees and shrubbery existing. Mr. Schultz described the right-of-way located on his lot #32 which provides access to houses located south of his property. Mr. Schultz noted that they would be their own neighbors to the east, pointing out that his house is due east. He stated that the impact on the neighbors that would be, in essence, to the northeast, would be minimal. Mrs. Reuning asked Mr. Schultz to specifically point out his house, which he did. Continuing, Mr. Schultz spoke to the matter of hardship as to substantial costs in terms of placing two separate entities on the property available. Mr. Schultz stated that the density would not increase in terms of occupancy and with one house there would be more open space; two houses would be close to each other. Mr. Schultz stated that there is also precedence for this type of building and described another similar one on Kendall Avenue, one block away. Mr. Schultz stated that as a resident he would prefer one structure as opposed to two structures. Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Schultz Appeal, Mr. Lyman Baker, 257 Pennsylvania Avenue, spoke from the floor and stated that he was the second adjacent neighbor. Mr. Baker stated that between his house and Mr. Schultz's house the road curves and heads in a southerly direction and is not really a part of Pennsylvania Avenue, adding that he would like to know what is going to happen to that road. Mr. Baker stated that his second question was just where does the driveway go into the dwelling. Mr. Schultz stated that Mr. Baker's property is due north of his property and the proposed driveway, in essence, is directly across from the Baker driveway. Mr. Baker stated that that answers his second question, and asked again what will happen to the non -road, which Mr. Schultz names as being his property, when this building is built. Mrs. Reuning commented that as she drove on this road she noticed that the houses beyond have numbers. Mr. Schultz stated that the Town does not own any of the "road". Mrs. Reuning asked what the peoples' mailing addresses are. The assumption appeared to be that the addresses are Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Schultz stated that he pays Town taxes on that driveway; it is a driveway. Mr. Aron arrived and took over the Chair. Mr. Austen asked Mr. Schultz who uses this private road. Mr. Schultz stated that the residents of the four houses above him use it and mentioned Owens, Baker, and two others whom he did Zoning Board of Appeals 5 September 14, 1983 not name. Mr. Austen asked if this were a permanent easement type of thing. present who Mr. Schultz stated that it is, adding that it is a private right of way to four people from Schultz as owner of lot #32. Mr. Schultz stated that his proposal is not to touch the easement at all. Mr. Aron, indicating lot #32 asked Mr. Schultz again if he owns that he did. Mr. Aron asked him if Mr. Schultz replied, yes. on the site plan before him, that lot. Mr. Schultz stated he pays taxes on it, to which Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak for or against the Schultz Appeal. No one spoke. Chairman Aron asked if the Board wished to turn to the matter of the Environmental Assessment Form (Short Form) relative to the Schultz proposal. Chairman Aron stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is the lead agency with respect to review under SEQRA in this matter. Chairman Aron noted that all questions on the form submitted had been answered "no"; the form had been signed by Anthony A. Schultz on 8/26/83; and the matter had been reviewed by Mr. Fabbroni, the Town Engineer, on September 6, 1983, with the following recommendation made: "Negative Declaration recommended with some consideration for landscaping area west of driveway (for future neighbors) and area north of building to break mass and scale of building." MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed construction of a four unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form (Short Form) as completed by Anthony A. Schultz, Appellant, and as reviewed by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, the Town Engineer; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, Part 617, this action is classified as Unlisted; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above-mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and, therefore, will not require further environmental review. There being no further discussion, vote . Aye - Aron, Hewett, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. the Chair called for a The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 6 Zoning Board of Appeals 0 September 14, 1983 Mr. Austen commented that the proposal seems to involve two lots and not three. Mr. Schultz stated that it is really three lots, in essence, that are involved with the proposal. Mr. Schultz added that he might, but not necessarily will, change the driveway location. MOTION by Mrs. Joan Reuning, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article III, Section 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a four -unit dwelling structure at 270 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, said parcel being comprised of five lots numbered 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 on map of The Ithaca Land Company Tract recorded in 1895, said four -unit dwelling to be constructed upon old lots numbered 30 and 31 thereof and which are a part of said Parcel No. 6-54-7-35, as shown on Plan S-1, titled "Site Plan - Proposed Apartm't. for A.A. Schultz", Tallman & Tallman, Registered Architects, Ithaca, N.Y., Scale 1" = 30", proposed and presented to said Board of Appeals on September 14, 1983 by Anthony A. Schultz, Appellant, with the understanding that said proposal encompasses all five of the old lots hereinabove cited, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that said grant is conditioned upon there being, for the benefit of future neighbors, both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area west of the proposed driveway shown on said Site Plan and there being both suitable and appropriate landscaping of the area north of the proposed structure such that, visually, its mass and scale is broken up, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a building permit shall be applied for by the Appellant and all requirements of the New York State Building Construction, Energy Conservation, and Fire Prevention Codes applicable to Multiple Dwellings and any requirements of the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and/or the Town Engineer, shall be met. There being no further discussion, vote . Aye - Aron, Hewett, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. the Chair called for a The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Schultz Appeal duly closed at 7;32 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENT Chairman Aron announced that the Appeal of John T. and Mary Cowell, Lloyd and Suzanne Fitzsimmons, as Agents, will not be I a I I P �r A 'N 'VOVHll - SJ.031lH3HV 0 a 3a31S]J3 NVW�llbi )R NVWllvi 0 {eon A e TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 A P P E A L to the Building Inspector .and Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York FEE:($7.50 RECEIVED: CASH CHECK ZONING: For Office Use Only Having been denied permission to at z ?(0 Pe A) )6� A. d J P/ Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 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) Ili: ., 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: Dated: g . ' f�l Signed: I This property is located in an R-9 District, and is 250' x 120', con- sisting of five lots, each 50' x 120'. By using three lots of this pro- perty, we would have sufficient square footage to build two two-family dwellings. At maximum capacity, these dwellings could be rented to, for example, a six -member family, plus two other persons, for a total of six- teen persons on the three lot parcel. building containing four apartments. Our proposal is to construct one These apartments would be rented to two unrelated persons each. This would depend on the market at the time of completion, however, this is our plan. The possibility of rental to large families=. would be minimized by our desires and the size of each apartment unit. The structure would impact us as direct neighbors as much as any other property owner in the neighborhood. To the south there is, and would remain, a heavy shrub -tree border between the properties, and our structure would not block any view. We are neighbors to the east. To the north, the house is totally rented (there has alwasys been an apart- ment in'it). To the west; the nearest. dwelling is about 350' away. Fur- ther, and of equal.importance, our proximity will allow is to closely supervise the property. s This one multiple residence would actually be more in conformance with the character of the neighborhood than two closely -spaced two-family residences would be. The houses at the end of Pennsylvania.Avenue are, at present, large and well spaced. This structure would be 24' x 60' in area, which is not much larger than a a moderately sized home with attached garage. It would also be on a large lot. At present, the house across the street(north) is completely rental property, and the house to the northeast imp -2- has a basement apartment. At least five other houses on Pennsylvania are now rented, and there is a long established multiple dwelling on the street. Regarding traffic and parking: If granted the variance to build one multiple dwelling, we would be able to site the parking area at the rear of the building(south side), thereby minimizing the temptation for roadside parking and also minimizing visual impact on the neighbors. Were we to build two two-family dwellings, we would not be able to provide this protection, and we would also have to create two separate entrances rather than one. The increase.in traffic on Pennsylvania Avenue would most likely be the same in either construction case. As to the practical difficulties involved in building two�two-family dwel- lings instead of a multiple dwelling, we must include: a. Cost factors - in terms of actual construction costs, the two separate units would increase costs approximately 30-35%; b. Two separate units would require greater maintenance time and cost. It must be noted here that we have held this property for ten years, and it is at this point that we are able to invest in improving it. We would like to do that to our maximum advantage. We feel that a variance to construct this multiple dwelling at 270 Penn- sylvania Avenue should be granted as it does not materially change the character of the neighborhood, there is precedent for this variance on nearby Kendall Avenue, there is already a multiple residence at 225 Penn- sylvania Avenue, the parcel is served by both public water and sewer, five of the nine closest neighbors will not be impacted at all by any increase _3_ in traffic due to this construction, It is our full intention to require-very strict leases, including provision for no-pets, and .in 'every,way to attempt to maintain the quiet and almost rural atmosphere which presently exists as we are, and will continue to be, residents.of. Pennsylvania Avenue: w, One final 'consideration is the fact.that a portion of one lot is used as a right-of-way to houses'located'south of our property. The placing of a multiple dwelling within the•confines of _•:the total 250' x 120' parcel, along with the existing house, would requireL no changes in this right-of- way situation., .. h r CL e vsf l'Ip Id *•• �.. 1 , i.l.w _ sY Iw !ri M a VAa I r� F� lid L S' TALL!MAN & TALL -MAN +•^t , REGISTERED ARCHITECTS - ,ITHACA, N. Y Short Environmental Assessment Form Page Two 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? 14. Will project affect the.existing community by directly causing.a growth in permanent population of more than 5 per cent over a one-year period or have.a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15e is there public controversy concerning the .project? ignature of Applicant Date igature of Reviewer 7766 Title Date ev i ewed Reviewer's Recommendationsc S V v Determination by Town of Ithaca Board � ? Negative Declaration - determina_°on of non -significance. Act ion.. may be of significant n z ronmental impact- .._...EAF _requi.red _ SignalTre of Chairperson SAT, Date TOWN OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies; research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a. completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is %likely that this project isnot significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes INO 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? Yes No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an /No existing body of water? Yes 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? Yes No 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes /No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered / plant or animal species? Yes J No P P 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on / air quality. Yes J No 8. Will project have a major effect on visual' character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes No g. Will project adversely impact any site or -. structure of historic, pre-historic,.or paleonto- logical importance or any site designated', a -s -'a / critical environmental area by a local agency? Yes J No 10. Will project have a major effect on e>is.ting or future recreational opportunities? Yes J No 11. Wi_ll project result in major traffic problems or, 'cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionabi'e odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operatiorr7 Yeso f. INSTRUCTIONS: TOWN OF 1 THACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM f (a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currently available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is .not expected that additional studies,, research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a. completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project isnot ` significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes \/No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? Yes /No 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an /No existing body of water? Yes 4. Will project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? Yes No 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on / adjacent sites? Yes �/ No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered / plant or animal species? Yes J No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on / a i r quality? Yes J No 8. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or _. structure of historic, pre-historic,.or paleonto- logical importance or any site designated as a / critical environmental area by a local agency? Yes J No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes ✓ No I)* Will project result -in major traffic problems or- cause rcause a major effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance as a result of the project's operation? Yes No Short Environmental Assessment Form 13. Will project have any impact on public. health or safety? 14. Will project affect the existing community by directly causing.a growth in permanent population of more than 5 per cent over a one-year period or have.a major negative effect on the character of the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the .pro lett? Signature o Date Page Two Yes ✓ No uSig6a'ture of Reviewer Reviewer's Recommendations: c IGWIca U Determination by Town of Ithaca W Board Negative Declaration determination of nonsignificance. Action. may be of significant environmental impact EAF.requi.red. Signature of Chairperson • Date - - -- - — TOWN OF ITHACA SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS: (a) In order to answer the questions in this snort EAF it is assumed that the preparer will use currentTy available information concerning the project and the likely impacts of the action. It is not expected that additional studies; research or other investigations will be undertaken. (b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be significant and a completed Environmental Assessment Form is necessary. (c) If all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project is not significant. (d) Environmental Assessment 1. Will project result in a large physical change to the project site or physically alter more than 10 acres of land? Yes No 2. Will there be a major change to any unique or unusual land form found on the site? Yes INO 3. Will project alter or have a large effect on an Ao existing body of water? Yes 4. Will. project have a potentially large impact on groundwater quality? Yes XNo 5. Will project significantly affect drainage flow on adjacent sites? Yes No 6. Will project affect any threatened or endangered plant or animal species? Yes No 7. Will project result in a major adverse effect on / air quality? Yes J No' 8. Will project have a major effect on visual character of the community or scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes No 9. Will project adversely impact any site or _ structure of historic, pre-historic,.or paleonto- logical importance or any site designated as a / critical environmental area by a local agency? Yes J No 10. Will project have a major effect on existing or future recreational opportunities? Yes J No ll. Will project result in major traffic problems or cause a major effect to existing transportation systems? Yes No 12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors, noise, glare, vibration, or electrical disturbance / as a result of the project's operation? Ye; �f Vo 3 '^ «Environmental Assessment Form Shof f 13. Will project have any impact on public health or safety? 14. Will project affect the.existing community by directly causing.a growth in permanent population of more than 5 per cent over a one-year period or have.a major negative effect on the character of, the community or neighborhood? 15. Is there public controversy concerning the project? Signature of iin Reviewer's Recommendations. Page Two Yes ✓ No - ig afore of Reviewer Title Agen Ce f'ev i owed V v L, Determination by Town of Ithaca Boards Negative I)eclaration - determination of non -significance. Acti.on..may be of significant 'env ironmentaI impact ::... EAF . requ i.red.. SIgnature of Chairperson nate