Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (23) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 54.-7-20 248 Pennsylvania Ave Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 248 Pennsylvania Ave 54.-7-20. Previous tax parcel number 54.-7-19 consolidated with 54.-7-20 in 1986. History: 1992 – Special Approval to keep 6 unrelated occupancy after sale - Approved but revokable at any time for cause 1985 – Special Approval to build duplex across two lots and for 6 unrelated occupancy on 54.-7-19 & 20 - Approved 1983 – Special Approval for 2 family equal sized units on 54.-7-19 - Approved TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1992 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, April 8, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters. APPEAL of Donald Royce -Roll, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 10, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a single-family residence with an exterior building height of approximately 34-35 feet (30 feet being the maximum height allowed). Said residence is proposed to be located at 1427 Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-28-1-6.2, Agricultural District (R-30 regulations apply). APPEAL of Thomas and Cindy Besemer, Appellants, Marianne W. Young, Agent, Kenneth Ash and Howard Fuller, Owners, requesting a Special Permit from the Board of Appeals under Article III, Section 4, Paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to maintain the occupancy of an existing two-family home by six unrelated persons (three unrelated persons in each dwelling unit) located at 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-20, Residence District R-9. Without special permit, occupancy is limited to two unrelated persons in each dwelling unit. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, John A. Kiefer and Robert Chiang, Agents, requesting the Special Approval of the Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 70, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the deposit of more than 2,500 cubic yards of earth fill (up to approximately 38,000 cubic yards) on Cornell University lands, known as the Southeast Precinct, located off NYS Rte. 366 and Game Farm Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-64-1-1 and -2, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Henry E. Doney, Agent, requesting the authorization of the Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the enlarging of the existing, non -conforming Cornell University Central Heating Plant building located on NYS Rte, 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-63-1-8.1 and -8.2, Light Industrial District. Said building is non -conforming in that it has an exterior building height of approximately 46 feet, whereas 25 feet is the maximum height allowed. 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. Andrew S. Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 273-1747 Dated: March 31, 1992 Publish: April 3, 1992 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA i Date TOWN OF ITHACA i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS C12`k APRIL 8, 1992 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS WERE HEARD ON APRIL 8, 1992 BY THE BOARD: APPEAL OF THOMAS AND CINDY BESEMER, APPELLANTS, MARIANNE W. YOUNG, AGENT, KENNETH ASH AND HOWARD FULLER, OWNERS, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO MAINTAIN THE OCCUPANCY OF AN EXISTING TWO-FAMILY HOME BY SIX UNRELATED PERSONS (THREE UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT) LOCATED AT 248-250 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-54-7- 20, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-.9. WITHOUT SPECIAL PERMIT, OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO TWO UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT. GRANTED WITH CONDITION. APPEAL OF DONALD ROYCE -ROLL, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V. SECTION 18, PARAGRAPH 10, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 34-35 FEET (30 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED). SAID RESIDENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 1427 MECKLENBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-28-1-6.2, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY). GRANTED. APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT, JOHN A. KIEFER AND ROBERT CHIANG, AGENTS, REQUESTING THE SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION. 70, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINACE, TO PERMIT THE DEPOSIT OF MORE THAN 2,500 CUBIC. YARDS OF EARTH FILL (UP TO APPROXIMATELY 38,000 CUBIC YARDS) ON CORNELL UNIVERSITY LANDS, KNOWN AS SOUTHEAST PRECINCT, LOCATED OFF NYS RTE, 366 AND GAME FARM ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 64-1-1 AND -2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30. GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS. APPEAL OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, APPELLANT, HENRY E. DONEY, AGENT, REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION 54, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT THE ENLARGING OF THE EXISTING, NON -CONFORMING CORNELL UNIVERSITY CENTRAL HEATING PLANT BUILDING LOCATED ON NYS RTE. 366, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-63-1-8.1 AND -8.2, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. SAID BUILDING IS NON -CONFORMING IN THAT IT HAS AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 46 FEET, WHEREAS 25 FEET IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED. GRANTED. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1992 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 8, 1992 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date file 1 PRESENT: Vice Chairman Robert Hines, Edward King, Pete Scala, Joan Reuning, Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew Frost, Town Attorney Randall Marcus. ABSENT: Chairman Edward Austen. OTHERS: Edward C. Hooks, Esq., Donald Royce -Roll, Tom Botsford, Thomas Besemer, Cindy Besemer, Bob Shaw, Ken Ash, Howard Fuller, Jim Adams, Larry Fabbroni, Gene Katz, Shirley Egan, Phillip Cox. Vice Chairman Hines called the meeting to order and stated that all posting, publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order. The Vice Chairman changed the order of.the cases as published and heard the following Appeal first: APPEAL OF THOMAS AND CINDY BESEMER, APPELLANTS, MARIANNE W. YOUNG, AGENT, KENNETH ASH AND HOWARD FULLER, OWNERS, REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO MAINTAIN THE OCCUPANCY OF AN EXISTING TWO-FAMILY HOME BY SIX UNRELATED PERSONS (THREE UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT) LOCATED AT 248-250 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-54-7-20, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-9. WITHOUT SPECIAL PERMIT, OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO TWO UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH DWELLING UNIT. Vice Chairman Hines requested that the record show that Attorney Edward Hooks was representing Mr. and Mrs. Besemer tonight. Vice Chairman Hines indicated that the previous Appeal on this property was a few years ago [March 20, 1985]. Vice Chairman Hines opened the public hearing. Attorney Hooks explained that Mr. and Mrs. Besemer are the prospective buyers of 248 Pennsylvania Avenue and Ken Ash and Howard Fuller are the current owners, all of whom were present. Currently there is a lease for six unrelated persons at the property. Attorney Hooks stated that it was his understanding that there have been no problems or complaints during this seven-year time span and they do'not anticipate any changes to the residence in any way and they would continue to be good neighbors. Attorney Hooks stated that the agreement between the Besemers and Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller is contingent upon this permit being approved. I Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April S. 1992 2 Vice Chairman Hines referred from Tammo Steenhuis, 266 request. The referenced letter Vice Chairman Hines stated to a letter dated Pennsylvania Avenue, objecting is attached hereto that objections to this April 5, as Exhibit request 1992, to the #1. should be dealt from with first. to object to the Besemer Mr. Howard Fuller appeared before the Board and stated that he would respond to the complaints listed in the letter. Mr. Fuller noted that the first issue was speeding traffic, and stated that the house is located on a dead end street, adding that he found it hard to believe that speeding was related to this project. Mr. Fuller explained that of the six occupants, one was a professional working at the Tompkins County Library, two were graduate students, and three were undergraduate students, adding that he has never received a complaint regarding the property. Mr. Frost stated his office has not received any complaints. Vice Fuller stated Chairman Hines asked if anyone from the public was present to object to the Besemer appeal. No one responded. Vice Chairman Hines closed the public hearing. Mrs. Reuning asked Mr. King about the previous appeal on this property. Mr. King explained that the Board, at that time, wanted to encourage the owner to consolidate two legal non -conforming lots in order to keep more green area around the house, rather than building two separate units, one on each lot. Mr. King noted that the grant was particular to the owner at the time. Mr. King stated that he was presently more inclined to put a limitation, perhaps five years, upon it so that it would come back for review in the future, adding that the Board certainly cannot give a variance to an individual owner and then have the variance disappear when the ownership changes, and further adding that he thought the same ought to be true for this type of permit. Mr. King stated that an owner should be aware that some control must be exercised over the occupants, which are most likely going to be students in that area, adding that the Town has had many complaints from the neighborhood association in the past years about this particular area because of the number of students, indicating that it has become more like a college town at times. Vice Chairman Hines reopened the public hearing for comments. Mr. Fuller stated he did not think five years would be a appealing to a new buyer. Attorney Hooks stated that transaction is being financed through a mortgage and the requires a 15 -year term. Attorney Hooks noted that this is security and the five-year time limitation could impact Besemers' ability to have the mortgage go through. Vice Chairman Hines reclosed the public hearing. t all this bank their the Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1992 _ Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala. RESOLVED, that, in the matter of. the Cindy Besemer, requesting a Special Permit Appeals under Article III, Section paragraph 2b, of the Town of Ithaca maintain the occupancy of an existing Appeal of Thomas from the Board 4, Paragraph 2, Sub- Zoning Ordinance, two-family home by and of to six unrelated persons (three unrelated persons in each dwelling unit) located Tax Parcel Ithaca Zoning No. at 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca 6-54-7-20, Residence District R-9, the Town of Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: Ayes - Reuning, King, Scala, Hines. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals find and determine and hereby does find 'and determine that the Special Permit granted to Kenneth Ash and Howard Fuller, owners of the subject property, 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-20, permitting three unrelated persons to occupy each of the two dwelling units therein, be permitted to continue for a period of five- years, said permit to run with the property, not the particular owner of it, upon finding that such occupation generally comports with the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community and will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property, particularly in view of the fact that the five-year limitation gives this Board of Appeals the opportunity to review the Special Permit at the end of the five-year period, and gives the owner of the property an opportunity to request a renewal of the permit before the five years has expired and, rather than making it exactly a five- year expiration, said permit is to expire on June 30, 1997 which would take it to approximately the end of the school year. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1992 V By way of discussion, Vice Chairman Hines stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals' jurisdiction to grant or deny the subject the criteria of Section 77, Zoning Ordinance seek to protect, owner can be called upon to permit is conditioned on the findings under Section 77, which are revoked. certainly amply met by the facts in this case, and unless there were a serious or adverse change in the situation as it exists, the permit would likely be renewed and would likely be continued to be renewed, adding that Section 77 findings are not likely to be different five years from now, unless something really radical changes. Mr. King suggested the permit be subject to revocation should the use of the property grow to be in violation of the Section 77 criteria. Mr. Hines suggested amending the resolution. MOTION By Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mr. Pete Scala RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals amend its resolution to provide that the continuation of the Special Section time limitation condition Notice or any Permit granted for this property under Article 4, Paragraph 2, Sub -paragraph 2b, will not have on it, but that it is granted subject to that the permission may be revoked any time, after and public hearing, if any provision of the Town law concerning noise or any other law which would III, any the laws impinge upon the general amenities of the neighborhood which the criteria of Section 77, Zoning Ordinance seek to protect, owner can be called upon to Paragraph 7, of the Town of Ithaca and, if in violation, explain satisfactorily or have the the permission revoked. A vote on the Motion to amend resulted as follows: Ayes - Reuning, Scala, King, Hines Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. A vote on the entire Motion, as amended, resulted as follows: Ayes - Reuning, Scala, King, Hines. Nays - None. The Motion carried unanimously. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals April 8, 1992 W" Vice Chairman about claimed Hines explained to the Appellants that they have been granted a permit without will be in handling time limitations but subject to being called permit back before should be the revoked Board, on Notice, to determine whether for any violation of the zoning the laws including the general the solar conditions under which the Board continued violations would be handled through his the Special Permit under tonight. Mr. King suggested Attorney Hooks asked about claimed violations and what the policy see will be in handling alleged violations. to the Mr. Frost explained to enforce them. hill further explained on the south -- toward for these views and for the solar heat and light. that violations would be handled through his office, under the same process as anyone else's, adding that normally, unless it was very serious, probably warning and circumstances, and further adding that he would cite the owners, but after three times more serious action is considered. Mr. King suggested that the new property owners have strong rules for their tenants and see that they are enforced views of to the extent that they are going to enforce them. hill further explained on the south -- toward The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following: APPEAL OF DONALD ROYCE -ROLL, APPELLANT, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V. SECTION 18, PARAGRAPH 10, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN EXTERIOR BUILDING HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 34-35 FEET (30 FEET BEING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED). SAID RESIDENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 1427 MECKLENBURG ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 6-28-1-6.2, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY). Mr. Donald Royce -Roll appeared before the Board and explained the design and zoning considerations for the proposed home construction at 1427 Mecklenburg Road. land house Mr. Royce and the existence design -Roll stated that because of Mecklenburg would best be as far of the natural grade of the Road, the building site and away from the noise of Mecklenburg This Road, would take which forms advantage of the north the secluded boundary of wooded lot the property. and views of streams would that run through the fit the house into the property existing on the south grade of the and east, south and sloping hill further explained on the south -- toward for these views and for the solar heat and light. Mr. basement Royce design -Roll explained the site with little disturbance lends to itself to a walk -out the environment - the natural grade drops about eight feet from the planned north and south sides house is designed of the house. Mr. Royce -Roll for maximum use of glass further explained on the south -- toward the the sun and the views. Mr. Royce -Roll stated that the first floor Rev. 10/90 Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor: Thomas E. and Cindy L. Besemer 2. Project Name: 3. Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue, Ithaca, New York 14850 54-7-20 Tax Parcel Number: 4. Is Proposed Action: NEW 11 EXPANSION X❑ MODIFICATION/ALTERATION 5. Describe Project Briefly (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : The current property owners, Ken Ash and Howard Fuller, have a special permit for occupancy by six unrelated persons. The house on the property is a duplex and is presently rented to six unrelated individuals, three in each unit. The applicant plans to purchase the property and to continue its use as rental property. The applicant contemplates purchasing the property subject to the existing tenancies. Applicant requests a special permit to continue to allow occupancy of this duplex by a total of six unrelated persons. (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of Land Affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) 0 9 4 Acres (6-10 y rs) 0.4 Acres 010 yrs) 0.4 Acres 7. How is the Land Zoned Presently? Residence district R9 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? YES ❑ NO ❑X If no, describe conflict briefly : Property presently zoned for two families or four unrelated persons. 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES 0 NO Public Water? YES NO © Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial ❑ Industrial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open Space F'] Other Please describe: 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES F] NO X❑ If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether that permit/approval will require modification. Present owners, Ken Ash and Howard Fuller, currently have a special permit for oc- cupancy by six unrelated persons. 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type):yy��_�j Signature: tu Date Z44 . $fie ":&I Pe rm: T e se-5Cme r PART II - EMYIRONMENTA L ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO KVi If yes, coordinate the review process and use the Full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6? YES NO ISI (If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any.) C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: ( Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : JI ' IR ' 6lWO-11i C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in CI- C5? Explain briefly ; SEE ATi'ACHID C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES F�] NO Z If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff M, CAG ❑, Other E] attached. (Check applicable boxes) PART III — DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (ie. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attach- ments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination. ZONING HOARD OF APPEALS A.^ Name of Lead Agency Preparer's Signature If different from Responsible Officer) Raheri-7bippiqgr%an Name bf?Wortsible fficer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Ir Si nater Do Bible Officer in ad Aaencu Date: , 1. •'v PART II - Environmental Assessment - Application to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Permit for Occupancy by Six Unrelated Individuals, Residence District R-9, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-20, 248-250 with Pennsylvania Avenue. A. Action action is Unlisted. in any Be Action on, to or _arising will from not receive coordinated review. C. Could action result (8) parking spaces, therefore in any adverse effects on, to or _arising from the following: be a problem with cars parking on the street. There are no known specific aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or quantity, C1. Existing noise air quality, surface or groundwater quality or levels, be existing traffic action. patterns, solid waste_ production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? None anticipated. The proposed action involves the renewal of a special permit to allow six unrelated individuals to continue renting a two family residence. The action will not involve any construction or expansion of use, therefore no significant adverse impacts with regard to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, traffic or solid waste disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems are expected, C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None anticipated. Off-street parking is provided on the site with at least eight existing plans or goals in use or intensity of use (8) parking spaces, therefore other there will not resources? be a problem with cars parking on the street. There are no known specific aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources that would be affected by the proposed action. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated as a result of the proposed action. No threatened or endangered plant species or animals, or significant habitats are known to exist on, or adjacent to the site, and no construction will occur as a part of this action. C4. adopted, A or community's a change existing plans or goals in use or intensity of use as officially of land or other natural resources? None anticipated. The current owners of the property have a special permit for occupancy by six unrelated persons, as allowed by Article III, Section 4(2b) of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. This special permit, however, is limited to the current owners and the person who is buying the property wishes to maintain the current use. A new Special Permit by the Zoning Board of Appeals is therefore needed. The use and intensity of use of the land is not anticipated to change as a result of this proposal. C5. Growth, subsequent Long in term, development, C1-05? potential or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. identified there, Long in term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not C1-05? potential adverse None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the fact that the use is already in existence, and no significant impacts have been identified with the current use, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Reviewer: Richard A. Eiken, Planner Review Date: March 27, 1992 2 Board of Appeals I April 21, 1992 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Andrew Frost Town of Ithaca Zoning and Building Department 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue Dear Andy: This letter will confirm that the Town of Mr. and Mrs. Besemer a special permit for the property pursuant to a resolution dated April 8, other documents are required in connection with is my understanding that the resolution is "permit." I /2j5A q�R�qt �uus BEACH & WILCOX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 121 EAST SENECA STREET P.O. BOX 580 ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 (607)273-6444 Ithaca has issued above -referenced 1992, and that no this permit. It will serve as the Thank you again for all of your help with this matter. It was greatly appreciated. Very truly yours, 'MAta lam) Marianne W. Young MWY/mag cc: Tom & Cindy Besemer THE GRANITE BUILDING 130 EAST- MAIN STREET ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14604-1687 (716) 2324440 20 CORPORATE WOODS BOULEVARD ALBANI; NEW YORK 12211-2391 (518).127-9700 50 FOUNTAIN PLA7A SUITE 12tk BUFFALO, NEW YORK 1-1202-2212 (715) 854-5300 1611 NORTH KENTS"1"REET SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 (703) 528.1600 TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 HIGHWAY 273-1656 Ms. Marianne detector Young Harris Beach I and Wilcox 121 East Seneca Street P.O. Box 580 located Ithaca, at 248- New York 14850 Avenue and observed Dear Ms. Young: PARKS 273-8035 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 April 17, 1992 ZONING 273-1747 RE: 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue On April detector 15, in 1992 I inspected the west side of the the two family sounded spackled home located the at 248- 250 Pennsylvania pushed. Avenue and observed the following three items. 1) The smoke detector wall in the apartment on the west side of the building been taped sounded spackled when the wall the test button was pushed. 2) The exhaust fans from each bathroom independently vent direct- ly to the outside of the building through the exterior walls of the attic. 3) The fire separation wall between each apartment (in the attic area) has been taped and spackled at the wall seams. I trust this letter serves your needs. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. AF/dlh CC: Shirley Raffensperger i\ Sincerely, Andrew Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer L TSD Pe�tj�vl o o ,a. Qv Z� April 5, 1992 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals c/o Mr Andrew Frost 126 E Seneca Ithaca NY 14850 Dear Sirs and Madams: I understand that there is a request for six unrelated people meeting. So I living in the parcel on Pennsylvania Ave 250 after it is of the Apparently permission was given by a previous Planning Board to owners to rent the building for six unrelated people (currently too many fast car) to live in this building. (It was not even a week ago that one to continue being sold. the current each owning a I will be in Scotland during the planning board meeting. So I cannot attend in person. I am opposed to this request of the owners. The neighborhood is overcrowded with students as it is. There are already too many parties, too much garbage and too many fast cars racing through the street. (It was not even a week ago that one of the cars of the property under question came racing at a speed of least 40 miles per hour when I was walking with the kids to school and refused to slow down. Also this Saturday night ,lust like any other weekend day there were two huge parties in our street). I am sure that the current owners will use the argument that because permission was given once there is a precedent. In my opinion there is no need to continue past mistakes that have turned the old town of Ithaca neighborhood in a student enclave. id11110U .7. D41=C1111U 1b 266 Pennsylvania Ave Ithaca NY 14850 HARRIS BEACH & WILCOX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 121 EAST" SENEGA STREET P,O. BOX 580 March 25, 19 9 2 ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 (607) 273-6444 HAND DELIVERED Mr. Andrew Frost Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Special Approval Application - 248 Pennsylvania Avenue Dear Mr. Frost: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this morning, enclosed are ten copies of a completed approval application form, a completed environmental assesment form, a recent survey, and a check in the amount of $100.00. As you know, Tom and Cindy Besemer are in the process of purchasing this property and are facing certain deadlines with respect to their mortgage commitment. We ask that you schedule this for the meeting on April 8, 1992. I appreciate your help with this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Marianne W. Young MWY/mag Enclosures cco w/ encl.. Tom & Cindy Besemer Ken Ash Howard Fuller THE GRANITE BUILDING 140FAST MAIN STREET ROCHESTER, NEN' YORK I -I604-1687 (716) 242 -4 -I -I(1 20 CORPORAFE WOODS BOULEXARD ALBANY, NEW YORK 12211-2991 (518) 427-9700 50 FOUNTAIN PLAZA SUITE 1260 BUFFALO, NEN' YORK 14202-2212 (716) 851-5900 1611 NORTH KENT STREET SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON. VIRGINIA22209 (703)528-1600 HARRIS BEACH & WILCOX ATTORNEYS AT LAW 121 EAST SENEGA STREET P.O. BOX 580 April 1, 1992 1THACA' NEW YORK 14851 (607) 273.6444 HAND -DELIVERED Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re: Application for Special Permit pursuant to Article III, Section 41 Sub -section 21 Paragraph 2(b) 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-20 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Thomas E. and Cindy L. Besemer, long-time residents of Ithaca, wish to purchase a two-family house at 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue which is presently owned by Ken Ash and Howard Fuller. Mr. Besemer has been President of Cayuga Crushed Stone, Inc., a family owned and operated limestone quarry, since 1984s Mrs. Besemer has held various positions in the community and now devotes herself full time to taking care of their year -and -a -half -old daughter. Pursuant to a special permit issued to Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller on March 20, 1985, the property is currently rented to six unrelated individuals, three in each unit. The purchase offer is subject to the property being used according to its present use and to the existing leases. Therefore, Mr. and Mrs. Besemer request a special permit to continue to allow occupancy of this two-family dwelling by a total of six unrelated persons. BACKGROUND In 1985, Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller obtained a variance to construct a two-family dwelling on a parcel consisting of two separate lots. The property is located in residence district R9. Rather than building two small houses, they proposed to build a duplex in the center of the two lots. By doing this, they were able to construct a higher quality building and avoid undue congestion and overcrowding. The building was only economically feasible, however, if each unit could be occupied by three unrelated individuals. As part of their proposal, Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller requested and received a special permit to allow occupancy by a total of six unrelated persons. THE GRANITE BUILDING 130 FASTMAIN STREET ROCHESTER. NEW YORK 1-I6P1-1687 (716) 232-4410 20 CORPOMTE WOODS BOULEVARD ALB.,NY, NEW YORK 12211-2391 (518) 427-9700 W FOUNTAIN PLAZA SUITE 1260 BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202-2212 (716) 854-5300 1611 NORTH KENT STREET SUITE 1000 ARLINGTON. VIRGINIA 22209 (703) 528-1600 Zoning Board of Appeals April 1, 1992 Page 2 THE PROPERTY After obtaining a variance and special permit, Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller purchased the property and built a two-family house. The square footage of the house is approximately 2,052 feet. Each unit is identical and has three bedrooms, each approximately 12' x 121 . Both units have separate entrances. In addition, Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller have provided off-street parking which accommodates six to eight cars. The property is currently leased to six individuals, including one professional and two graduate students. There have been no complaints concerning either the upkeep of the property or the present tenants. Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller now wish to sell the premises, but because of the leases, can only do so if the purchaser obtains a special permit to allow the continuation of the present occupancy. SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION Mr. and Mrs. Besemer have offered to purchase the property from Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller; however, the purchase offer is subject to the property continuing to be used as a residence for six unrelated people and to the six existing leases. Therefore, they must have a special permit, as provided for in Article III, section 4, sub -section 2, paragraph 2(b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. In the future, Mr. and Mrs. Besemer plan to have their son, Matthew Besemer, presently a sophomore at Ithaca College, occupy one of the units. Leasing the premises to their son further ensures that they will properly maintain the property and locate acceptable tenants. Moreover, they will continue to landscape the premises in a manner appropriate to the residential nature of the neighborhood. Granting the special permit will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Besemer only wish to continue the existing occupancy of the building. As the present use of the property demonstrates, continued occupancy by six unrelated persons will have no detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community and is consistent with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance. Moreover, granting the special permit will fill a community need for affordable quality housing. Further, it should be noted that many of the surrounding houses in the neighborhood are multi -family dwellings, with occupancy by more than four unrelated individuals. The premises are well-suited for the proposed continued use as housing for six unrelated individuals, and the proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, will have no detrimental affect on the general Zoning Board of Appeals April 1, 1992 Page 3 amenity of the area inhabitants. and will not CONCLUSION inconvenience HARRIS BEACH & VALCOX neighboring We respectfully request that the Appeals Board grant a special permit to Mr. and Mrs. Besemer continuing occupancy of the premises at 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue by six unrelated persons so that they may purchase this property from Mr. Ash and Mr. Fuller. Very truly you Ed rd C. Hooks aaaa ECH/mag TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 SPEC IAL APPROVAL A P P E A L to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been informed that authorization is required to: EL unrelated persons in a duplex 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue FEE: $100.00 RECEIVED: CASH CHECK - ( ) ZONING: For Office Use Only continue occupancy by six . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-7-20 as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to: Article(s) Section(s) III 4(2)-2b , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization. (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. 248-250 Pennsylvania Avenue Project Name: Ken Ash/Howard Fuller Printed Name Owner/Appellant: Signature of Owner/Appellant: Signature of Appellant/Agent: Marianne w. xo Home Telephone Number: Ash 257-111 if) March 25, 1992 te: te: Telephone Number: Ache (RM) 145-1991 Fuller: 274-6164 Young: 273-6444 PLOT PLAN INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN. 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimenslons and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addltion(s). a. Road, 5. Nanes of neighbors who bound lot. b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. C. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and number. 3. North arrow. 8. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY MAP Signature of Owner/Appellant. Signature of Appellant/Agent. Date. Date. in CP r � C *D r D Cf) N r~ C m 0 .. v O Z D Z D U ..4 m 0 0 m� LA LA � c o =r m � m Wtoww-s w LA -.o n r*< rrr s m -+ o- n (moo -� o � J. ..A. J* I< ►� m :Em01nrr v ►+ om�aNQ�+C-) �r rrm`<T1 ms�M0LAr+ wl o ^mac o a 0-0 m+ > =r wo mo `•as a 4< 3 n u moa-mscav�+rr '"p 7 -h C+ 7 r+m O iN� S rrm pc W in ON 0r MR on 0 to J J. r* �. CD 01 a•= Or J. O a rt 7• O Z =a•cc°iimynal u o0mv ,AD M 'f n v0 CA �+ A N y T f w A IW M+< a+ v+ = m m °. c 4 rn n c o m -° : a f)y� _A m "S -T 'o Z C � •- 0� � q � o<rrmz•Lf�� S` W M r+an m ►o, (A c� C (A c.?m rt X rnF v+lo0 � C+C3 m o •1'°VHL -ice m 0) s.n azin)rooabom MA iqco L m u' rr m m n a rr . �^ D a f ,or rr CD *fq a 0 Lnj•s o •cv 0) n u' 7ram�m £ - O m -a mi o n X oN <0+v� narr0J.nm M 7 W -h &A C X 0 r�+a� oa p .. ovr� nom n . mao �C%o o N NP20 01 c n 0 n x �mP m$v � r � r r s' 000.00' rA 40000 /00�0 \ ' \ IN tip to L` \ \ \ \ \ r l Ip NO Ja IN Oe IN. It 040000 0. 06 NI, N ��_ \ \ t; v \ '' ;, \Not i IN ILI MOND Lin IJ \\ ti 4000 N% to t, All ok x`. of \ I rr It w n =j \C Oi fl } \ \� 1 ` / ` t0N,4 A \ yMoo . o�+ ' - AtN Q r /to NIP 'Iftft CDt I NAZI It NJ Y07 y Y r , z:II It - -- ---' ---- _ "111 'v� � � .��o'" __r..o � xt O — � r'J too Jo '+ v (� 41 Ln too too It.1 cc CD Alk I N 4;I .; r TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 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, March 20, 19850 in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the rollowing matters: ADJOURNED APPEAL (from December 12, 1984, January 23, 1985, February 27, 1985) of R. De.11imCarpini, J. Fairchild, and J. Saro.ka, Appellants, in re the conversion of an existing garage on a developed lot in a Residence District R15 to a place of worship (public place of assembly) at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-57-1-1. APPEAL of John W. and Ruth H. DeWire, appellants, from -the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of an addition (porch) to an existing residential structure., located in Residence District R15, creating a side yard with a deficiency of 2 feet, at 148 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2T8. Permit is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV,, Section 75 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of Robert A. Boehlecke Jr., Lawrence Hull, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission to use an existing structure (barn), located in Residence District R9, for an office, shop, and storage of plumbing supplies, with three employees, at 611 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 6-31w2-2.1. Permission is denied under Article IIT, Section 4, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL of William Topley and Samuel Bonanni, Appellants, Kenneth Ash, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying a building permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling in Residence District R9 with each dwelling unit of equal size (three bedrooms in each unit) and with a rear yard deficiency of 5 feet, and further denying a Special Permit to allow three unrelated persons to occupy (continued on Page 2) Zoning Board of Appeals 17 March 20, 1985 Galbraith might make his point. Mr. Galbraith stated that they have asked for storage, shop, applicant would a variance and view office. this as for three different things, being Mr. Galbraith stated. that the a severable variance such that if the Board viewed some appropriate and amenable to a variance but others not, they would accept some portion of that. Mrs. Cook wondered if she had stated earlier that she opposed the request before the Board, and, if she had not so stated, she did now. STATEMENT BY VICE CHAIRMAN HEWETT Vice, Chairman Hewett stated that Mrs. Reuning has asked permission to be excused because it is her birthday and Mr. Reuning is here to take her to a dinner party. Vice Chairman Hewett stated that he had given permission for Mrs. Reuning to leave, and noted that a quorum was still present. APPEAL OF WILLIAM TOPLEY AND SAMUEL BONANNI, APPELLANTS, KENNETH ASH, AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R9 WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT OF EQUAL SIZE (THREE BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT) AND WITH REAR YARD DEFICIENCY OF 5 FEET, AND FURTHER DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALL0W THREE UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY EACH UNIT .(A TOTAL OF 6 UNRELATED PERSONS), SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, SUB -SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 2(b), AT 246-250 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO, 6-54-7-19 AND 6-54-7-20. PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, SUB -SECTION 2; ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, SUB -SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 2(b); ARTICLE III, SECTION 7; 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 8:30 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr, Ash was present. The Board members each had received with his/her Agenda the following documents* 1. Completed Appeal Form, signed and submitted by Ken Ash and Howard Fuller under date of March 11, 1985, reading as follows: "...Having been denied permission to' construct a two family structure on slab (side by side) of equal. size and a special permit for a total of 6 unrelated persons, at 246-250 Penn. Ave....I propose to build one duplex (with total occupancy at 6 unrelated individuals) by joining 2 lots. The 2 lots are of such a size that it would be impractical and present an undue hardship to build one single family residence on each lot due to the set back requirements etc, that would be imposed under the current building code. The proposed construction of one duplex on 2 lots would be the best use Zoning Board of Appeals we March 20, of the land. The duplex would consist of 2 separate 3 bedroom units." 2. Site Plan, signed by Ken Ash, undated, showing the proposed location on the two lots, combined, of the proposed 40' x 50' duplex. 3. Completed Short Environmental Assessment Form, signed and submitted by Ken Ash, under date of March 13, 7.985, reviewed by Peter Lovi, Town Planner, on March 14, 1985. 4. Portion of Tax Map #54, depicting the location of the two lots in question. Mr. Cartee stated that he would like to address the Board first. Mr. Cartee stated that at the time when he needed to send the Notice of Public Hearings to the Ithaca Journal, Mr. Ash had indicated that there would be a rear yard deficiency of 5 feet and that has since turned out not to be the case. Mr. Cartee stated that that variance request need not be considered. Mr. Kenneth Ash appeared before the Board and introduced his associate, Mr. Howard Fuller. Mr. Ash stated that he and Mr. Fuller currently own two building lots on Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Ash stated that, under the current zoning, they could construct two dwellings on each lot and have each occupied by three unrelated persons. Mr. Ash stated that the construction of two houses would be, economically, a hardship and, therefore, they would like to build one house in the middle of the two lots. Mr. Ash stated that the shape of the lots would make it difficult to build two separate units, noting that one lot is a triangle. Mr. Ash stated. that one duplex makes sense and is also the best use of the land. Mr. Ash stated that there are presently two lots and it would be very difficult to build any type of house on the land. Mr. Ash stated that a duplex in the center would avoid giving a congested look to the neighborhood and would blend in and be an improvement. Mr. Ash stated that the proposed duplex would have three bedrooms in each side, would have one story, would have aluminum siding, and would have separate driveways and separate entrances. Mr. Ash stated that the review of the environmental impact is very favorable to this proposal in that it would blend in, and in that other proposals have been approved and built and have given a positive aspect to the neighborhood and the surrounding homes. Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak for or against this matter. Edward A. Mazza, Esq., spoke from the floor and stated that he was here representing James Iacovelli who has a similar request next on the Agenda. Attorney Mazza stated that he has also represented other clients who have done similar things in the neighborhood. Attorney Mazza stated that Lawrence Iacovelli has built similar structures and history has shown that these 79 '1985 Zoning Board of Appeals March 20, 1985 have been an improvement. Attorney Mazza stated that these improvements have been accomplished by taking these smaller lots and combining and dedicating them to one structure rather than putting a small structure on each. Attorney Mazza noted that, if one were to read the Preamble of the Zoning Ordinance and its purposes, such as the provision of adequate light and air and the prevention of the overcrowding of land, one would see that all of those purposes will be served by such proposals. Attorney Mazza stated that this has been proved by the construction of higher quality buildings when one is built rather than two. Vice Chairman Hewett asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak. No one spoke. The Secretary read into the record the following two letters which had been hand delivered by Mr. Lyman Baker to the Town Office. 1. "252 Penna. Ave. Ithaca, N.Y. March 18th 1985. Attention - Zoning Board of Appeals. . . . On March 16th I received your Notification of the'Meeting and the Appeal of William Topley-and Samuel Bonanni for the construction of a two family dwelling e•L-c - at 246-250 Pa. Ave. To this I object strenuously - This is adjacent to my property - I've lived here over forty years in peace and harmony, until the Ithaca College students were brought in the neighborhood by landlords, To Quote, 'Are not responsible for their tenants actions' These tenants live in their own world with total disregard for personal property or the .nights and needs of others, making their life style completely incompatible with us 'old timers'. They don't have day hours or 'night time as rest periods'. They are on the go at all hours day and nights My property is posted. The signs are broken down and displaced. The cars are parked any which way across the road, this makes access very hazardous. I detest picking up the litter of bottles, cans, paper goods, etc', if this building was erected where would the tenants park their cars with 5' shortage of the rear yard? we built our present home in 1940 - it looked like an ideal retirement facility - I only ask to out live the rest of my years in peace and without harassment from future tenants. (sgd.) Helen B. Philips." 2. "Town of Ithaca . . March 19, 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Board of Appeals 20 March 20, I wish to enter in the records my objections to a two family dwelling at 246-250 Pa. Av. by William Topley and Samuel Bonanni. Pennsylvania Avenue is very narrow. The older people and children who walk are afraid of the many cars. Any increase would greatly endanger their lives. Parking would, be a problem with the 5 foot shortage. The life style of the student is very much different from the working person. They are always going all hours of the night, when working people are trying to sleep. Please consider the feelings of the home owner who has lived on Pennsylvania Avenue all their lives. Thank You (sgd.) Lyman Baker 257 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca, NY 14850" Mr. King commented that those sound like the complaints of neighbors and asked Mr. Ash how he would respond. Mr. Ash'stated that he was not looking for students, adding that Morse Chain and NCR are there and they have no place to live. Air. Ash stated that those kind of professional people would be ideal tenants. Mr. Ash stated that there will be off --street parking and separate entrances. Mr. King stated that he has noticed cars up there in the front yard and asked if Mr. Ash were proposing off-street parking. Mr. Ash stated that he was. Mr. Austen commented that Mr. Ash had stated in his Appeal that he was asking for occupancy by six unrelated persons and that leads the Board to think about students. Mr. Ash stated that he could have six unrelated persons now in two houses, and he mentioned the number 6 because it is an option.. Mr. Ash stated that ideally he wanted to have professional people. ter. King noted that Mr. Ash had stated that the cost would be higher to build two houses. Mr. Ash stated that that was correct. Mr. King asked what is next to this property, wondering if there were multiple units. Mr. Fuller stated that the Schultzes had a four• -unit structure two properties to the left. Mr. Ash distributed five colored photographs among the Board members showing houses on the other side, showing the property in question and views of the street. Mr. Cartee indicated the Philips` house stating that it sits a way back, up in the field. The Board members reviewed each of the pictures and discussed them. Mr. King noted that the Board has before it an environmental report on this matter also which has been reviewed by Peter Lovi with the recommendation being that there is no adverse environmental impact provided that acceptable conditions were approved, as noted in Item C5 of Part II of the Form ["No adverse environmental impact expected provided that acceptable conditions are approved concerning parking, trash removal, noise levels, and similar residential concerns."]. Mr. Ash stated that he thought Item C4 was important also ["The overall number of unrelated Y Zoning Board of Appeals 21 persons which would be permitted would not exceed the number which Town Zoning Ordinance if the separately."]. March 20, 1985 to reside in this structure would be permitted under the two lots were developed Mr. King asked Mr. Cartee if he has had many complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Cartee stated the Board has heard the same complaints it heard tonight from two or three people whenever anything comes up on Pennsylvania and Kendall Avenues. Mr. King asked Mr. Cartee if he has had complaints about rowdiness. Mr. Cartee responded, no, adding that once in a while he receives a complaint about parking. Mr. King stated that he thouqht that one of the biggest items is the off-street parking. Mr. Cartee, commenting that we are.faced with that old street, described the parking situation as it exists in that area, Mr. King wondered if cars could not be gotten back farther off the .road. Mr. Cartee stated that this is a problem in the whole Town, adding when there is no ordinance about parking on the street. Mr. King stated that he was not talking about "on the street"; he was talking about pulling off the street. Mr. Cartee stated that that was what he was talking about and went on to describe what actually occurs as people live in a house and go about their daily lives, have guests, have parties, etc. Mr. Cartee stated that parties or get-togethers are not uncommon in this area but neither are they on-going, commenting that he was alluding to the idea of the constant presence of cars. Mr. Cartee stated that he has not had complaints relative to noise. Mr. Cartee stated that there have been one or two about parking and off-street parking, It was noted that parking is permitted in .front yards by Section 69 under certain conditions. Mr. Austen asked if there was to be off-street parking for this project. Mr. Ash stated that that was correct. Mr. Cartee described the so-called paper streets in this area and how the combining of various lots and their dedication to one structure, as in this Appeal and also in the next one, has affected these paper streets. Mr. Cartee commented that in the years since he has been with the Town he has not seen building permit applications for building on these 50 -foot lots because most people have combined two 50 -foot. Jots, like r4r. Ash, so that a better building could be built. Mr. Cartee commented that there are lots on these paper streets -that cannot be built upon because there is no way to get to -them and they will probably never be built. Mr. Cartee commented that he thought the development that has occurred in the Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue area has been positive. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. King, seconded by Mr. Edward N. Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals find and hereby does find a negative declaration of environmental impact with respect to the Ash/Fuller Appeal proposing the construction of a duplex to contain six unrelated persons at 246-250 Pennsylvania Avenue. Zoning Board of Appeals 22 March 20, `. 985 .. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Hewett, Austen, King. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. King, seconded by Mr. Edward N. Austen: RESOLVED, that the grant and hereby does Town of grant Ithaca Zoning Board an area variance to of Appeals permit the construction of one two-family no less than landscaped duplex dwelling structure on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-7-19 Pennsylvania Avenue, such that therein are of equal size with and 654-7-20, 246-250 the two dwelling units contained each such unit containing three bedrooms, and further .F RESOLVED, by said Board of Appeals, pursuant to Article III, Section 4, Sub -Section 2, Paragraph 2b., that there be permitted an occupancy of three unrelated persons in each unit as a Special Permit of said Board of Appeals to the applicants/owners, Kenneth Ash and Howard Fuller, and further RESOLVED, by said hereinabove granted are Board of subject Appeals, that the to the provision of approvals adequate parking for property be no less than landscaped six (6) nicely cars, off- street, and and maintained in that the a manner appropriate to the residential nature of the neighborhood. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. Aye - Hewett, Austen, King, Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in and the matter of the Ash/Fuller Appeal duly closed at 8:54 p.m. APPEAL OF JAMES IACOVELLI, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO, TWO-FA14ILY DWELLINGS IN RESIDENCE DISTRICT R91 EACH WITH DWELLING UNITS OF EQUAL SIZE (FOUR BEDROOMS IN EACH UNIT), AND FURTHER DENYING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS TO OCCUPY EACH UNIT (A TOTAL OF 8 UNRELATED PERSONS IN EACH STRUCTURE), SUCH SPECIAL PERMIT BEING APPLIED FOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, SUB -SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 2(b), AT 145 KENDALL AVENUE AND 147-149 KENDALL AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-4-30 AND 6-54-4-31* PERMITS ARE DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 41 SUB -SECTION 2; ARTICLE III, SECTION 4, 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 Having been denied permission to F, $10.0 RECEIVED: CASH - ( ) CHECK - ( L) ZONING: For Office Use Only construct a two family structure on slab: (side by side) of equal size and a special permit for a total of 6 un- related persons. Town of Ithaca Tax at ��p peon ayp. Parcel No. 6-54-7-19- & 6-54-7-20 , 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) /�I , 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: I propose to build one duplex (with total occupancey at 6 unrelated individuals) by joining 2 lots. The 2 lots are of such a size that it would be impratical and presenyan undue hardship to build one single family re- sidence on each lot due'to the set back requirements etc; that would be imposed under the current building code. The proposed construction of one duplex on 2 lots would be the best use of the land. The duplex would consist of '2 separate 3 bedroom units. Dated: 3-//- �kjr Signed: c.J co N PROJECT LD. NUMBER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIVISION OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS , � t State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM , For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only "• PART I Project Information (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) If the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 . Applicant/s onsor 2. Project Name 3. Project location: Municipality County _ '0` 4. Is proposed action: r—� New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modificationlalteration 5. Describe project briefly: �i.i�-111 j Lo" 7 b c,1 ri tot) -w4- s ; k ��l:,�e� -eP'JV0'-'s 6. Precise location (road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) 7- Amount of land affected: Initially L / acres Ultimately acres 8. Will proposed actio comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? QZa Yes No If No, describe brieffy ems` S L. 9 What is present land use in vicinity of project XResidential ❑ lndustriaJ ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Parkland!open space ❑ Other Describe: 10. Does action involve a permit/approval, or funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency (Federal, state or local)? ❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovals 11 . Does any aspectofthe action have a currently valid permit or approval? ❑ Yes Id! No If yes, list agency name and permWapproval type 12. As result of proposed action will existing permitlapproval require modification? ❑ Yes 161 No I CERTIFY THATTHE INFORMATION.PROVIDED ABOVE 15 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE �� Applicant/sponsor name: r� e� l Dater Signature: If the action Is In the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER PART II Environmental Assessment (To be completed by Agency) A. Does action exc ked Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR• Part 617.12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULLILONG FORM EAF. 11Yes No 6 Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.7? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved actio ❑ Yes 19 No C. Could action result in ANY adverse effects on, to, or arising from the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: As the proposal will merge two existing, buildable lots, the overall level of development is no greater than that which could reasonably be expected to have occurred given the existing zoning and subdivision regulations. _ C2. Historic, archeological, visual or aesthetic, or other natural or cultural resources; agricultural districts; or community pr neig borhood character? Explain briefly The existing oommunity or neighborhood is characterized. by one and two family homes on small and narrow lots. Similar proposals.in the neighborhood have been approved and built. The result is an attractiv residential community with provision for needed student accomodations. C3. Vegetation or fauna, movement of fish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: No adverse environmental impact expected. CA. A community's existing plani or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly. The overall number of unrelated persons which would be permitted to reside in this structure would not exceed the number which would be permitted under the Town Zoning Ordinance if the two lots were developed separately. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. No adverse environmental impact expected provided that acceptable conditions are approved concerning parking, trash removal, noise levels, and similar residential concerns. C6. Secondary, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C6? Explain briefly. Projects of this type may allow for the cumulative development of lands previously mapped in small lots at a scale more in keeping. with contemporary residential economies. C7. A change in use of either quantity or type of energy? Explain briefly No adverse.environmental impact expected. PART 111 Determination of Significance (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL/LONG •FORM EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide here, and on attachments as necessary, the reasons supportng this determination: Agency Name Preparers Signaturerritl Agency Preparer's Name _ Town Planner Peter Lovi March 14, 1985 Date .. S.. �-•- _- Nyeea -:- .v'.A.. . -1" :: - .`.. - - . - /+=';/ `�� I. . 3 ; =NNESSEE 00 N*4N ?s3 1 1 ?75 1 1 12.864 At. CAL/ / /co: / AVER 15 1 ?SO s Pee P 60 5 2av / AC. CAL: NU so E _ 4?40 l ?3 / 1 � ?34 99 I /90 ?3J I ?3p J 36 \SO 35 Icar /9q 33 / . x' l /93 loo\32 ` / /97 : 198 / 'S0SO 31. / ?o0 Sp 3O mac' 1 1' O 1 ?o? �° �. I°° 29 2- 11 0 8 9 \ ® loo s0 27 / ! s 10 � � iso � .� ®® ` 60' 1 2650 f / /63 ? y 1 r00 sz o . J. i1 13 14 5p o_� /60 , p gp ti ? 39 I / 3 1 /58 1 N' " 15 16 , 0 /56 1, 17 Is ,. /. 1. /55 19 /54 90 h ~,19f/- 42 / �3 /OS S hr ! /3 p TX52 1 ^ PO - / / N'.• ./ '� 11 /. ° ��/3/ .; • .r' I ._ /50 � 0 stir✓ / - i6 '" 37 . lllr ; O � _ ,!. J 1 3g 1 �\ /0 40 `� as MQR '"`� 160. 1. 35 34 _ 1 A 50 so O \ i 5r.73 ®�� X43.6 ma / .ti /:• ro AvENU o / Q. I / - / r I '•' :.I - rpt 4 \ / I 18 \�'\ .. , �^ 75 I 74 73 I .72 m 71 70 I 69 fn ao 11 \\t73 • — -- 1'78-2- -- PENNSYLVAN I A �— 50 . 250j 0 11 . 'oo s 34 38 I , I 5 i. 39 ,9 /9 s I I I N I I ' I OS 231 I. I 34 3S 26 I 27 I 26 I 29 30 i 31 32 33 'I 23 I 24 37 I 36 26-_-_----- ,: 53. X00 ,g0 . Town of Ithaca 126 E.Seneca St. Ithaca,NY 14850 Zoning Board of Appeals, March 19,1985 I wish to enter in the records my objections to a two family dwelling at 246 - 250 Pa.Av.by William Topley and Samuel Bonanni. Pennsylvania Avenue is very narrow.The older people and children who walk are afraid of the many cars.Any increase.would greatly endanger their lives.Parking would be,a problem with the 5 foot shortage.The life style of the student is very much aifferent from the working person.They are always going all hours of the night,when working people are trying to sleep. Please consider the feelings of the home owner who has lived on Pennsylvania Avenue all their lives. T ank You (� Lyman Baker 257 Pennsylvania Avenue Ithaca,NY 14850 CHAPTER OF AARP J �/ t t *1 0/1 Jag olkc��-91 o a� A Z/6 - k k.� Cc/Lr� �Z . 5 n v / qzl kt o, cL,,t, ,tom cz, 40z, L I////11r.!///111 :..�� �f� /� j, �� %� `rte VV ( �� `, J �. ; ,. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY',tJANUARY 19, 1983 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, January 19, 1983,. in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca,,N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:30 P.M. Appeal of Marjorie P... Markell,-Appellant,.f rom the decision of the Building Inspector denying Certificate of Occupancy for premises upon which is located a single family residence with attached carport resulting in a side yard less than ten feet, at 15 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-26-4-20, Ithaca, N.Y. Certificate is denied under Article IV, Section 14, and Article XIV, Section 76, of the 'town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 7:45 P.M. Appeal of Karl Ponchalek, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a single family residence by a.fami.ly plus three unrelated persons, at 1410 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2-40, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is ;denied under Article IV, Section 11, paragraph 1, of the Town -of -Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, 8:00 P.M. Appeal of Ruth. Topley, Appellant, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for building permit for a two-family dwelling on:an existing legal non --conforming lot, at 246 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7- 19, Ithaca, N.Y. Permission is denied under Article XIII, Section 57, of the Town.of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said times 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 Dated: January 11, 1983 Building Inspector Publish: January 14, 1983 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 0 ORDINANCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN BOARD FOR 1983. January 19, 1983 MOTION by Mr. Jack D. Hewett, seconded by Mrs. Joan G. Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town. Board the appointment of Messrs. Henry Aron, and Edward W. King to the Codes and Ordinances Committee of the Town Board for 1983 to serve as the Zoning Board of Appeals representative thereon. There. being no further discussion, the Vice Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Hewett, Reuning King. Nay - None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL OF RUTH TOP LEY, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR BUILDING PEP14IT FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING ON AN EXISTING LEGAL NON -CONFORMING LOT, AT 246 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0. 6-54-7-19, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 57. OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Vice Chairman Hewett declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:01 p.m. and read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as published and as noted above. The Appeal Form dated January 7, 1983, signed 'by Ruth Topley, reads as follows: "We would like to build a family home on Pennsylvania Avenue. To make this financially possible we need an apartment to help subsidize the mortgage payments. With today's high interest and taxes, it would be impossible without the apartment. We are also prepared to make off-street parking." Vice Chairman Hewett invited Mr. and Mrs. Topley to appear before the Board and explain their Appeal.. Mr. William Topley explained that house up there so that they would be and that he planned on building to except for the apartment. they would like to build a able to afford to have one all codes and ordinances Mr. King asked if they were- asking for permission to construct a two-family dwelling since, according to the ordinance a single-family dwelling is permitted on a legal non -conforming lot. Mr. Topley responded, yes. Mr. King asked if there were houses on the lots on either side of the property. Mr. Topley stated that there was one -- the Eastman house was on the north --westerly side. Mr. King asked about the corner lot, with w ' Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Topley responding Bonanni. 7 that it. is a vacant Mr. King indicated that he was not clear of the neighborhood and asked Mr. Cartee if dwellings in the area. Mr. Cartee responded allowed multiple dwellings up there, January 19, 1983 lot owned by Sam as to the character there were multiple that this Board has Mr. King asked if the Topleys had submitted a plot plan with a building permit application. Mr. Cartee stated that they had not made application for building permit at this time, nor submitted a plot plan, but that he had advised them that any proposed dwelling could be no wider than 30 feet in order to be within the confines of the 10 -foot side yard requirements. Mr. Cartee pointed out that the lot is 50' x 120' -- 6,000 square feet, rather than the 9,000 sq. ft. as required in R-9, however, it .is a legal non -conforming lot, being a part of the Ithaca Land Company Tract dating from 1895. Mr. Cartee commented that there was nothing behind the property; the rear of the lot backs up to the old Railroad bed. Mrs. Topley stated that they had owned this property for seven years. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Aron had asked him to check with owners to see if there were any covenants or restrictions running with the land. Mr. Cartee stated that he did so and they have stated that they have no knowledge of any such covenants in their deed. Mr. Cartee stated again that he had advised them of the side yard requirements. Mr. King asked Mr. Cartee if he had any objections or problems with having a two-family dwelling in this area. Mr. Cartee stated that he did not so long as the yard requirements are met and proper parking is provided. Mr. Cartee pointed out that the two-family dwelling would have to be built in an up and down configuration. Ms. Reuning asked how large the apartment would be. Mr. Topley responded that it would be two -equal size dwelling units, built on a slab because of the rock. Mr. King pointed out that the ordinance does not permit equal -sized units except under certain circumstances. Mr. King quoted from Article III, Section 4, paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, as follows: "A two-family dwelling, provided that the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 500 of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 500." Mr. King explained that building an apartment the same size .. i w, Zoning Board of Appeals 8 January 19, 1983 as the main unit is not permitted. He asked if the property were on a slope. Mr. Topley responded that it was note he would be building on a slab because of the extent of the rock on South Hill. Mr. Hewett noted that the problem is that there is rock in this area, adding that this is a problem with which everyone is familiar. Mr. King asked the Secretary if letters had gone out to all neighbors in this area. Mrs. Fuller read aloud the names of all the people who had received notice of this Appeal -- Bonanni, Eastman, Ralph Iacovelli, Rosica, James Iacovelli, Philips, Baker, Commissioner Liguori, and Topley. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Bonanni had called him and told him that he had received Notice and added that he (Cartee) had explained to him what it meant. Mr. Cartee stated that Mr. Bonanni had indicated that he had no objections, he was just calling -to get information. The Board indicated its agreement that it would appear, by his absence, that Mr. Bonanni had no objections to the request for variance. MOTION by Mr. Edward W. _King, seconded by Mrs. Joan G. Reuning: i RESOLVED, that, in view of .the fact that there is a problem with rock in the Pennsylvania/Kendall Avenue area of South Hill, as well as other areas of South Hill, such that there is difficulty in creating a basement in the proposed dwelling unit, and, in view of its isolation, and, in view of there appearing to be no opposition to this appeal and, therefore, it would appear to be a special situation, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a use variance from the requirements of Article XIII, Section 57, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a two-family dwelling on a legal non -conforming building lot at 246 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-54-7-19, together with an area variance from the requirements of Article III, Section 4, paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit such two-family dwelling to contain two dwelling units of equal size, as applied for, provided that all other other requirements of the Ordinance are complied with. There being no further discussion, the Vice Chairman called for a vote. Aye Hewett, Reuning, King. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairman Hewett declared the matter of the Topley Appeal duly closed at 8:15 p.m. w. yj ZoningBoard of Appeals 9 January 19, 1983 ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Vice Chairman Hewett. declared the January 19, 1983, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, Jack D. Hewett, Vice Chairman. 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 Having been denied permission to at 1,- q � jj -oc� 14 o Parcel No. a d��$'%Lyr /� Cox. I GJ C (Z FEE: $7.50_ RECEIVED: VL.ptod (O 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) , Sections) 1 , of th n of Ithaca. Zoning Ordifiapce, 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: We would like to build a family home on Pennsylvania Avenue. To make this financially possible we need an apartment .to help subsidize the mortgage payments. With todays high interest and taxes it would be impossible without the apartment. We are also prepared to make off street parking. Dated: 1/7 173 Signed: TOWN OF ITHACA ¢ AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Jean H. Swartwood , being duly swornr. say. that I am the Town 'Clerk of .the Town of Ithaca, • Tompkins County, New Yorki that the following notice has been duly posted on the'sign boara. of the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and that the notice has been.: duly published in the ]focal newspaper: (Ithaca %Touacnal) ..Notice of Public"Hearings to be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of Am the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, January l9, 1983,, in Town Hall,, 126. ' East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., commencing at 7:30 p.m., as per attached. ]Location of sign- board used for posting: Front Entrance to Town Hall; .Outside Front Door of Town Hall; Outside Door of Town Ball Meeting Room. Date of Posting: January. 11, 1983 ' Date of Publication 9 January 14, 1983 STATE OF NEW YORR COUNTY OF TOAIPXINS ss, TO`'riN OF ITHACA, - 19 83 Sworn to and subscribed before me O.As :ol ex}G o 17th a of Ithaca day of January, •Notary PubZYr_ . CON."ST'B.?'( +' !i. AI.' EST t>otary:.:`.c of New York ,. Ci:�a':i?i• d iii �rri'!,*"< COWIty i'erui k .pi.csJ :.37, 19x.3