HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (25)
Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 54.-2-7
145 Pearsall Pl
Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 145 Pearsall Pl 54.-2-7
with no subdivision or readdressing.
History:
2011 – Area Variance for porch - Approved
1985 – Area Variance for addition - Approved
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Monday, April 25, 2011
215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca
7 :00 P. M .
Appeal of Burton S . and Tamara L. Markowitz, owners , requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-73B and Section 270-73C "Size and Area of Lot' of
the Town of Ithaca Code to allow insufficient parcel width at the street line and front yard
setback line located at 18 Lisa Ln , Tax Parcel No. 71 . - 1 -9. 6, Medium Density Residential .
Appeal of Linda K. Nicholson , owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter
270 , Sections 270-82A and 270-82E "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be
permitted construct a porch within the required front yard setback located at 145 Pearsall PI ,
Tax Parcel No. 54. -2-7, High Density Residential .
Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request. Requests should
be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings.
Bruce W . Bates
Director of Code Enforcement
607-273- 1783
Dated : April 13, 2011
Published : April 15 , 2011
i
T
Zoning Board Minutes
April 25 , 2011
Final
5. That while finding that the alleged difficulty is self created, nevertheless, the
benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and King.
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Attorney Brock mentioned for the record that this project was not subject to SEQR review
because the action is Type II exempt.
Appeal of Linda K. Nicholson , owner, requesting a variance from the
requirements of Chapter 270, Sections 270=82A and 270=82E "Yard Regulations"
of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted construct a porch within the required
front yard setback located at 145 Pearsall PI , Tax Parcel No. 54.=2-7, High Density
Residential .
Linda Nicholson and Steve Gibian appeared before the Board . Chairperson Sigel
commented that the materials submitted did a good job of explaining the case . He then
noted that the situation is very unusual given the front yard of the property is located in
the City of Ithaca .
Ms . Nicholson submitted a letter of support from her neighbors . The letter is one that
Ms . Nicholson wrote and the neighbors signed .
Chairperson Sigel explained that the problem is the Town treats the property line as the
town/city boundary line . The porch meets the 25 foot setback requirement from the
front of the lot, but not from the front of the Town tax parcel .
Chairperson Sigel then solicited questions and comments from the Board . Mr. Krantz
stated that the request seems reasonable .
Attorney Brock stated that the Board ' s action would be Type II because it would be
granting an area variance for single family house .
Public Hearing
Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 :20 p . m .
Mr. Gibian gave brief presentation about parcels in the area . He thought the houses
may have been built as factory housing for National Cash or as veteran housing after
World War ll . The houses are very small by modern standards , which is why Ms .
Nicholson wished to expand her living space . Mr. Gibian referred to a 1948 survey that
showed the Pearsall Place subdivision , but it is not until the tax maps of the area are
Page 3 of 7
Zoning Board Minutes
April 25 , 2011
Final
looked at that the town/city boundary is shown . The tax maps of the area show several
lots in the area in the same situation as 145 Pearsall Place .
Mr. Gibian originally thought that the two tax parcel could be consolidated , but then
realized that the parcels are in two different taxing entities and could never be
combined . However, the two parcels were created as a single lot and are treated as a
single lot. The owner is not able to sell off either lot individually.
Mr. Gibian asked the Board to consider the lots as a whole , and not just the parcel in
the Town .
Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 23 p . m .
Chairperson Sigel agreed with the sentiment of Mr. Gibian' s statement, but explained
that Town Code defines setbacks and such as ending or beginning at the municipal
boundary . He noted that the Board has dealt with similar situations involving other
parcels in the Town .
Attorney Brock questioned the location of the shed . She noted that there are two pieces
to the variance request. The first is that the porch encroaches into the required front
yard setback. The second piece is that the shed is located in the side yard and
accessory buildings are only permitted in the rear yard .
Ms . Nicholson noted that she signed an agreement with her neighbors that she would
move the shed upon their request. She explained that her neighbors were concerned
with the potential impact of the shed on the resale value of the neighbor' s home . The
neighbors do not have a problem with the shed ' s current location , but are concerned
with it impacting resale value . Ms . Nicholson agreed to the request; she wondered if
that could be incorporated into the Board' s approval . Attorney Brock explained that the
Board has to decide whether or not the shed is appropriately located . The Board cannot
require the shed to be moved if the neighbor asks for it to be removed ; it would be
delegating their function to the neighbor.
Attorney Brock asked how far the shed was located from the property line . Ms .
Nicholson said that it was pretty close to the property line . Attorney Brock asked if the
neighbors have anything located on their side of the property line ; Ms . Nicholson said
no .
Chairperson Sigel explained that the Code permits the shed to be located in the rear
yard , but it would have to be at least 3 feet from the property line . He thought that it
may be reasonable to grant a variance to allow the shed to be located in the side yard ,
but did not see a motivation to grant less than the 3 foot setback.
Ms . Nicholson explained that she located the shed in its current location so that she
would still have enough room to access the back yard on that side of the house . The
other side of the house has the garage . She wants to maintain access to the back yard
because she had a solar array installed along the rear property line and wants to be
able to have access if there are any problems.
Page 4 of 7
Zoning Board Minutes
April 25 , 2011
Final
Mr. Bates asked how the shed was constructed . Ms . Nicholson answered that it is a
skid shed ; it sits on railroad ties and has 44 skids .
Chairperson Sigel commented that the current neighbor may not mind the location of
the shed and it may seem reasonable , but a variance granted by the Board will not be
contingent upon the neighbors liking it or not liking it. The Board grants permanent
variances that are tied to the property; not property ownership . He did not feel
comfortable lowering the 3 foot setback requirement from the property line .
Chairperson Sigel asked if Ms . Nicholson thought that the shed was located 3 feet from
the property line . Ms . Nicholson commented that the shed is not even close to being
located 3 feet from the property line .
Chairperson Sigel asked the Board for their thoughts . Mr. Mountin asked Chairperson
Sigel where he was moving towards . Was he thinking of leaving the shed in the same
location with a 3 foot setback? Chairperson Sigel responded yes . He did not mind the
position of the shed in the side yard , but thought it would be reasonable to require the
setback since the houses are fairly close together.
Mr. Mountin wondered where the shed would be moved to if it had to be relocated to
meet setbacks . Chairperson Sigel suggested that it could be moved a couple of feet
towards the house or located in the rear yard .
Chairperson Sigel stated that the proposed addition would have steps down the side ,
which is creating a narrow space between the steps and the edge of the shed . He
noted that to have any sort of meaningful access to the shed that it may have to be
moved towards the rear yard . Ms . Nicholson explained that she has been talking with
Mr. Gibian about installing removable steps . Chairperson Sigel commented that it is
feasible to move the shed if necessary. Ms . Nicholson agreed and explained that the
shed is constructed in two sections and it can be moved individually if necessary .
Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Linda Nicholson to be permitted to
construct porch within the required front yard setback and to maintain an existing shed
in side yard with conditions on setbacks of the porch and shed , the construction of the
porch , and finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied
specifically listing how each criterion was met.
Seconded by Dave Mountin . Vote—carried unanimously.
ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -025: Area Variance, Linda Nicholson, 145 Pearsall PI, Tax
Parcel No. 54. 4-7
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Dave Mountin.
RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Linda Nicholson requesting a variance
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-82A and Section 270-82 E "Yard
Regulations " of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a porch within the
Page 5 of 7
Zoning Board Minutes
April 25 , 2011
Final
required front yard setback and to maintain an existing shed in the side yard located at
145 Pearsall Place, Tax Parcel No. 54. -2- 7, High Density Residential Zone, with the
following:
Conditions:
1 . That the porch addition be permitted to exist with a zero foot setback from the
town/city line, but maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from where the City
portion of this property meets the street;
2. That the porch addition be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans
submitted by the applicant to this Board; and
3. That the shed be located a minimum of 3 feet setback from the side lot line.
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, specifically:
1 . With regard to the porch addition, the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve
cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that this is a very unusual
lot with the division between the Town and the City in the front yard preventing
the applicant from using what is effectively the full buildable area of the lot;
2. With regard to the shed, the benefit that the applicant wished to achieve, which is
that of locating the shed conveniently to the home so that it is easy for the
applicant to load firewood into the house, that benefit cannot be achieved by
anoy other means feasible other than placing the shed in the side yard;
3. That neither aspect of this variance will create an undesirable change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that these aspects of the
property are in-keeping with other nearby homes in the neighborhood;
40 That the porch variance request is technically substantial given a zero foot
setback from the Town of Ithaca boundary, but is actually not substantial when
considering the entirety of the lot;
5. With regard to the shed, that the request is not substantial given that the shed
will be a minimum of 3 feet from the side lot line;
6. That neither request will have adverse physical or environmental affects;
70 That the alleged difficulty with regard to the porch is not self-created given the
unusual split between the Town and the City. That the alleged difficulty with
Page 6 of 7
I
Zoning Board Minutes
April 25 , 2011
Final
respect to the shed is self-created, but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh the detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and King.
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
Other Business
Mr. Bates asked Mr. King if he was willing to serve as a member of the Codes and
Ordinances Committee . Mr. King indicated that he was .
Chairperson Sigel moved to recommend the appointment of Bill King as the Zoning
Board of Appeals representative to the Codes and Ordinances Committee . Ron Krantz
seconded . Vote—carried unanimously.
ZB RESOLUTION 2011 -026: Recommendation of Appointment to Codes and
Ordinances Committee
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Ron Krantz.
RESOLVED, that this Board recommends the appointment of Bill King as the Zoning
Board of Appeals representative to the Codes and Ordinances Committee.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin and King.
NAYS: None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the April 25 , 2011 meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals at 7 : 44 p . m .
Kirk Sigel , Chairman
Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk
Page 7 of 7
FILE
DATE 7 f 1
ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2011 =025
Area Variance
Linda Nicholson
145 Pearsall PI
Tax Parcel No. 54.=2=7
April 25; 2011
MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Dave Mountin .
RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Linda Nicholson requesting a variance
from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-82A and Section 270-82 E "Yard
Regulations" of the- Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a porch within the
required front yard setback and to maintain an existing shed in the side yard located at
145 Pearsall Place , Tax Parcel No . 54. =2-7 , High Density Residential Zone , with the
following :
Conditions:
1 . That the porch addition be permitted to exist with a zero foot setback from the
town/city line, but maintain a minimum 25 foot setback from where the City
portion of this property meets the street;
AMk 20 That the porch addition be constructed substantially as indicated on the plans
submitted by the applicant to this Board ; and
3 . That the shed be located a minimum of 3 feet setback from the side lot line .
Findings:
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and
welfare of the community, specifically:
1 . With regard to the porch addition; the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve
cannot be achieved by any other means feasible given that this is a very unusual
lot with the division between the Town and the City in the front yard preventing
the applicant from using what is effectively the full buildable area of the lot;
2 . With regard to the shed , the benefit that the applicant wished to achieve , which is
that of locating the shed conveniently to the home so that it is easy for the
applicant to load firewood into the house , that benefit cannot be achieved by any
other means feasible other than placing the shed in the side yard ;
3 . That neither aspect of this variance will create an undesirable change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that these aspects of the
property are in-keeping with other nearby homes in the neighborhood ;
ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -025
Page 2of2
4: That the: porch variance request is technically substantial given a zero foot
setback from the Town of Ithaca boundary, but is actually not substantial when
considering the entirety of the lot;
5 . With regard to the shed , that the request is not substantial given that the shed
will be a minimum of 3 feet from the side lot line ;
6 . That neither request will have adverse physical or environmental affects ,
70 That the alleged difficulty with regard to the porch is not self-created given the
unusual. split between the Town and . the City. That the alleged difficulty, with
respect to: the shed is self-created , but nevertheless the benefit to the applicant
does outweigh the detriment to the healthy, safety and welfare of the community.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES . Sigel , Krantz, Mountin and King.
NAYS : None.
Motion was carried unanimously.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS :
TOWN OF ITHACA.
I , Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York,
do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 25th day of April ,
2011 .
Deputy. TowfCCWrk
Town of Ithaca
Dear Linda, 1 � ,
TOWN OF ITHACA
As members of your Pearsall Place neighborhood, we are writ ng to Mgc, iAQT
of your planned renovations to your home at 145 Pearsall Place. We are particularly excite
about your planned addition of a front porch across the length of your home , since this will
further enhance the welcoming ambiance of your front yard, which now includes perennial
gardens and an ornamental pond . We note that, even with the addition of the planned porch,
your home will not be the closest house to the road on Pearsall Place, as several houses on our
street have smaller setbacks from the roadway . We look forward to your planned renovations !
We would also like to state that we have no objection to the current placement of your
woodshed on the east side of your house, which has been there for three years. This shed
provides a tidy storage space for the 2 . 5 full cords of wood that you purchase each year. We also
understand that its location is an important factor for you :- for storage you must move the wood
from where it is delivered in your driveway and stack it in this shed, and for your daily use of
this wood in your woodstove you must load it through a side-door on the east end of your home .
We note that the current location of your woodshed is an optimal compromise of these two
factors.
Good luck with your upcoming appearance before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals !
Sincerely ,
Printed Name House # Signature and Date
A main d o, 2 en 1 I , I C��r Y,c�., ' Ll /401
y
� / �6I![
C� r i S L /J ry\,G,. ( co'.. I 0)�
RICON19co o ox C) 41 kW
Ylt
G . r
-010
1 00
0V &a4t�
I � 1
April 9, 2011
Dear Linda,
As members of your Pearsall Place neighborhood, we are writing to voice our approval
of your planned renovations to your home at 145 Pearsall Place. We are particularly excited
about your planned addition of a front porch across the length of your home, since this will
further enhance the welcoming ambiance of your front yard, which now includes perennial
gardens and an ornamental pond . We note that, even with the addition of the planned porch,
your home will not be the closest house to the road on Pearsall Place, as several houses on our
street have smaller setbacks from the roadway . We look forward to your planned renovations !
We would also like to state that we have no objection to the current placement of your
woodshed on the east side of your house, which has been there for three years. This shed
provides a tidy storage space for the 2 . 5 full cords of wood that you purchase each year. We also
understand that its location is an important factor for you : for storage you must move the wood
from where it is delivered in your driveway and stack it in this shed, and for your daily use of
this wood in your woodstove you must load it through a side-door on the east end of your home .
We note that the current location of your woodshed is an optimal compromise of these two
factors.
Good luck with your upcoming appearance before the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals !
Sincerely ,
Printed Name House # Signature and Date
� to
- � � A
�-e >/ � � I...e � 1, �-� �✓ dot l �a�° '
06L r4 � ro nlCa
� L
.Strom ownu C � ;
VV LW V
i
April 21 , 2011
Dear Linda,
As members of your Pearsall Place neighborhood, we are writing to voice our
approval of your planned renovations to your home at 145 Pearsall Place. We are
particularly excited about your planned addition of a front porch across the length of your
home, since this will further enhance the welcoming ambiance of your front yard, which
now includes perennial gardens and an ornamental pond. We note that, even with the
addition of the planned porch, your home will not be the closest house to the road on
Pearsall Place, as several houses on our street have smaller setbacks from the roadway .
We look forward to your planned renovations !
We would also like to state our conditional approval of the current placement
of your woodshed on the east side of your house, contingent upon your agreement to
move it at our request. We understand that this shed provides a tidy storage space for
the 2 . 5 full cords of wood that you purchase each year, and that its location is an
important factor for you : for storage you must move the wood from where it is delivered
in your driveway and stack it in this shed, and for your daily use of this wood in your
woodstove you must load it through a side-door on the east end of your home . We
appreciate that the current location of your woodshed is an optimal compromise of these
two factors.
Good luck with your upcoming appearance before the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals !
Sincerely,
Samuel Sarkissian ., i Q peoAaa.11 h,
i
I
Alice Sarkissian� ty4 PcArsall PI.
rr
-
Z' . ; -
f , _ _
in
- - I Ti ,
II jl II -
I � I
IL II
IF
v IF
It
ril
II _
, 1
1 �
..-
., �L- i � � .
. . r
o-m
d m_ � ADDITIONS & . ALTERATIONS TO
. . � . �
` . . � �TIlQ,IlIlQDd.�QDDT : .Il��J�IIDD��t�TQA A
145 PEARSALL PLACE, - TOWN OK . ITHACA; NEW YORK
OOki . I .
{ � iq
'0• r :. ' lull �� I
.
TIM
3 iI
p I
I
L
till
S
3x
I
°• IT,. .I lit
It
� ;; d _ - _ - - ; ; , � � • � . I1 ; L:_I L:o.—j :iii if
. li � ,� - - v . - � ' ' �. A Z III Ij I • ltr�� ' -
II
_i - • I � I , I I Z 3
Ilt I ir� III
I II {{ I I, . - IT
L - =
i
�✓� Fnrj . 'ADDITIONS 8 ALTERATIONS TO
o
1vTllQJIM DIE4DIN 10?S1L11 )L��T�}ll�
° 145 PEARSALL PLACE, ' TOWN OF . 1THACA; NEW YORK 0
all
}
n
TOWN OF ITIiACA
MAR o3 o'� .-
215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850
- T WN OF ITHACA
TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 PLANNING 273- 1747 CODE EYFORCENT & ZONING 273- 1783 CODE ENFORCEMENT
PUBLIC WORKS (Engineering, Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273- 1656
FAX (607) 273- 1704
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form :
Submit this Application ONLY after: ( 1 ) applying for a building/sign permit for which you received a determination
/denial from Code Enforcement Staff or (2) referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review.
alit Appearance Fee : $ 100 x F� oc�"�r er k a'l t v Ove t n I&.' �a=Pp f�o
i x ,xi4 P
d° ioper wm orxajacent to
Please check all that a PP 1 Y a.x
�3
..
'
Area Variance ° ` County, Ag.Drstnct x t.
F < Cash or Checklo ,
t + sx 1 '( s j�4 Av r 'a c t °k' NY� '°ST3 +,Kew F� �:f �' '+:� 4 � , z, A� a' rt ;. >I .` :if . 4"F�"
Use Variance x x. ` ; t aroZon�ng D�str,ct _
h a +. L rr4 i9
p r}i" aN y a [ d x � a t - f;� .rx ; - .M, .r 01 i?` m-f , < • e.'g a w 3[ �,.
Sign Variance *MAC .,! CEA x; =r � ,rte` � � `" Appt�cable Section(s)` of Town Cdde
iW x tv T
is +r x r+". & �� � ^'s � x � r.h' .r x � J'9i
�.'r tI iF'k {b' < ,.. 3 ? gx 3 ty5 e,. c: #t T' §x E rr y 44 i
Sprinkler Variance �� � x W� f - [ °
ForestaHome Ei�stone Dtstnct >Y_ " t
^szti ' ay 1 S"It Special Approval "� [ , 3, .
% , r ,� a #' ,4- K° z-a s'
P PP r. ° � ,,.State Park/anotherinamct a!i F� ' `y `, , . `_ £� °° , t `
c' 5 'i Y'a ry
P ty5
Z C1; tir.'^. _ FYr :. ran a � r•."C: w,nr ir5''Ei _ .X. L' - : {Y p� '4, `Y_' �:'.` -4 z _m- .�, .4'ft. i'.'�a 'a�� : `""' y,r
The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to
rt 6tuld � i r1 7u 1
T -�- +o r xtehc� �-awa�rzt �' e Tt&*IeTtu 1iV Tn4L ►' � is2
at l �?ct r5tl HdZQ. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
as shown on the attached supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or
the Special Approval authorization request is as follows (attach any additional sheets as necessary): (� f
PIe0M. Sc, uitaekeA . eg4& tf cLvt cyeE� �k
xla -rKce -Fvr — roW4 I rtl -ce IzLck [
By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to
enter my property for any inspection(s) in connection with my application.
Print Name Here: L t ekJk K 1'4 G o [ son
Signature of Owner/Appellant: Date : 3 Z- ,10
Signature of Appellant/Agent : Date :
Home/Cell Telephone Number: 1601 ) -7 :H - 1612 ( CgIlL Work Telephone Number : aD g
Email Address LM Q & CoryyI .elt,
NOTE : A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its tiling. Construction work associated with any
variance(s) must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised.
Revised 11 /9/2010
r
i � \
Narrative Describing the Project
Present circumstances: The present circumstances under which strict observance of the Town
Code would impose practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardship are
• Linda Nicholson, owner and 16 . 5 -year resident of 145 Pearsall Place, proposes to add a
front porch to her home , which would bring the front edge of the proposed structure to
more than the required 25 -feet setback from the front property line of her lot which is at
the street (Pearsall Place) .
• The line between the Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca runs through the front yard of
Linda Nicholson ' s property at 145 Pearsall Place (see attached survey map) , breaking the
single lot into two Tax Map parcels, one in the Town and one in the City.
• The "front property line" from the Town of Ithaca' s perspective corresponds to the
Town-City boundary, not the actual owned lot that runs to the edge of the roadway
(Pearsall Place) .
• Based on the Town of Ithaca' s definition of the front property line, as stated in Mr.
Williams ' letter denying the building permit application, "the existing structure on the
property does not meet the minimum required setback from the front property line of 25 -
feet, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-82 . The proposed construction
will extend the structure closer to the front property line when completed. Although the
actual distance from the edge of the roadway will be greater than 25 -feet when the project
is completed, the Town — City boundary passes through your front yard and as a result
the new construction actually extends beyond the Town of Ithaca property line ."
How this proposal meets the five criteria for consideration of the area variance:
a) An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will not be created by granting the area variance. Based
on the fundamental spirit of the setback requirement, which is to not have structures too
close to adjoining properties or roadways, the requested area variance meets this spirit.
The existing home at 145 Pearsall Place, which is already not in compliance with the
Town ' s building setback, is roughly aligned with the other homes on Pearsall Place .
Furthermore, several of these properties have structures that are as close (or closer) to the
roadway than the proposed porch (examples are 122, 130, 149, 157 and 161 Pearsall
Place) . The Pearsall Place neighborhood is a tight-knit community, with two block party
gatherings each year and additional more frequent social gatherings. The proposed
addition of a front porch at 145 Pearsall Place will enhance the character of the
neighborhood by providing an open but covered gathering place for neighbors and
friends . The proposed front porch will also increase "curb appeal " and safety, as the
existing cape cod has an ugly concrete front stoop with two large steps (�8 inches rise)
that do not meet the current building code . The proposed porch is part of a substantial
renovation project that will improve the house value and demonstrates attachment of the
owner to the neighborhood.
b) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for
the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance. The benefit sought is to improve
the front of the home at 145 Pearsall Place by construction of a front porch that will solve
accessibility problems for the main entrance, provide additional access to a side entrance,
offer a community gathering place for neighbors, and enhance the beauty of the home.
Because any addition to the front of the home would not meet the minimum required
setback based on the Town' s definition of the "front property line" as the Town-City
boundary, it would be impossible to achieve these benefits by any method other than the
requested area variance .
c) The requested area variance is not substantial. The proposed front porch will extend the
existing structure by a maximum of 7 . 5 feet closer to the front property line of the lot at
145 Pearsall Place . Considered as a single lot rather than two separate tax map parcels,
the proposed addition meets side yard, front yard and lot coverage requirements . When
considered as a single lot, the footprint of the structure from 14 . 5 % lot coverage to 17 . 0%
lot coverage, which is still well under the 25 % lot coverage limit. As mentioned above in
(a) , other properties on Pearsall Place have structures that are a comparable distance to
the roadway as the proposed porch at 145 Pearsall Place . Therefore, the requested
variance is not substantial from either the perspective of lot coverage or from the
perspective of neighborhood alteration.
d) The proposed area variance will not have an adverse affect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed porch addition
and the extension of the structure by a maximum of 7 . 5 feet toward the street will be
achieved using piers that will result in minimal disruption to soil and drainage . The front
yard at 145 Pearsall Place is landscaped with raised beds of perennials separated by
wood-chip paths, which will remain intact.
e) The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The alleged difficulty is simply based on the
fact that the Town-City boundary runs through Linda Nicholson ' s property at 145
Pearsall Place . This is an existing condition and was in no way self-created.
1y OF ITS
O 9n
TOWN of ITHACA
z ie zi 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850
h� X04 www.town. ithaca. ny.us
TOWN CLERK 273 - 1721 PUBLIC WORKS (Engineering, Roads, Parks, Trails, Water &Sewer) 273 - 1656
PLANNING 273 - 1747 CODE ENFORCEMENT 273 - 1783 FAX (607) 273 - 1704
March 1 , 2011
Linda K Nicholson
145 Pearsall Place
Ithaca, NY 14850
Dear Ms . Nicholson,
A preliminary review of your application for a building permit to construct a second story addition and to construct a
front porch addition has been completed. Based on the information available, your application cannot be approved at this
time . The specific reason for this adverse determination is that the existing structure on the property does not meet the
minimum required setback from the front property line of 25 -feet, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Code, Section 270-82 .
The proposed construction will extend the structure closer to the front property line when completed . Although the
actual distance from the edge of the roadway will be greater than 25-feet when the project is completed, the Town — City
boundary passes through your front yard and as a result the new construction actually extends beyond the Town of Ithaca
property line .
Section 270-205 states that "Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this
chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height,
yards, or other characteristics of the structure or its location on the lot, such structure may be continued so long as it
remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions :
(A) No such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. "
Accordingly, based on Section 270-205 of the Town of Ithaca Code, a building permit to increase an existing
nonconformity must be denied .
Any person aggrieved by any decision of any officer of the Town charged with the enforcement of the Town of Ithaca
Code may take an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals . The Zoning Board of Appeals shall, in accordance with the
provisions of Town Law 267 et seq . , hear and determine appeals from any refusals of a building permit or certificate of
occupancy by the person designated by the Town Board, or review any order or decision of said person where such order
or decision is based upon the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Code . An application for requesting an appeal to the
Zoning Board of Appeals is enclosed for your convenience . Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely yours,
Steven Williams
Code Enforcement Officer
cc : Herb Engman — Town Supervisor
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AREA VARIANCE CRITERIA FORM - (to be completed by Applicant)
Applicant: I.;rJcc IC , diC1'l06ti
Address of Property Requiring the Variance. I�! s PP�s. rs
Tax Map No.
TEST: No area variance will be granted without consideration by the Board of the following factors:
1 . Whether undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties : Yes Nox
Reasons : L
As describeA ; o% more de x11 in 41e o. &c ed vlam+ i`%de JeXrJ61 N% q {-ke. IQvt' red , fka e " osec�
irl Ea in WA exij in e. i kberhbod 4L4 bacts jAhootcei Ike Gha.ra.cttr
' borho Ayt 'tMiha�- o S < Cr >1S �e ¢sc3�' rt f .
2 . Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance :
Yes No
Reasons:
n ozU o►t 4o 4rtni of 4 1 kome of tY%C Peai'sct.4 IIC2 w044.14 ItC4 MCet
i S oUvi tr h ritW " ronf i rta t' QS +F w
• C ' v r i W oct dl be i i e atli i ev u d�¢ �G�te�+�- e!a► of�.�r a� .
3 . Whether the requested variance is substantial : Yes No
Reasons : 1
41 J?-SCr %SeA i n "Kate Je 0-; 1 7r% a.*k/' th VtAm%b%ut ' tke' Pr* AaFCA am'z f r&" a -�✓�,,I'
IPIWA is h6+ swpsf + w C ►=0hear v1V l over rr% c rc4&,eS roM
. 57v7e +0 l yo vr Setbo.ck frym 4k-e rcoal& S 4e,4
4 . Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood?: Yes No
Reasons :
The C0004ru Ole" will /nsccl i vt vK ► niww.l d o3 i <a& 4* soil or
t3 �i et.t$CcQ �JiIre Vt :t,( i ✓� i reio� h
5 . Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created : Yes No X
Reasons :
1 4t clle cd rtos �
ro� a,rYl o� in lo+ ISIS tarsa Place a eacis+ t Conch Fio V44ai WAS
14 110 WA ,
Revised 1 1/9/2010
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals page 2
Notice of Public Hearings, November 20, 1985
APPY:AL of Simeon Moss, Appellant, from the decision of the Building
Inspector denying a Building Permit for the construction of an
addition to an existing, legal non -conforming (side yard less than 10
feet) , single family dwelling, at 145 Pearsall Place, Town of *Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 6-54-2-7. Permiut is denied under Article XII, Section
54, and Article XIV, Section 75, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance.
APPEAL of Tompkins County, Appellant, Frank R. Liguori., Commissioner of
Planning, Agent, from the decision of the Building Inspector denying
permission for the occupancy of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of
professional office space in West Wing - "C" of Biggs Center (Old
Hospital) to Odyssey Research Associates Inc. for computer research,
and, for the use two existing apartments in the "F" Wing for
residential space, at 1285 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 6-24-3-2.2. Permission is denied under Article V, Section 18, of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance,
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: November 12, 1985
Publish: November 15, 1985
Zoning Board of Appeals
22
November 20, 1985
6-27-1-4, for the storage of vehicles and boats, not to exceed fifty
in total number, in an existing structure previously used for poultry
research, upon the condition that said structure is inspected by the
Town of Ithaca Building Inspector and upon the further condition that
it be brought into compliance with whatever the Building Inspector may
require as appropriate to life safety.
Ms.
Stuliglowa commented that
the
cost-effective analysis was
based on
80% occupancy which would be
40
cars.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Reuning.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman
Aron
declared the mater of the Carl R. Updike Appeal
duly
closed
at
8:54
p.m.
APPEAL OF SIMEON MOSS, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING, LEGAL NON -CONFORMING (SIDE YARD LESS THAN 10
FEET), SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AT 145 PEARSALL PLACE, TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO..6-54-2-7. PERMIT IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XII, SECTION
54, AND ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 75, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Chairman Aron declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted
matter duly opened at 8:55 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Moss
was present.
Chairman Aron read aloud from the Appeal Form as completed,
signed, and submitted by Simeon Moss, under date of November 1, 1985,
as follows: "...Having been denied permission to build a solar
addition (Sun Room) on the rear of my house at 145 Pearsall Place...I
am planning a small addition to the rear of my house. The addition
will be 12' x 10'. The articles of the Zoning Ordinance I would be in
violation of deal with how close the existing house is to the property
boundaries. Because (1) the articles were put into effect after the
house was built, (2) I bought the house just this year, (3) and the
proposed addition will fall within the Zoning guidelines, I should be
able to construct the addition and receive a Building Permit."
Chairman Aron noted that each of the Board members had before
him/her a copy of a survey entitled, "Survey Map of 145 Pearsall
Place -City of Ithaca -Town of Ithaca -Tompkins County -New York", dated
July 26, 1985, Revised August 8, 1985, signed and sealed by Kenneth A.
Baker, P.L.S., upon which had been drawn the location of the proposed
10' x 12' glass addition to the rear of the existing house shown on
the property.
Chairman Aron asked Mr. Moss if he had anything to add. Mr. Moss
Zoning Board of Appeals 23 November 20, 1985
stated that he did not think so, adding that there was nothing he
could think of.
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak for or against the Appeal of Mr. Moss. No one spoke.
Mr. King noted that Mr. Moss wishes to add a 10' x 12' glass
addition at the south end, to the rear, with there being 60 feet, or
more, to the back lot line. Mr. King noted that the proposed addition
does not impinge on the narrow side lot lines. Mr. Moss agreed,
adding that it is 15 feet to the east side lot line and the closest
neighbor, and about 40 feet to the other.
Mr. Hewett wondered if Mr. Moss had talked to them, with Mr. Moss
responding, no, not about the building permit, but they know he is
thinking about doing this.
Chairman Aron asked Mr. Moss how long he has been in possession
of the house, with Mr. Moss responding, since August 15th, Chairman
Aron asked Mr. Moss if he knew he had a west side yard deficiency of 2
feet, the garage side. Mr. Moss stated that he knew that, adding that
the house is non -conforming.
Mr. King pointed out that the matter is before the Board because
it is an extension of a legal non -conforming use, adding that the
zoning is R9.
Town Attorney Barney, commenting that, with respect to the
two -foot deficiency, it is hard to lop off two feet from the house,
stated that he would think there would be a practical difficulty
there. Mr. King agreed.
MOTION by Mr. Edward King, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning.
RESOLVED,
by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals, that
Mr.
Simeon Moss be
granted a Certificate
duly
of Occupancy
for his house,
p.m.
located at 145
Pearsall Place, Town of Ithaca
Tax
Parcel No. 6-54-2-7,
as it stands,
and that a permit also
be
granted to
extend the house
by
the proposed construction on the
south
end of the property, namely,
the 10 -foot by
12 -foot sunroom or
solar
addition.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Aron, Hewett, King, Reuning.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman Aron declared
the Public
Hearing in and the matter of
the Simeon Moss Appeal
duly
closed at
9:02
p.m.
APPEAL OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, APPELLANT, FRANK. R. LIGUORI, COMMISSIONER
OF PLANNING, AGENT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQ. FT. OF
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
(607) 273-1747
FEE: QLLO
00
RECEIVED: ,
CASH
CHECK
A P P E A LZONING:
to the For Office Use Only
Building Inspector
and �
Zoning Board of Appeal P.
of the , b
Town of Ithaca, New York
Having been denied permission to u/L p �}
A
at
Parcel No. �- .� y - - 7
15
Town of Ithaca Tax
as shown on the accompanying
application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the sta-ted 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:
lei
MINE
IN U/oL, r ady D,� PSC, bt// r# /-i :w c L, os C T1 4�Xls�/r��'c
VP L ed ACJSEP Ai x W/LL--
G, 76TO O FbLE
EAt)T Li N e� �4Jo69* 5T'. �• 1 L . .
✓
R*IRIPS ae
LoT 9
113-3-9
Of
G1 OF
TovJa
I-{ CALM A M (e.0.)
'54 -Z-&
Fo . (, PI PE
1
�Y/r
145
( 13-3-1(
60. UN E of PW5ALL NL •
X01 `Fo, I.P,Pc
LOT 10
Lot---
44 4r 6CAZ
IX AN/7764)
e0:61,e t4t 6G>L.0 (Iz.o) U
Z 59 - 1516 54.-Z-7
0
,o _
N
i
113-3-I I
MACINN
54-2
LaT I 1
J
N �7°G7bcl 59,9'
CHAIM LImIc
54-2- I
FE44 E
Survey Map of 145 Pearsall Place- City of
Town of I f haca- Tompk ns Coun fy - New York
NOTE: ANY REV75MM TO THIS MAP MUST COMPLY WITH SECITON 7209,
SUBDIVISION 7 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW.
DATE /8
%�Z� /85 fly: Q I SCALE: _.I "= 20.'
JOB NO.: X091 •.
F PacuEAWEP-
Ifhaca-
12 EV15ED 816184;
x•I-/3,
KENNETH A. BAKER
"00" ONALLANDSURVEYOR