The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Area 10/24/1990TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1990 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, October 24, 1990, 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 William Thayer, Owner/Appellant, Pamela Williams, Agent, requesting variance of the requirements of Article V, Section 18, Paragraph 16, and Section 20, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of a residential dwelling with an exterior building height of 33 feet and an accessory building with a height of 18 feet 8 inches, to be located on Townline Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-35-1-6, Residence District R-30, Said Ordinance permits a residential building height of 30 feet and an accessory building height of 15 feet. APPEAL of Willis S. Hilker, Appellant, requesting variance of the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of a residential dwelling on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-4-16.1 and -16.2, known as 191-193 Kendall Avenue, Residence District R-9. Said Parcels do not have frontage on the completed and paved portion of Kendall Avenue. Said Ordinance requires a building lot to front on a Town, County, or State highway and have a front yard at least 60 feet in width along a street line. APPEAL of Noreen Marsit, Appellant, requesting variance of the requirements of Article V. Section 19, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the operation of a business, which has horse(s) and carriage for hire, known as the "Ithaca Carriage Co." proposed to be located at 294 Hayts Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-24-1-41.2, Agricultural Zone (Residence District R-30 requirements apply). Said Ordinance does not permit horses for hire. 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 Town of 273-1747 Dated: October 16, 1990 Publish: October 19, 1990 Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Office Ithaca Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 7o that no one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposed construction. 8. that the differential is fairly minimal and from the front of the house it is below the 30 feet that would be permitted and for the barn it is only a 44 -inch variation. The voting on the motion was as follows. Ayes - Reuning, Austen, King, Aron, Hines. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following. APPEAL OF WILLIS S. HILKER, APPELLANT, REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III, SECTIONS 7 AND 9, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6-54-4-16.1 AND -16.2, KNOWN AS 191-193 KENDALL AVENUE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-9. SAID PARCELS DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE COMPLETED AND PAVED PORTION OF KENDALL AVENUE. SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES A BUILDING LOT TO.FRONT ON A TOWN, COUNTY, OR STATE HIGHWAY AND HAVE A FRONT YARD OF AT LEAST 60 FEET IN WIDTH ALONG A STREET LINE. Mr. Willis S. Hilker appeared before the Board. He referred to a map (Exhibit #1) and spoke of the paved area on Kendall Avenue and where the pavement ends. Town Attorney Barney explained that the matter has been researched and the question is what status the remainder of that road is in. There are two surveyors who disagreed slightly on where the road actually lies on the ground vis-a-vis the dimensions of the lots adjacent to it on the north side. He said there have been a couple of hearings with the Planning Board to try to get that resolved and now there is a petition in the process of being done where the landowners of the unapproved portion are saying that they would like to have the road finished with paving done. The Engineering staff for the Town have put together a preliminary estimate on what it is going to cost to do that and there has been some discussion as to what it is going to cost to do that and he thinks there has been some discussion that the cost may be a little excessive considering that the base is already there. He said that they are at the stage now of trying to negotiate out the completion, probably at the expense of the landowners. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 5 Mr. King asked Mr. Hilker how far it is from the end of the pavement on Kendall Avenue to his westerly property line. Mr. Hilker said that it is 150 feet at the most. Town Attorney Barney stated that they have also researched the County Clerk's records and they have not found anywhere where there was a conveyance of these roads to the Town. On the other hand, he said they have never found a conveyance to anybody else. The lots themselves have been conveyed right along but the road, as far as he knows, is still part of the Ithaca Land Company which is long since defunct so the Town is taking the position that from the Town's standpoint, they will get a Quit Claim from the landowners from the boundary line of the road to the center line of the road from all those adjoining and accept that for title purposes rather than demand anything more stringent. Chairman Aran opened the public hearing. Mr. Hilker stated that water and sewer has already been laid by the Town all the way to the end of Kendall and all down Pennsylvania Avenue, the paved and unpaved portions. He said the electricity is also all the way through there so there is no problem with utilities. Mr. Hilker stated that there has never been any attempt on the part of any landowners to try to place the burden of the cost of the road development on the Town. Mr. Hilker further stated that sooner or later this is going to come to an end and the road there will be paved and it needs to be done, both for the Town's sake and the landowners' sake. Mr. Hilker said that his daughter and her husband are in need of a place to build now. They have a very modest house that they are planning to put down there and they have acknowledged that they will maintain that long driveway (125 feet). Chairman Aron referred to the Environmental Assessment Form, signed by Asst. Town Planner Frantz, which is attached hereto as Exhibit #2. Environmental Assessment By Mr. Edward Austen; seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that, in the matter of Appeal of Mr. Willis Hilker requesting a variance of the requirements of Article III, Sections 7 and 9, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for the proposed construction of a residential dwelling on Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 1i Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-54-4-16.1 and -16.2, known as 191-193 Kendall Avenue, Residence District R-9, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does make a negative declaration of environmental significance. The voting on the negative declaration was as follows. Ayes - Austen, King, Reuning, Hines, Aron. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. Mrs. Winship, owner of lots 18 and 19 on Kendall Avenue, spoke to the Board regarding the use of Mr. Hilker's driveway and whether or not if they wanted to build a house there, that meant that the driveway keeps on extending. Town Attorney Barney responded that the Town hopes that the matter will be resolved and the road will be paved. Chairman Aron closed the public hearing. MOTION By Mr. Robert Hines, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and here by does grant an Area Variance to Mr. Willis Hilker for the construction of a house as indicated on the premises identified as 191 - 193 Kendall Avenue, with the following findings and condition. 16 that there is a practical difficulty in that Mr. Hilker has a long-standing ownership of a lot on a road which, at minimum, has been offered for public use. 29 that he has by operation of law a private easement in connection with use of that area of roadway, along with other owners of adjoining lots. 3. that to deprive Mr. Hilker of a building permit would impose an unnecessary burden and hardship on him. 49 that the granting of the variance is in compliance with the ordinances of the Town of Ithaca. 5* that the access drive shall be a minimum width of 15 feet. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals October 24, 1990 6 6a that this is doing what the Town has been looking for, that is, taking two lots and making one lot out of them and making reasonable size yards. 7* that no one appeared in opposition to the proposed construction of this single-family house. The voting on the motion was as follows. Ayes - Hines, Aron, King, Reuning, Austen. Nays - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following. APPEAL OF NOREEN MARSIT, APPELLANT, REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V. SECTION 19, PARAGRAPH 6, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE, FOR THE OPERATION OF A BUSINESS, WHICH HAS HORSE(S) AND CARRIAGE FOR HIRE, KNOWN AS THE "ITHACA CARRIAGE CO." PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 294 HAYTS ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6-24-1-41.2, AGRICULTURAL ZONE (RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REQUIREMENTS APPLY). SAID ORDINANCE DOES NOT PERMIT HORSES FOR HIRE. Mrs. Noreen Marsit appeared before the Board and explained the proposal for her business. She said that about 2 1/2 years ago she started driving around the neighborhood with her horse and carriage; then in mid-July she decided she was ready to start a business giving persons carriage rides. She stated that she does not bring customers on the property, all the business is done at someone else's house or downtown. Mrs. Marsit went on to explain that she does not have any employees, there is no extra trucking up and down the road or extra cars coming into her property. She said that she would really like this to be her business and she is the only driver of the carriage. Chairman Aron asked Mrs. Marsit how many horses she has. Mrs. Marsit replied that she has 3 horses on 10 1/2 acres of property. Chairman Aron opened the public hearing. Mrs. Marsit presented photos to the Board of the horses and the carriage that she does her business with and explained that most of the carriage rides are for weddings, anniversaries, etc. She said that she feels she is offering a nostalgic service to the community. TOWN OF ITHACA 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-1747 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 denied permission to a FEE t $$80.00 RECEIVED s �1 ` I � CASH CHECK - () ZONINGt For Office Use Only at1c?'1 S l d 2 I? °'% �'�e `r'�a c c� �oyrr J�.ev. C'o Town -of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. `/" `t d� S z/ - 4-/ — application and/or plans or other supporting documents, , as shown on the accompanying for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of, Article(s) -22F. , 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 Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets o- %'- 14'4:bN h r 0 f 9t• ` f S eA,.j e,r n be attached as necessary. D 7L r w A`L. d aff ./lQ /11�.. � d�/i l.IA.•I �'..�. �� By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: j 4 4 1 Datet Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Jr �u Home Telephone Number: 2 % J 7 73 2 Work Telephone Number: 22$. — "it ZZ PUT INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN: 1. Dimensions of lot. 4. Dimensions and location of proposed structure(s) or 2. Distance of structures from: or addition(s). a. Road, 5. Names of neighbors rho bound lot. b. Both side lot lines, 6. Setback of neighbors. AIA c. Rear of lot. 7. Street name and r&vber. PC A) tie; 3. North arrow. 8. Show existing structures in contrasting lines. N A �C'#� Ox 1 30' D IIX0 iZarod 1/A" 10 +� Signature of Owner/Appellant: _ Date: j Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: 14'-1'u-4 (2167)—Text 12 PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 817.21 SEAR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I—PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1. APPLICANT (SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME rn 3. PROJECT LOCATION - Municipality ell Cz County 4, PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: %New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modificationlalteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: initially _f4L0/X 7 acres Ultimately acres 6. WIL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Yes No If No, describe briefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open space ❑ Other scribe: 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ❑ Yes F�5No It yes, list agency(s) and permitlapprovafs 11. DOES ANY,A &ECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes o If yes, list agency name and permitlapproval 12. AS A RESULTz:0 ROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE /01 Applicantlsponsor name: Data: f� 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 1 PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be the Town of Ithaca; Use attachments as A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I Threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES I I NO I X I 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 U NO U (If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency, if any,) C. Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater. quality, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production and disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED, C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural areas, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED, C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED, C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED, C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1- C5? Explain briefly : SEE ATTACHED, C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly SEE ATTACHED, D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES = NO If yes, explain briefly E. Comments of staff u, CAC L], Other F 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 -w-- hich 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 El, 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. Name of Lead Agency Name & Title of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer Date: PART 11 -- ENVIRONMENTAL A55E5511ENT— Request by Willis S. Htiker for Variance from Art. Ill, Sects 7 8. 9 of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. PROJECT: Proposed Single (Family Home on Tax Parcel No. 6-54-4-16.1 8.16.2 REVIEWER: George Frantz, Asst, Town Planner DATE: October 19, 1990 A. Does Action exceed any TYPE I threshold in 6 NYCRR, PART 617.127 Yes Nom(_, Action is UNLISTED.X— D. Will Action receive coordinated review as provided for UNLISTED Actions in 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? Yes No...._X� Involved Agency0es): C. Could Action result In any adverse effects associated with the following: Cf. 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: None anticipated. The proposed project is construction of a single family home on an existing building lot. No adverse impact with regard to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, or any drainage or flooding problems, is expected as a result of this action. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural resources: or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly: None anticipated, No aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historical, or other natural resources are known to exist on the site. Adjacent land use is predominantly developed and undeveloped residential lots and open space. No adverse impact to community or neighborhood character is expected as a result of this action C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or other natural resources? Explain briefly, None anticipated, Proposed home is to be built on an existing lot covered by grass and brush. No significantor endangered vegetation or fauna are known to exist on the site, nor are there any known significant habitats, threatened, or other natural resources, C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: None anticipated. The proposed home is permitted under the Residence District R-9 zoning in force in the area in which It Is proposed to be built, and is sited in a way that meets required setbacks for the R-9 District. No significant adverse impacts with regard to change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources is anticipated. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None expected. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in Ci -CS? Explain briefly: None expected. C7. Other Impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: None expected, D. Is there, or is there nicely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? Yes Nom_. If Yes, explain briefly PART III - DETERMINATION OF S16NIFICANCE Based on the small scale of the proposed action, its location and the character of the site and site surroundings, its conformance with all zoning requirements with regard to permitted uses in the P-9 District except for frontage on a public road, and the information provided above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended. George R, Frantz, Assistant Town Planner. r I A N z Val �\ o� \\ tn 4 IMF 000 000 / \ w /0�\\,o \� ` i CY OF 04 ♦ \\\ /^✓ /ooe •,• :' � Ali:: \ I 4$ Ail co \ \ / / ` I � `� try / \ ��4� • Q �p � I I I _ _ .. CY I,I 776 wd I ap \ / � ```moi o.'.� � N Y 1 � � � N Z . • r _. os 1T "MIND�cw , to r woos Rhob I I zz /UDCY Ob all - oto fa M Ln IIIIIIIuMho— ina Cl J, CY co % I w3 R rNa Kb,-rA �oNj SND - iqj_- «3 &�� kic -tel jo-�4-jo acz�- 4- be_ dtveloplj