HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (53)
Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 53.-1-15.19
109 Juniper Dr
Tax Parcels involved, with address if known 109 Juniper Dr 53.-1-15.19 with
no subdivision or readdressing
History:
2015 – Height Variance for fence - Approved
1974 – Area Variance for house - Approved
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday August 17, 2015
Minutes
Board Members Present: Rob Rosen, Chair; Bill King, Christine Decker, Chris Jung;
Alternate George Vignaux Absent: John DeRosa and Carin Rubin
Staff Present: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Paulette Terwilliger, Town
Clerk; Lorraine Moynihan-Schmitt, Attorney for the Town
Mr. Rosen opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Appeal of Steven Ehrhardt and Lvdia Werbizky, owners, requesting a Special Approval
from Chauter 270-223 A(3)(c) "Fences and walls; retainin� walls", of the Code of the
Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to install a 6 ft hi�h fence that is located less than 10 ft
from the road ri�ht of wav, located at 109 Juniper Dr, Tax Parcel No. 53.-1-15.19,
Medium Densitv Residential (MDR).
The applicant seeks a Special Approval from the ZBA to construct a 6 foot fence less than 10
feet from a street right-of-way line, pursuant to Town of Ithaca Zoning Code
§ 270-223 (A)(3)(c) Special Approval ZBA Review Provision and in accordance with Town
of Ithaca Zoning Code § 270-200 Considerations for Special Approvals.
Steven Ehrhardt was present to answer questions from the board. Mr. Ehrhardt noted that he
had a diagram for sightlines if needed later.
Mr. Rosen stated that he drove by the site and he thought that if the fence is put at the street
line it is going to seem very walled off and the neighbor around the corner has hers fence set
back 10 feet and he was concerned about the aesthetics. Mr. Ehrhardt responded that the
neighbor's fence is practically in the culvert and he handed out the diagram showing sight
lines and build lines for the fence and the right-of-way �ROW} with an overview picture of
the house. The red line indicates the fence location with the R�W shown as the thin black
line and at its closest point it is 4 feet from the R�VV and it angles away from the paved
portion of the road to where the northern end of the proposed fence is about 10 feet from the
ROW. Mr. Rosen said there is an unpaved shoulder that is part of the road that people walk,
bike, or park on; Mr. Ehrhardt responded that there has never been a car parked there.
Mr. King asked if the rope he had placed was exactly where he intended to put the fence and
Mr. Ehrhardt responded that the red rope is the ROW and he intends to put it inside of that but
the rope shows that there is quite a bit of lawn between the ROW and the roadway.
Mr. King asked why the ROW doesn't follow the edge of the pavement and no one really
knew. Mr. King stated that his observation was that the notification of the public hearing sign
was the minimum distance from the road that would be good to him and as you go to the
backyard it got too close to the road and he would rather see it run parallel to the road than to
the ROW and maintain that distance. He didn't feel there was enough room left for
snowplowing or cars that may have to pull over.
Mr. Ehrhardt indicated that the thick black line would be where it would go if it were always
1 � feet from the ROW and added that if the board could not permit the fence to be at the
ROW, he could put a smaller fence in there as of right-- a 6 foot high fence with slats at 50%,
and that is what the neighbor has.
Mr. Bates wanted to caution the board that if they are talking about parking and snow, he is
not required to allow that and the board can't give somebody else permission to use that
property. Parking on the side of the road is keeping two tires on and no further than the
ROW. Mr. Rosen responded that the code is to keep it 10 feet back because it's about
visibility but Mr. Bates responded that that concern was for intersections and being able to
pull out of your driveway. He stated that this one does not pose any sight issues.
Mr. Rosen asked what the thick black line on the drawing indicated and Mr. Bates responded
that that is where he could put the fence if he wanted without needing a special approval. Mr.
Rosen asked why it wasn't parallel with the red line. Mr. Ehrhardt responded that it could be a
mistake in the drawing but one of the reasons he wants doesn't want to put the fence so far
inside the property line is to allow access to landscapers and gates and such and he was told
he would need 8 feet, and he has a bocce court that he needs 8 foot clearance from. He was
surprised they told him 8 feet because he has 6 feet on the other side of his property but that is
what they told him.
Lengthy discussion followed on the need for accessibility and the size needed. Mr. Ehrhardt
responded that if he is not allowed to put the proposed fence where he wants it he might be
more likely to simply build a 6 foot high fence with the gaps and that would not require a
special approval and would actually infringe on the sight lines more than what he is proposing
and he could do that as of right. He stated that the point about traffic safety is the main reason
for needing a special approval and the issue doesn't exist here as his fence is proposed. Mr.
Ehrhardt stated that if the board just doesn't like the look of the fence that isn't something he
can help. That is a style choice and he would prefer a solid fence rather than a gapped fence
and he is not affecting any sight lines with his proposal. Mr. King responded that his concern
is the aesthetics of a fence that close to the road and not parallel with the road not necessarily
the type of fence but the placement parallel with the road. Discussion followed on moving the
fence to run parallel which would need a setback variance but addressed the concerns of most
of the board members. Compromise would be a 5 foot setback parallel to the the ROW line.
It was detennined that the minimum special approval distance within the right of way that
was needed was a fence that had 8 feet clearance from the corner of the bocce court. The
fence could be at the 10 foot setback line at the front corner of the lot, as long as it had 8 feet
clearance from the bocce court. It looked like the fence would be about 2 feet from the ROW
at the back corner of the lot. The concept was shown and discussed at length using the
drawing with the lines. Mr. Rosen drew it on the diagram which was given to the clerk for the
file.
2
Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing 6:35p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
board and the hearing was closed.
Discussion followed with a focus on access into the property for various equipment and the
gates and clearance needed. Mr. Ehrhardt stated that the variance shouldn't depend on him
trying to anticipate any and all access needs for his property since that is his issue not the
board's if it comes down to needing access.
ZBA Resolution OObl-2015 — Special Approval
109 Juniper Dr., TP 53.-1-15.19 MDR
August 17, 2015
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Bill King
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of Steven Ehrhardt and Lydia Werbizky, owners,
requesting a Special Approval from Chapter 270-223 A(3}(c} "Fences and walls; retaining
walls", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to be permitted to install a 6 foot high fence that is
located less than 10 feet from the road right of way with the following:
Conditions:
That the fence be no more than 8 feet, as measured perpendicularly from the fence to the
corner of the bocce court and continue in a straight line for the entire length of the fence and
meet the 10 foot setback line from the R4W at the northwest corner of the lot, so the fence
would have a zero -0 foot setback from the R�W at the northwest corner of the lot.
With the following
Findings
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare
of the community, specifically: �
1. The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve of vehicle access to the yard, cannot be
achieved by any other mean feasible, and
2. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to
nearby properties, given that a deer fence is already permitted and that this board has
mitigated the effect by having the fence run essentially parallel to txie pavement, and
3. That the request is substantial given that the setback required is 10 feet wide and this
special approval results in an average 6 foot setback, but nonetheless, we are granting
the approval necessary to maintain access to the yard, and
4. That the special approval will not have any adverse environmental or physical effects,
specifically concerning sight lines, because there are distances of 104 feet and 85 feet
to the corners, and given the low speed limits, the distances are great enough that
people can see safely, and
3
5. That the alleged difficulty to the applicant is self-created in that the owner wants to
build a fence at a height and in a location which requires ZBA Special Approval, but
the detriment is outweighed by the benefits as detailed above.
Special Approval Criteria, Pursuant to Town of Ithaca Code § 270-200, have been
reviewed by the board on the record with the following findings:
A. The health safety and morals of the community are in harmony with the purpose given
that it is a fence for backyard recreation in a medium density residential zone, and
B. The premises are reasonably adapted given that it is a residential zone, and
C. The design is consistent with the character of the district and has been mitigated to some
extent in the area variance conditions, and
D. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood character as given that it is
a fence in a residential neighborhood and the conditions for the area variance have
mitigated any minor effect, and
E. There will be no operations in connection with the fence or noise, fumes disruption after
the installation of the fence, and
F. Community infrastructure does not apply, and
G. The purpose of the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and
H. The ingress and egress has been reviewed and is adequate for emergency vehicles, and
I. No traffic impacts will happen as a result and sight line issues have been reviewed and
addressed, and
J. No impact to lot area, access, parking and loading, which shall all be sufficient for the
proposed use and access and shall be adequately addressed by the gates proposed in said
fencing; and
K. No impact to surface water and drainage; drainage ways are not altered
L. No site plan review is required.
Vote - Ayes: Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux. Unanimous.
Appeal of William and Patricia Kerrv, owners, requestia� a variance from Chapter 270-
117 A(1) "Yard retulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to build a 20 x 30
addition to the existin� house without sufficient front vard setback, located at 704
Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33: 2-6.21, Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Somogy, Architect were available to answer questions.
Mr. Rosen stated that the drawings show the existing house in nonconforming and the addition
would increase the nonconformity but when he drove by the property it is a commercial district
and is approximately the same as what is there now and won't have any kind of aesthetic impact.
Mr. Vignaux agreed stating that he saw no issues with the addition and in fact went into Briar
Patch and it will not affect their view or esthetics. Mr. King added that he thought it was a
minimal change to the current house and it also has a fence in front of it. He added that the only
thing wanted to ask about was putting the addition right in line with the front of the house for
aesthetic reasons but that is the applicant's choice and preference. Ms. Decker stated that the
addition fit quite well with the character and layout of the house.
4
Ms. Moynihan Schmitt noted that no SEQR is needed and Mr. Rosen opened the public hearing
at 6:58 p.m. No one was present and the hearing was closed.
ZBA Resolution 0055-2015 Area Variance
704 Elmira Rd, TP 33: 2-6.21 Neighborhood Commercial
August 17, 2015
Moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by George Vignaux
Resolved that this board grants the appeal of William and Patricia Kerry, owners, requesting a
variance from Chapter 270-117 A(1) "Yard regulations", of ihe Code of the Town of Ithaca,
to build a 20 x 30 addition to the existing house without sufficient front yard setback, located
at 704 Elmira Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33.-2-6.21, Neighborhood Commercial (NC) with the
following
Conditions
1. That the building be built substantially as shown, and
2. That the setback be no less than 19 feet from the right of way, and
With the following:
Findings
That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community, specifically that:
1. That there will not be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character given that the
building is in a commercial zone and the neighboring properties are commercial in nature
and the house is already nonconforming and is secluded by fencing, and
2. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve cannot be achieved by any other means
possible given the floor plan of the house, and
3. The request is substantial given that 50 feet is required and 19 feet has been granted, but
the existing building is already approximately 22 feet at setback, and
4. The request will not have physical or environmental effects since the increase to the
existing structure will be minimal since the use as a residential house is less of a use that
what is permitted by right in the area, and
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but the effects are mitigated for the reasons stated
above.
Vote: Ayes — Rosen, King, Decker, Jung and Vignaux Granted.
5
AQpeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Ener�v Svstems, agent,
requesting a variance from Chauter 271-9H ��Yard re�ulations", of the Code of the
Town of Ithaca, to install roof mounted solar nanels that extend bevond the exterior wall
and exceed the 12 inches allowed, located at 313 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No.
28.-1-26.85, Planned Development Zone (P).
Mr. Rosen asked Ms. Moynihan Schmitt and Mr. Bates about the next three appeals stating
that they are all the same with slight variations and they responded that the findings can be the
same and the general discussion can be the same but each appeal and resolution has to be
separate to each address and each public hearing would have to be opened and closed
separately.
Discussion followed. Mr. Bates noted the distance requirements in the Planned Development
Zone language for Ecovillage. He made the point that the state building code has to be
adhered to so the state has to grant a variance also so any variance by this board would have
to include a condition that the state variance be granted. The overhang and distance between
is the key number here for fire separation. New York State Fire Prevention and Building
Code/ Residential Code states that exterior walls or projections shall not extend more than 12
inches into the fire separation distance and the overhang itself is 12 inches and the solar array
has already been installed and extends 8 inches beyond that.
The Board was not comfortable going through the process and possibly approving a potential
violation of the state fire prevention and building code. The board was in favor of solar
panels but there are alternatives such as using higher wattage panels so there are less of them
or other options and health and human safety is a paramount consideration for the board.
The applicant, with Solar Liberty Energy Systems acting as agent, stated that they have been
working with the State on the variance and requested postponing their three appeals scheduled
this evening to the next meeting or the soonest meeting after receiving the state variance. The
board accepted.
Accordingly:
Appeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent, requesting a
variance from Chapter 271-9H "Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to
install roof mounted solar panels that extend beyond the exterior wall and exceed the 12
inches allowed, located at 313 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-2b.85, Planned
Development Zone {P) is postponed.
Appeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent, requesting a
variance from Chapter 271-9H "Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to
install roof mounted solar panels that extend beyond the exterior wall and exceed the 12
inches allowed, located at 315 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85, Planned
Development Zone (P) is postponed.
0
Aupeal of Ecovillage TREE, LLC, owner, Solar Liberty Energy Systems, agent, requesting a
variance from Chapter 271-9H "Yard regulations", of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, to
install roof mounted solar panels that extend beyond the exterior wall and exceed the 12
inches allowed, located at 317 Rachel Carson Trail, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-26.85, Planned
Development Zone (P} is postponed.
Approval of Minutes
Approval of the July minutes was moved by Rob Rosen, seconded by Christine Decker —
Unanimous.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Submit y ,
Paulette Terwilliger
Town Clerk
7
1
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WVj
APRIL 17 , 1974
A meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was
held on Wednesday , April 17 , 1974 , at 7 : 30 p . m , in the Town of Ithaca
Offices , 108 East Green Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairwoman Laurene Ripley , Edward Austen , Jack
Hewett , Reynolds Metz ( Zoning Officer ) , David Cowan ( Assistant to the
Zoning Officer ) , Nancy Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ABSENT : Roger Sovocool .
ALSO PRESENT : Mr . George Kugler , 101 Pineview Terrace ; Mr . Leon
O ' Branski , Freeville Lumber Co . , Mr . Stanley Tsapis , Attorney ; Mrs_ . Amy
Suzanne Soyring ; Mr . John Vasse ,
PUBLIC HEARING : APPEAL OF FREEVILLE LUMBER CO . , ' OWNER '109 JUNIPER DR .
ed
Chairwoman Ripley call / the Public Hearing to order 'at• 7 •: 40 P . M .
Mr . Metz read the appeal as published in the Ithaca Journal on
April 12 , 15 , and 16 , 1974 ( see attachment to Official Minutes ) .
Mr . Metz then presented to the Board an Appeal prepared by
Mr . Stanley Tsapis , attorney for Freeville Lumber Co . , with attached
Survey Map prepared by R . L .. MacDowell , Jr . , and dated March 16 , 19740
Also attached to said detailed appeal were copies of Application for
Building Permit dated 11 / 18 / 66 ( Exhibit " A " ) , Plot Plan ( Exhibit " B " ) ,
Application for Building Permit dated 10 / 15 / 68 ( Exhibit " C " ) with
attached Plot Plan , and Purchase Offer dated 1 / 31 / 74 ( Exhibit " D " ) .
Mr . Tsapis . presented Affidavit of Service of Notice of the
date and place of this Public Hearing on :
1 . Owner , 104 Hickory Place
2 . Owner , 108 Juniper Drive
3 . Owner , 110 Juniper Drive
4 . Mr . George Kugler , 101 Pineview Terrace
Mr . Tsapis stated that the present Appeal for * Variance is in
essence " after the fact " in order that a Certificate of Compliance may
be issued by the Zoning Officer . Permission for said Certificate of
Compliance to be issued has been denied by the Zoning Officer under
Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , - i . e . ,
inadequate side yard distance on the East side of the dwelling at
Id 109 Juniper ' Drive ,
Mr . Tsapis stated that a building permit was issued to Mr .
Russell Savey for this lot in 1966 at which time he was ,going to
build one residence on a total of two lots . However , during the course
of construction , the house was located on one lot as shown on the
survey map ( referred to above ) . 109 Juniper Drive is laid out on a
subdivision map ' - - Russell Heights Subdivision - - filed in the
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 = April 17 , 1974
Office of the Tompkins County Clerk . Thereafter Savey Construction
declared bankruptcy and Freeville Lumber Co . purchased the house
at a foreclosure sale . The foundation was in and the shell was done
for this house at the time of the purchase by • Freeville Lumber Co .
who then proceeded to complete the house . It became apparent later
that in the course of constructing Hickory Place and Pineview
Terrace , their location was altered from that shown on the Russell
Heights Subdivision Map filed by Mr . Savey . Therefore ; all
measurements - from each of, those roads were in error causing the
location of the house at 109 Juniper Drive to be different from
that intended and making it less than 15 feet from the east line .. .
`a that there s ' a sale Mr Tsapis state i pending 'to Mr . and
Mrs . Ronald We Moore which is dependent upon the issuance of a
" Certificate of Compliance for this residence . - On behalf-<. of Freeville
Lumber Co. . , Mr . Tsapis requested a side yard variance of the- 15 .
foot requirement of the zoning ordinance . He noted that this is an
established neighborhood ; the character of the neighborhood would not
be altered in any way since all the homes - are in ,• Mr : Kugler is the
. only neighbor appearing at . this meeting , being in favor of the granting
of the variance and no others appearing in opposition . , •.
Mr . . - .Kugler stated for the Board that he had . no objections
whatsoever to the granting of the variance . He further stated that he
had . purchased his. home knowing that the residence at ' 109 Juniper Drive
was there .
Mrs . ' Ripley asked Mr . Cowan for an advisory opinion and he stated
that - it was his feeling that the request is legitimate and fu .ther , that
he , could see no objections .
Motion by Mr . Jack Hewett ; seconded by Mr . Edward Austen ,
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca grant and hereby does grant a side yard variance for the east
side of •the dwelling located at 109 Juniper Drive , owned by Freeville 4 '
Lumber Co . , - . as requested in their Appeal and as shown on the Survey
Map dated March 16 , 1974 ; prepared by Re Le MacDowell ; - • Jr . , , and attached
`" to said Appeal . . This Resolution being made upon the' ' following Finding
of Facts . . .
1 : The residence at 109 Juniper, Drive lies within an established
neighborhood .
` . 2 . The character of the neighborhood will not be changed by the
granting of ' a side yard variance .
30 ' * Unnecessary hardship would be caused to the owner by moving
the dwelling .
4 : No neighbors appeared in opposition to the granting of this
request . far variance .
There was no further discussion and the : Chairwoman called for
a vote . '
Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals . - 3 - April 17 , 1974
Aye - Ripley , Austen , Hewett ,
Nay None .
The Motion was declared carried unanimously .
PUBLIC HEARING : APPEAL OF AMY SUZANNE SOYRING FOR THE DIVISION OF THE
EXISTING LOT AT 847 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD .
Chairwoman Ripley called the Public Hearing to order at 8 : 00 P . M .
Mr . Metz read the appeal as published in the Ithaca Journal' on
April 12 , 15 , and 16 , 1974 ( see attachment to Official Minutes ) .
Mr . . Stanley Tsapis , p attorney for Mrs . ' Soyring , ' presented an
Affidavit of Service by Mail of Notice of this Public Hearing on
Mr . Tom Reese , 841 Taughannock Blvd . and Mr . Thomas Zabadol , 871
Taughannock Blvd . ; the neighbors on each side of the appellant ' s
property on ' the West Shore of Lake Cayuga in the Town of Ithaca .
Mr . Metz presented a picture of the property at 847 Taughannock
Blvd . , and Mr . Tsapis presented a Survey Map prepared by Mr . Thomas
Miller .
Mr . Tsapis presented a detailed Appeal to ' the Board on behalf
of Mrs . Soyring asking for a variance to allow the division of an
existing lot into two lots , one with a three - apartment house having
a frontage of 65 feet and ' a depth ' of Ill feet and the other consisting
of a main residence having a frontage of 80 feet and a depth of 111 feet ,
more or less . Such variance is required by Mrs . Soyring in order to
obtain a ' Certificate of Compliance so that . she may sell the parcel ,
or parcels .
Mr . Tsapis stated that Mr . Andrew Soyring was once Zoning
Officer for - the Town of Ithaca . In 1966 he obtained a variance to
construct a two - apartment house on this property . He received a front
. and side yard variance . The problem is that there exists a three -
apartment house on this property . Mr . Soyring has since died . Mrs .
: Soyring inherited the property . Mrs . ' Soyring has decided to sell the
three - apartment house since it is too difficult for her to manage the
property . Mr . Tsapis noted the attached purchase offer which has since
been withdrawn due to the non - compliance of the property with the
zoning ordinance . Mrs . Soyring is therefore stuck with an unmarketable
piece of property .
Mr : Tsapis . pointed out that this situation has been in existence
for approximately 5 years . There have been no complaints . Mr . Tsapis
presented for the record the results of investigation by the Tompkins
County Department of Health indicating that the . system ( septic ) is
functioning properly as of 1 / 4 / 74 , and that the water is satisfactory
and that the septic tank must be pumped as soon as possible . Mr .
Tsapis stated that there . is adequate parking available for the three
apartments and the main house . Mr . Tsapis stated . that there are many
50 ' lots on the West Shore and that the proposed division of the lot
would not alter the character of the neighborhood .
=- Town . of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - April 17 , 1974
„ Mr . Cowan stated that originally there were two apartments
built in the house . There was a garage underneath and it collapsed .
Mrs . Soyring stated that the back wall collapsed and the
third apartment was put in at that time .
Mr . Hewett asked if the three apartments are rented at the
present time Mrs . Soyring said that they were .
Mr . Tsapis commented that the septic tank field area will not
be reduced by the division of the lot . He said that there would be
lot •line problems created though , on one side .
r
'
At 8 : 15 p . m . the Chairwoman closed the meeting for an Executive
Session of the Zoning Board of Appeals .
At 8 : 30 p . m . the Chairwoman declared the Public Hearing re -
opened .
stated .
Mrs ' Ripley/that no formal decision would be rendered by . the
Zoning Board of . Appeals at this meeting , in order that an - opinion may
be sought from Mr' . James Ve Buyoucos , Town Attorney . Mrs . Ripley
stated that the Board will get back to Mr ; Tsapis by May 15 , 1974 .
Mr Tsapis asked . if there were any more - information that the
Board might wish to have in order to reach a decision . It was stated
that there was not .
Mrs . Ripley instructed Mr . Metz to write . to Mr . Buyoucos
describing the question before the Board and ask " for his opinion on the
matter .
Motion by Mrs . Ripley ; seconded by Mr . Austen ,
RESOLVED , that this Public Hearing be ' adjourned at 8 : 30 p . m .
for resumption at a later date .
Aye - Ripley , Austen , Hewett .
Na- = None .
The Motion to adjourn carried unanimously .
�►
.`
Laurene Ripley . hairwoman
Zoning Board of Appeals ,
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary .
i TOWN OF ITHACA
NEW YORK
APPEAL
to the
Building Commissioner
and the Board of Zoning Appeals
of the Town of Ithaca , New York .
Having been , denied a certificate of occupancy because the
property does not meet all zoning requirements at , 109 Juniper
Drive , Ithaca , New York , as shown on the accompanying survey ,
and other • supporting documents , for the stated reason that
the issuance of such permit would be in violation of • Article
IV Section 14 . 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 :
Attached . hereto is the building permit obtained
by Savey Construction Co . , Inc . for the construction of the � ' '
residence located at 109 Juniper Drive ( Exhibit . A ) . The plot
plan attached to said permit ( Exhibit B ) indicated that the
house would be built on two lots . Apparently during the course
of construction , the house was located on one lot ' as shown on
the attached survey map . A different house was built on . the
. . . lot next to the east at 101 Pineview Terrace , as evidenced by
the building permit attached hereto ( Exhibit C ) . . The house ' at
109 Juniper Drive was financed by a mortgage obtained at the
Ithaca Savings & Loan Association on December 3 , 1968 . 109
Juniper. Drive is laid out on a subdivision map filed in the
C.
+ `,
office of the Tompkins County Clerk . That subdivision map
shows the proposed location of Juniper Drive , Hickory .Place
and Pineview Terrace and the lot in question . That in the
course of constructing Hickory Place and Pineview Terrace , the
location as shown on`the subdivision map was altered , we assume
in error . Thereafter , all measurements from each of those
roads were erroneous . This caused the location of the . house
at 109 Juniper Drive to be different than intended . The re -
sult of said error was to locate the house closer . to the east
line than the 15 feet authorized by the zoning ordinance . This
was obviously an error since there is plenty , of room to locate
the house on the lot within the yard requirements of the zoning
ordinance
Thereafter , Savey Construction Co . defaulted on its
mortgage . The Ithaca Savings & Loan Association foreclosed and
the" Freeville Lumber Co . , Inc . bought said premises at the
foreclosure sale on or about December 15 , . 1972 . ' There has been
a . purchase and sale agreement ( Exhibit D ) entered into between
the Freeville Lumber Co . , Inc . and Ronald W . and Madeline Moore .
One of the requirements • of said agreement is that the premises
comply with - existing zoning regulations . That ' when an investi -
gation was made to see if the lot did in fact conform , the
error as shown on the attached map was discovered . ' The - Moores ,
now reside ' in the premises on a month- to -month .. landlord- tenant
basis . The sale cannot be completed without the variance '
requested herein , permitting the residence to be located closer
f
to . the east line of the lot than permitted by the zoning
ordinance . The cost of changing the location of the building
would be' substantial . There is no effect on the neighborhood .
- since this house was the first to be constructed in the three
lots which make up the triangle between Juniper Drive , Hickory .
Place and . Pineview Terrace . The character of the neighborhood
would not be altered .
WHEREFORE ,, - it is respectfully requested that the
Board grant the variance as requested above . '
Signed
WIGGINS , TSAPIS , HOLMBERG & GERSH
Stanley Tsapis , Esq . of counsel
Dated : Ithaca , New York Attorney for Freeville Lumber Co . , Inc .
April 3 , 01974
7ylanh, ��a ,
8
• � 0•
1 `
!? r TOWN OF . ITHACA It I
Jr- 6 APPLICATION FOR BUILDING . PERMIT
� /
Application ....� . .. .
� 10
Fee
Permit Number :. •• . - - •� Q
$x;•69"- Main Building or Extension
1 .00 - Accessory Building Date . .-
Make checks payable to Town of Ithaca Parcel Number . . ..� - -••- •••••
Zoning District , .. _ . . _ .. . I= • '
Return application to : - . _ :: • -- - - • - - - - -- --- -- -- -- - - - - • - g
a structure or use land
Application is hereby made to build �], extend . E], convert F1- - - - - - - -- -- - - - -- : . . .. . .. . . .. . ... . .. ... . .. ... . .. ❑ ) -
G
. ..... .. .. . Rd . , Town of Ithaca, N. Y. ,
To be used for .::0�.,� . / • • - ----• -- - - -- a _
At cost of
Structure is to be completed on or klefore . . . .. . . . . . :. .:. . :... :.'.. ..
Owner of land 5�_t�• �: . . .�v. a1F':. ��r JY�. .....:..:. .. Builder . .. .. .1/ .. .m__e---- - :. .. .--•- -`--. .. ..... ....... . .. ...... .
Land Owner's mailing addthss /
f
If building is being built for a person other than present land owner, show name . . . .. . ... . . . .. . . . . .. . ... . . :. . :....::....... . .. . ..:.•• -_ •__........
••••
The structures ) will be as follows : Square Feet Floor Area :
-�
Type of construction . . . . . . ,. _..�.= �9.NiG:.. .... ... :. ... .:.. .... Basement . . ....... .. . . .. /.v B��... . ................. .......... ..............
...
Number of stories . . . ..rt .�?. . ... . ... . . ...•-. --- - - = First Floor . .l . .
1 Sam '
Number of Family Units' _ . . ..... L�/- v.<L. . . . _•_ • __- ---_- .._. �. Second Floor
-_...._
Percentage of Lot to be occupied Over con .. .. . . .... �` '� • -_-
/� O
"Second .
byall structures . ... . ._. . . .. ...R . . .. . ... ..........:...... .: '
Plot Plan on . Back of Permit or Attached _.. .. : . _._: S` c
Its
The required permits have been';obtained as follows : r - 4 Date •lssued '
FROM TOMPKINS ' .COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT .
It
Approval of septic system and/or well - -• : ... `:!• •••••
FROM TOWN CLERK '
Street opening ( if road must be opened for pipes ) ..: •- .-•• •• •-•••. -•• -••--=•-
Blasting permit ( if blasting necessary )' - .
: {
FROM SUPERVISOR ti , '
i
' • i Its L
Water Tap .. . . .. . . . . . ..•. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . .. . . _ District : . ; . . . .. . ...... ... ... ...
_.
. .
Sewcr Tap District
It
•
FROM PROPER HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT s . `
Culverts and driveways '' . _. .. . .. . .. . ..... .. ... .. ... .... . .. .: ._
rv,
I .
FAOM ' TOWN ZONING OFFICER .. • s r J'
` Multiple residence permit .... ....... ........ .. ..........: . . .............. ....
01 The Undersigned hereby applies ' for permission to do the above, in accordance with provisions of . the Zoning Ordinance
and other Laws and Regulations of the Town of Ithaca, New York, o others having jurisdiction;and affirms that all
statements and information given herein are correct to the best of h ' owledge an b ief• V '
Date : . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . • - - -: . _. . __�. . . : 19 - - - - - -• . ...._.... __... ..•••._......_. . .
t e„ of Landowner.
F11 I
Building permit Xf approved by . : Progress of work. "Checked on :
I. ) denied ' under Section _ . . .. . - of the -
Foundation ;
Zoning Ordinance by . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .... .. .... .... ... .........
Appeal action : Framing - - -_ . -__ _ . :.. ... . . . . . . . . . . .. .:. . :::: :_ • •. ._... .• - ••-••• • --
Date of appeal _. . . .. . . . . .: . .. . .. . . :.. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . -`: _. :::_. . .. . . . - - Trim _. . ..__ . . ---•:._. . • •••-- ••. .:-•-••••-• .............,
Date of hearing . .. .. . . . . . ... . ... . .. ... ... . • - - - • - • •-- - - - • - - • -• . . :: _.. -• -: . `• _ . • _ Completion . .. .. ... . . _.. . . ... . _ . . .. • � . . .. . . . . .. . ... .... . ..
Date of advertising . . . :. . ._ . : . . . : . . . . .: :. . . . 1 '
. . . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . •
Board members notified Order to refill excavation
� ` . issued on
.. . . . . :. . . . . . :. . : :. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .• • -- . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . _. . . . . .. . .
L
ti O r der, to demolish structure
issued on . ..
$7 .50 - Appeal , advertising expenses.
WWW - y �
PLOT PLAN
INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : Dimensions of structures.
Dimensions of lot. Names of neighbors who bouxd lot. .
Distance of Structures from Set-back of neighbors.
Cd
Road, .. North arrow,
Both side lot lines, Street name and number. .
Reai of lot. Show existing structures in contrasting lines.
h
1y `
,
1v �► , `
0210
t
rp
1. 02 I P4
- ,
• ' � hereby • ' ,
certify that the struct : P
which this Permit (will urs or
be ) ( has . been
issued ( krill -be has been )built ac
tL
cording to the latest Standards of the 4
New York Stets ding C
a'
Sign d