Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (67)TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 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 Monday, October 20, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters: APPEAL of Scott Flatt, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land with road frontage of 27 ± feet (60 foot frontage required) and 27 feet at the maximum front yard setback (100 foot width required) at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Residence District R-15. Furthermore, a request for a variance from the requirements of Section 11.2 is being made to create a two-family home with each dwelling unit having an equal floor area. APPEAL of Charlene Temple, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XIII, Section 54 and variances from Article IV, Section 14 and Article XIII, Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit in a non -conforming building/lot, and to construct a front yard building addition with a setback of 18 ± feet (25 foot setback required) at 246 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-8, Residence District R-30. APPEAL of Lisa Wapen, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to reside in a single-family residence while constructing a separate single- family residential building at 138 Ridgecrest Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45-1-14, Residence District R-15. Said Ordinance restricts a tax parcel to containing only one residential structure. APPEAL of Dan Mitchell, Appellant, requesting a variance from Article VIII, Section 44 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a building addition at the Ithaca Beer Company, creating a new rear yard building setback of 13 + feet (60 feet required) and a new side yard setback of 46 ± feet (60 feet required) at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3-2.1, Light Industrial Zone. APPEAL of Ithaca College and College Circle Associates, LLC/South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Appellants, Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, Agent, requesting variances from Article IV, Section 11 and 12 and Article VI, Sections 27, 28, and 29 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a parking lot to serve multiple residences with said parking being located in an R-15 zone (otherwise not permitted) and within the side yard setback of the multiple residence zone (otherwise prohibited) at the Ithaca College campus and College Circle Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42-1-13.2, 43-1-2.2, and 43-1-2.3, Residence District R-15 and Multiple Residence zones. 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. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273-1783 Dated: October 9, 2003 Published: October 13, 2003 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, APPEAL : Scott Flatt, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land with road frontage of 27 ± feet (60 foot frontage required) and 27 feet at the maximum front yard setback (100 foot width required) at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Residence District R-15. Furthermore, a request for a variance from the requirements of Section 11.2 is being made to create a two-family home with each dwelling unit having an equal floor area. Chairperson Sigel — Is Mr. Flatt here? Could you please start off by stating your name and address for the record? Could you give us a short overview of what you are proposing? Scott W. Flatt, 660 Sterling Park, Cortland — Well, breaking it into the two segments; the first segment would be to actually build a house on the lot and I believe that even though it is, in a regular situation, by your regulations, the fact that it's 1.7 plus acres lends it to be a very nice site for a house. In an area where houses are at a premium, this is one of the last vacant spots in the area and it will eventually be built on by somebody somewhere and I was glad to find it, take an interest in it and would like to build a house there. The second portion of my appeal is that I'm allowed to be a house of equal square footage on each side because I would like to make it a two-family house. The reason I have asked for that is simply because, when I do a building I like to fit it to what's around it and that is a single-family neighborhood and I feel that it would be best for everybody including the neighbors, if I did it as a single-family appearing house on the outside. I have the exact same house, which I proposed to built; which you have plans for, I have that house almost completed, about 75 percent completed, at 820 Hanshaw Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights. I've contacted the two neighbors on either side of this lot and asked them to go down and take a look at that house and they have and we've met a couple of times to talk about ways of fitting everything to their liking. Chairperson Sigel — I see this has already been before the Planning Board for subdivision approval. This was an illegal subdivision?. Mr. Smith — From what we can find, it looked like it was a subdivision from 1961 and it never went through the Town approvals, it was just filed and it's been that way since that point. They came in September 2nd to receive the Planning Board approval to match the existing lines. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And of course, the Planning Board motion is conditional upon us granting the lot dimension portion of the request. The road frontage and 100 feet back? I assume their motion is not dependant on the issuance of the use variance. 23 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Barney — I don't think that would really be in their jurisdiction anyway. I think the condition was the receipt of all required variances and clearly the frontage variance is a required variance for the subdivision approval, but granted a variance for the shape of the house is not necessary to make it a legal subdivision. Chairperson Sigel — I'll just remind the Board that the portion which it has to do with the size of the two units basically having two identically sized units as opposed to a larger one and a separate unit that is at least 50 percent or at most 50 percent of the size of the main unit. This is a use variance and as such the requirements of that are fairly substantial. Basically, the applicant would have to show that they can not obtain a reasonable economic return from this property without the granting of such a variance, which, I assume- Do you have any financial evidence to. ? Mr. Frost — Could we determine before we get to far with this question, whether this is really a use or an area variance? Mr. Barney — It's really dimensional. Mr. Frost — I would say that I think it's an area variance, but he's the attorney. Mr. Barney — And I always go with the Building Inspector. Mr. Frost — I always go with the attorney. Mr. Flatt — My take on the situation is I would like to fit the neighborhood. It would be in everybody's best interest if the neighborhood was homogeneous as far as the types of houses that are there and I guess that's what you folks are here for is to make sure that everybody's happy. I'm perfectly willing to tailor my siting of the house to what makes the neighbors happy. The situation now has a shared driveway and I'm working with the next-door neighbor that I would be sharing that with, to actually make it the way they want it. They are still considering some options there, but I have given my word to them that I would place their recommendations to me at the forefront and do it as they would like to see it done. As for the house, the size and shape of the house being single-family, it would seem to me that it would be in everybody's best interest to not have a house like I have a photo of here, which doesn't fit the neighborhood, but fulfills the regulations. That, in this photo, is one that I built a couple of years ago right up the street, in the same neighborhood. In my discussions with some of the other neighbors, in my area of the neighborhood, that I am interested in, they, even though it's up the street a ways, feel that that has negatively impacted the neighborhood in their viewpoint. This is more of the facade of the house that I am going to build. The blueprint for that house is in front of you folks and that's the house that I propose to build. It's a hair different from the one in the photograph, 24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 but they are similar as far as the treatment of the window sizes and the entranceway. We're actually putting stucco and fake dormers on the one down at 820 to make it look like it appears to blend in with the neighborhood. I can say that until I'm blue in the face, but basically, I want to go into this as a house owner in the neighborhood, not a landlord. It's basically a long-term investment for my wife and I and we only plan to do this two or three times, of which this would be house number two. Basically, we feel that the more that we put into it now to make the people around us like us, the better time we're going to have for the 15 years that we plan to own it and the better return we will have out of that if we built a nice house instead of just a low-end, get- the- money- while- you- can rental. Mr. Frost — One of the attempts of the ordinance, by the 50 percent rule is to reduce the mass of the building. It is very easily possible to build a two-family residence with an apartment in the basement, thereby reducing the mass or put an apartment over the garage also, thereby reducing the mass. The picture you passed around of the large building is actually a two-family home with one side twice the size of the other. Quite a bit more expensive house, a larger floor area, but it does meet with the ordinance in that one side is 50 percent the size of the other one. But I would slightly disagree, I think you can build a two-family home, keeping the mass down and have it look as a single family home, and keep within the ordinance. Chairperson Sigel — So, you are set on building some sort of two-family home, I assume? Mr. Flatt — Actually, I am here, number one, to be able to build a house on that site. A separate issue is issue number two where I would like to make it a two- family home and own it myself for the next 15 years. Obviously, if I can't have the second issue, I'd still like to have the first issue resolved in my favor. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. John? Mr. Barney — I think it's an area variance. An area variance is defined as "the authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the use of land in a manner, which is not allowed by the dimensional or physical requirements." As opposed to a use variance, which is " Authorization of the Zoning Board for the use of land for a purpose not allowed or is prohibited by the Ithaca Zoning Ordinance." This I think falls, because two families are allowed. Mr. Barney — Two families are allowed, so it just really falls on the side of the dimensional issue, rather than a use issue. Now, don't ask me the same question a month from now, you might get a different answer, but that's the answer for now. Chairperson Sigel — Mike, any comments. 25 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Smith — I guess you can forget about the part that I put in there about the use variance too, in SEQR. The two area variances for the road frontage seemed necessary to legalize the lots that were subdivided a while ago. The area variance for the two building sizes equal doesn't necessarily seem necessary to do that. Chairperson Sigel — So, would you — Mr. Smith — So, I guess even though it's not considered a use variance, I don't see that it's been demonstrated that they need the two equal sizes. Chairperson Sigel — Obviously, it doesn't seem related to the position of the lot or the shape of the lot or the size of the lot. It's really just a desire of the applicant. Mr. Flatt — I'd like to actually reinforce what I said before as far as, I would hope and, by the end of the evening we'll know if I'm right or wrong, but I would feel, if I was one of the neighbors living there now, I would want to see the house that I propose to build as opposed to the other photograph that I passed around as my next door house. I guess, by the end of the night, we will know how the neighbors feel about that, but I really feel that it fits the neighborhood better and looks similar to the single-family houses around it. So, yeah it doesn't affect how the lot lines are and the statutes for the road frontage and what not. What I'm trying to say if I think first and foremost the people there should be happy with what goes in there since it's the last thing in. Mr. Frost — I think one of the first inquires to me was building a three-family home, though -I informed you that only two -families were allowed. Secondly, the larger building there, in the picture that you passed around, is on a building lot that would accommodate such a large size two-family home. I'm not so sure that your building lot itself would be capable of supporting a house the size of the two- family side by side that you passed around. Mr. Flatt — The lot I propose to buy is almost two acres in size. Mr. Frost — All I'm saying is what you're saying is, is that, if necessary, you'll build a larger house yet, if you can get the — Mr. Flatt — No, I didn't say that. Mr. Frost — You said you will then build a house the size of that picture. Mr. Flatt — I'm sorry, you must have misunderstood. I never have had an intention of building anything even the size of that 50 percent, 100 percent house. I'm sorry if I mislead you. 26 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003. Chairperson Sigel — Your point is just those are two examples of two-family homes and you are saying that you believe that your design is the more attractive. Mr. Flatt — Well, that's my opinion. I have to say that if the neighbors cry out and say "Oh no, we'd like to see the other thing." I guess I can't swim up stream for too long. Mr. Frost — Maybe I misunderstood. Mr. Flatt — And if I asked that question earlier on, I don't feel that's relevant now . because I just asked a lot of questions, but what I am asking for now is just to put the question out there and if these folks like the idea, fine. If they don't, we'll go to plan B. Mr. Dixon — What do you plan on renting each side for? Mr. Flatt — The one that is at 820 Hanshaw, which is two doors down from the Triphammer stop sign, where Triphammer and Hanshaw meet, is the same house that you have the blueprint for. We've listed it at the graduate upward level at the Cornell Housing Office for $1590 per side. The house is assessed for roughly, I think $355,000. We're building it as an "energy star" house. We've put radiant heat in the floor, put dormers on the roof, stucco siding on the front and don't think you would find a normal rental type of situation being built in that respect, but, as I said before, we're not building it as a rental, as such, we're building it as a home that we can sell later on, 15 years down the road. So, it's being built nicely and it's an expensive house. Mr. Dixon — It's a rental though. What's the limit on the number of unrelated persons in a situation like this? Mr. Frost — Two families or two unrelated people in each side. So, you can. have two families, either traditional or non-traditional and then you can have two unrelated people, that are considered a non-traditional family without any further evidence needed to show that it is a non-traditional family, then you can just have, theoretically, two unrelated people in each side. And, if I think I know where you are going with this, you can have a two-bedroom on each side and be at it's max, unless you had a family with children. Mr. Dixon — And these are three bedroom. Mr. Frost — Though, typically, a lot of the graduate students maybe are families, they are traditional families. Chairperson Sigel — That's a good point Andy. 27 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — I assume you are aware, although maybe not, that the Zoning Ordinance doesn't permit you to rent, I see each unit has three bedrooms. Mr. Flatt — That house does have three bedrooms and we were discussing that with the two immediate neighbors just today on how that might be regulated because I also do not want to have more than a couple of people in there or a grad student and his wife and a child or whatever, but my mind just started kicking that around as to how we could legislate that or enforce it. We talked about parking and limiting the number of vehicles that each side would be able to have on site. We're now just kicking that around between us as to how we would settle it so that it was etched in stone, even if I were to pass away the day after it was built and someone else wound up owning it. We're just trying to get everybody happy in the neighborhood and, if it comes to it, I told them we would work it out with legal agreements. Chairperson Sigel — The Town Zoning Ordinance wouldn't permit you to have more than two unrelated people in each side. Mr. Flatt — Well, with all due respect, there's not a real heavy enforcement of that after the fact, five years down the road, say. Mr. Frost — In the Town of Ithaca there is. Mr. Flatt —Well, I'm just going by my experience in other areas and this is my first experience with you folks, but I'm willing to sign off on it that l won't rent to any other situation, other than what's agreed to by myself and the immediate neighbors and what's on your books. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, I just wouldn't want to see you build a house with three bedrooms and assume, for your economic return analysis that you needed to rent to three graduate students and then find out that that wasn't allowed. Mr. Dixon — Because the market is such, in Town right now, all the owners are doing a room by room rental. Mr. Flatt — I recently have been building customer houses and spec houses in the Lansing area and the thing that gave me this idea is that a lot of the people that came in to talk about houses, part of the conversation was how much trouble they had coming to Ithaca and finding a place to live that was decent enough to bring their wife and kids when they came to take whatever next job they were coming here to take. That gave me the idea that they were needed because a lot of them come and they need to rent for at least a year to set something up with a builder, buy a lot, get it closed and get the house built. So, I feel — MOP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Chairperson Sigel — So your target would mainly be families then? Mr. Flatt — Well, my target is, the best case scenario would be a retired couple that wants to get out of the empty nest and have a place where everything is done for them. The bottom of the list would be to rent to under graduate students and, of course I would set my bar at graduate students as far as I am going to go because I'm not into the whole landlord scenario as such. I'm just looking to have two or three of these houses in the Ithaca area that we can use a future investment. Chairperson Sigel - Okay, any more questions at this time for the applicant? Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8:24 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Is anyone interested in speaking? Well, I've been doing a lot of talking so far somebody must want to talk. Mr. Frost — If you want, you can sit on the end of the table there. Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road — My property borders, the back portion borders this property of Henry's. I guess we're not terribly happy with the idea that there would be a duplex in there because of the amount of traffic and the number of people that would be in and out of that very narrow road. In fact, we look at it as a road, you look at it apparently as a lot, but if you're talking about something that was supposed to be sixty feet and you're talking about 27 and you're talking about 100 that is supposed to be 27. 1 look at it like you're talking really about an access road. Shouldn't it be treated, somehow as an access road and aren't there some kinds of regulation on how that would be done. So, that was our concerns, as I say, we're worried about the back portion and a little bit about whether any noise or anything would come across from anybody that is there. The additional thing that I would like to mention, I don't know whether it goes to this Board or to the Planning Board, but it was mentioned at the Planning Board meeting that the approval of this subdivision was contingent upon a survey, new survey being made that was contiguous with the survey map that was submitted at that time, which was dated 1961, 1 think re -certified sometime in the eighties. We would be interested in seeing that survey to see if that's correct and the reason I wanted to mention that is because there are several discrepancies in the maps and the deeds and everything that everybody has right now, in particular, the line that divides our property from Henry's property and our property and Hartman's property from Henry's, there's two paths down at the end and one of them is from the pin that's at the corner of Hartman's lot, 292.1 or 277.5 feet. So, there is a discrepancy of about 14 — 15 feet in the direction perpendicular to Hanshaw Road. In addition, there is a discrepancy in the dimension that is parallel to the road of about eight feet. So, I have my survey map as far as it went. Let me show you what happens in the perpendicular direction. In the other direction, parallel to the road. I have a letter from Fred 29 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Beck who was our attorney at the time of the closing to the surveyor for the seller, Mrs. Buckner, and there's a discovery in here, made by Al Foulkerson, who I we, I think very highly of, most everyone does, that the distance of the back line is 241 feet and not 249 feet. So we have those two — what I'm saying is that we don't know where the back corner is and I would like to see that clarified before the Town actually signs off on the subdivision. I think that's all I have. Chairperson Sigel — This is the northwest corner you're talking about? Mr. Hutchens — Northeast corner. Northwest corner of Henry's, northeast corner of our property. I have the map here. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, northeast corner of your lot? This is a map of your lot? Mr. Hutchens — Yes, that is our survey, made in about 1995 or '96 and theletter that is attached there concerns the error in the survey and I'll give these surveys to whoever — maybe it goes to Planning, I'm not sure. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you, Mr. Hutchens. Is anyone else interested in speaking? Klaus Beyenbach, 1024 Hanshaw Road — On the east side of the lot in question tonight. I would like to offer some historical perspective on that lot. In 1986, when the Uris' were selling their properties, they offered that lot to us to purchase and we were interested in building a home for ourselves back there. We did you through a purchase offer and made it contingent upon the approval by the Town. I don't know if you remember Mr. Frost, we came to see you and explored the possibility — Mr. Frost — This is 1986. Mr. Beyenbach — 1986 yes. — of building a home back there and you strongly discouraged us from doing so, thinking that the Town would not permit it for two reasons. You gave one reason that the sewer line back there was running to capacity and would not tolerate addition units. Mr. Frost — It's pretty unlikely that you were talking to me if you were talking about sewer capacity. Mr. Beyenbach — And the other reason was that the Town would request a road to be built back there at our own expense. Mr. Frost — It's unlikely that if I was talking about sewer capacity, that that was a conversation I would have had with you in 1986. But, be that as it may. It could have been the Town Engineer. 30 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Beyenbach — That's what my records show. I took notes, if you wish to inspect those. I was under the impression that the zoning allowed only one -family per lot. Tonight, I am hearing there is actually two. Chairperson Sigel — Yes. The zoning allows for a. two-family house. Mr. Beyenbach — The subdivision that is being considered in September 2 and is continued being considered, will that set a precedent that other units along Hanshaw Road will also be able to subdivide. Chairperson Sigel — It certainly wouldn't require that the Town approve those subdivisions if there are other similar circumstances, I don't know how many lots there are in that area that have such a substantial piece of ground behind them that could be subdivided. Mr. Beyenbach - What would be the minimum size? Chairperson Sigel — Well, this is an R-30? Mr. Frost — 15. 15,000 square feet Chairperson Sigel — An R-15. For the zone, it's only 15,000 square feet per lot. I wouldn't be so sure that for someone wanting to subdivide 15,000 square feet at the back of their lot that that would necessarily get approved. In this case, this is obviously substantially more than that at 1.7 acres. Mr. Smith — And this isn't creating a new lot. This is just matching existing lines to it. Chairperson Sigel — Right, that's a good point. This is a subdivision that there is some evidence that it was made in 1961, it just wasn't necessarily filed with the Town correctly at the time. Was it on County records as being subdivided? Mr. Flatt —Yes. Chairperson Sigel — In this case, we have evidence that someone did make an effort to subdivide many years ago and just ask them that the discrepancy be cleaned up, which is obviously different than if someone came along and asked for a new subdivision. Mr. Beyenbach — But what are the chances that other lots will be subdivided as well? Chairperson Sigel — I can't tell you that. Andy do you have any clue as to how many? 31 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Frost — I think the area is pretty well developed. It's pretty unlikely. Mr. Beyenbach — This would be the last house to be - Chairperson Sigel — Obviously there is no way that we can guarantee that. Someone might come along and ask for a subdivision of their lot, but — I don't think there are many more lots in this area that are of this size. Mr. Beyenbach — The last concerns I have about that building project is restricting tenants. Wouldn't that be a form of discrimination saying that "Well, will rent only to graduates or to families and not to undergraduates." I wonder whether there is any legal basis for doing so and for offering such a restriction. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah, I'm not sure, that's a good point. Mr. Flatt — If I could comment on that. The only advertisement I've made to rent the house I'm building in Cayuga Heights is at the Cornell Housing Office and they have, in very large print at the top of their application "Willing to rent to undergraduates. " Willing to rent to graduates only," and they have the box for you to check there, so I think that if anybody's is doing something wrong, it is further up the food chain than myself. Mr. Beyenbach — What I'm afraid of is that you are going to have people wanting to rent the house and I don't think you can discriminate. That's all I wanted to say. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Mr. Barney — I think you can discriminate between graduates and non -graduates. Mr. Dixon — I know you can. Mr. Barney — You can't discriminate on the basis of age. Chairperson Sigel — Anyone else interested in speaking? Alfred Digiacomo, 1025 Hanshaw Road — I think the Board should realize that this spot is not a level piece of ground. It slopes down towards the stream that flows along the back of the property and is interrupted by a sewer line that runs through the property as well. So, you may not be able to build over the sewer line and believe there is a restriction as to how far away from the stream he has to build. I think before any positive moves are made, you should take a look at that property. 32 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Chairperson Sigel— Thank you. Do you have any information about restrictions from this stream? Mr. Frost — No, I don't think it is a classified stream. It's probably a drainage way. Just the standard setbacks, 35 feet. Mr. Smith — He does have 1.7 acres so there is quite a bit of room to set a house. Chairperson Sigel — It would appear that certainly the sewer would be more of a restriction than the stream. Does anyone else wish to speak? Rick Hartman, 1018 Hanshaw Road — There are two right-of-ways on my driveway. The people who live.in the new house would have to go on the driveway to get into their property. I just want to make that clear. Chairperson Sigel — This new subdivided lot does have a 27 foot wide strip going all the way to the road, so is there any particular reason why a driveway couldn't be built on that other than maybe the fact that it would duplicate a driveway? Mr. Flatt — When I first got into this situation, I contacted Mrs. Hartman and made the offer that I would do it either way, whichever they wanted to do, preserve the appearance exactly as it is now and. maybe pave it. I had offered to do what they wanted. I guess they thought it over and decided that sharing the driveway, from the last think I hear, was not a great idea because I, myself, wasn't living there or if another single family was permanently living there, they could discuss it with them and maybe have some rules on sharing the driveway, as far a speed with the kids playing and what not, but since there is a possibility of turnover every year or two, they thought maybe re -negotiating a new friendly agreement with whoever is there could possibly get tedious after a while a it would be hard to keep up with for them. So, they felt, as Mrs., Hartman told me today that they would opt maybe to go with the dual driveway, in which case, I offered to actually built it: Then we got into, I thought, what keep people from straying over because the driveways would be so close and we got talking about different scenarios. Maybe a white picket fence right down the middle to really make it two and then we considered what that might do for snow plowing, etcetera. In the end, I told Mrs. Hartman that I would actually build a stone planter with some shrubs, like an island in the middle to delineate the two and we would develop how we would go down the line with a median or something as we mulled it over, but I agreed to build all of that at my expense just to make them happy because I don't want to come in there and have to go like this every time I drive down the driveway because I plan to be their neighbor for the next 15 years, whether I live there or rent it or not, I'm still the accountable person and I don't want to make enemies, so I offered to make that either way. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Please continue. 33 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Hartman — That's all I wanted to say. I just wanted to bring that up. That's a pretty reasonable solution. Chairperson Sigel — So what you're saying is that you are not comfortable with entering into an easement with them where they would be allowed to use your driveway, which obviously then requires them to build their own driveway on their property. Mr. Hartman — Your question is to leave the driveway the way it is? Is that what you are asking? Chairperson Sigel- Well, it seems that — Mr. Barney — Right now, I think each party has the right to use the adjoining 25 feet on the others parties combined right-of-way. That can be changed, but (inaudible) Mr. Hartman — There probably is only 20 feet of gravel that we travel on. That's all I had to say. Chairperson Sigel — Anyone else wish to speak? Deborah Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Road — I had a question about something that was discussed here a little bit before about making the duplex not a use variance, but saying that was a dimensional issue only. I don't quite understand how that happened. My understanding was, according to the zoning regulations that a two-family, the second dwelling shall not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the first, which made it a use variance as you mentioned at first and some way it seemed to turn into an area variance and I didn't quite catch how that happened. Chairperson Sigel — Well, that happened because — Mr. Barney — Because the attorney said so. Sometimes it's not the only way. Ms. Cowan — Well, it seemed pretty clear to me. Mr. Barney — Well, an area variance is usually where you are dealing with a dimensional aspect of the property and you want to do something other than what is permitted by the dimension. Here, the issue is whether 50 percent limit is a dimensional limit or a use limit and the cases seem to say that would be a dimensional limit or an area variance, rather than a use variance. There is a Court of Appeals case, I just want to confirm my advice, there is a Court of Appeals case, which is the top court of the State of New York, which basically said an apartment complex is permitted but they have a certain floor area ratio where they can only have one apartment for every 800 square feet of land that 34 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 they have. A reduction of that number to 500 feet was an area variance, not a use variance, even though it meant that you were going to increase the number of apartments from 50 apartments to, in that case, 70. Those kind of situations are area variances. Ms. Cowan — So he would still be required to have the second unit be 50 percent? It's just — Mr. Barney — Well, it's just the test that this Board needs to apply is a little different. Ms. Cowan — Which variance it is would change the language, but the requirement is still there. Mr. Barney — The whole argument over whether it's a use variance or an area variance is what test one applies with the granting of a variance. A use variance is a very difficult thing to show because you basically have to show that you can't realize any reasonable value from the property under the uses that are permitted by the ordinance. If it's an area variance, the test is more of a balance as to what is the advantage to the landowner versus what is the detriment to the surrounding neighbors. It's this Board that has to make a judgment as to what - Ms. Cowan — This made it a little easier. Mr. Barney —That's a little easier test. Ms. Cowan — I believe Mr. Digiacomo's comments about looking at the land there because looking at it on the map, it appears to be a flat lot. It's certainly got the sewer right-of-way and the stream, which prevent building there and also has an area which slopes down. I believe that was part of his concern about it being not a full 1.7 acre buildable lot. I looked pretty carefully over the area variances and what we were supposed to address tonight and part of my concern is the 27 foot frontage where 60 is required and 27 where 100 is required and, as a citizen, I guess my assumption is that the zoning regulations are there to protect the character of the neighborhood, to protect other homeowners so that you don't have these situations where you are building houses behind houses in kind of a box car or a train kind of effect. So, I think that having that frontage and having that house on the road is an important thing. I do feel we have a number of points here about whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Flatt himself says it's a single-family, residential neighborhood and he's proposing to build, in that neighborhood, a 3,000 square foot unit, which is much larger than the surrounding houses. He's is proposing to be an absentee landlord, for a two-family unit, three bedrooms each, which makes for a sizable number of people. I think that does change the character of the neighborhood. I think it is detrimental also to the value of the nearby properties. You have a 35 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 situation with an absentee landlord. Despite everyone's good intentions, I think that there is no guarantee that you're going to get the highest class of family to live in there, because the economic reality is that if those people don't materialize and there are three individuals or two individuals who are students or undergraduate or whoever they are come up with the money, then certainly you are going to — the pressures of the economy are going to cause you to fill you apartments with whoever you need to get your return. And I appreciate Mr. Flatt's idea of being a neighbor, but he won't be a neighbor and it won't be owner - occupied and that's a change. Most.of us moved into this neighborhood for a reason, we bought for a reason. We didn't want neighbors too close, we usually have substantial property around us. We wanted a certain residential type of feel, which, I think, we basically have had up to this point. I think, if allowed, this particular variance would change that. Number 3. here asks whether the variance is substantial and I think 27 to 60 feet and 27 to 100 feet certainly is substantial. The traffic will increase..lt's not in my right-of-way, it's the Hartman's side, their property, but in thinking about and talking to Mrs. Hartman, when you have two families behind there, you going to be dealing with probably at least four vehicles. If they have older children, teenagers, it will be more than four vehicles, plus the two Hartman vehicles, so you have quite a number going up and down the road. It's a little difficult, even now to turn onto the busy road of Hanshaw, so I think that traffic concerns are something that have been mentioned to me, as well as our neighbors around us and neighbors across the street. I don't know, my husband made this point so I'll pass it on, what happens if there is an emergency in terms of fire access or ambulance access? Normally, when you have a house on the road, it's pretty visible and it's reasonably close to the road. His concern there is getting vehicles or emergency or fire vehicles back there, whether that would present a problem. So, I thought that's something I hadn't thought of and to pass it on. I guess that's basically it. The character of the neighborhood, the single residential nature of it, that is sort of changing, given that a rental unit will be put there. For me, it's essentially, rather than in my back yard, it's in the back yards of a number of people. I think it's awkwardly placed and certainly is something that won't help the values of our properties. I have some things to say about the 50 percent under the use variance, but I guess that's not there, any more so it would just be repetitive, so those are basically my points. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak? Janet O'Connor, 617 Highland Road — My husband, Stanley O'Connor and I own the property at 1010 Hanshaw Road, which, in the back, abuts the Hutchens, which, in turn, is next to this property. So, I don't know, Mrs. Cowan went through a lot of my problems with this, so I would have to sort of, I'm not sure what I am addressing, whether it's an area variance or the use variances, but I think that makes no difference. I think these variances are substantial for the 25 foot frontage, the setback is only 27 feet, but not mentioned in that is the setback where you measure the 100 foot frontage is supposed to be 50 feet and the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003. Cowan's house is right over that 200 feet back from the road. So, the setback is considerable because that's a long way from 27 feet. Then the idea of a two family house when the law says that it is to only be 50 percent of the total, that is in the zoning laws, that is why we have zoning ordinances because we want to live in a certain kind of neighborhood. We don't want to have a dog kennel in the back or a trailer park next to us. We are well aware of what area we are living in and we want to preserve the quality of that neighborhood, which is individually owned, single-family residences and it's been that way for years and I grew up on the property that we are talking about, so that takes us back 64 years or so and that has always been in our family. So, now we are having a situation where the line of houses that existed for a very long time is being all divided up and, in the back, there is going to be a huge house looming up over all the others in the backyard of the people on Sienna Drive and the ones on Hanshaw, especially the Cowan's and the Hartman's. So, the house is larger than the other houses, it will look much taller because it will have to be set on that crest of land before it drops off. In other words, the frontage from their property to the Cowan's house will be as short as possible, instead of a wide setback. So, as far as people who have houses right there, that's one thing, but the feeling of the neighborhood, that's another thing. As you drive by, you will see this, this house just perched in the backyard. It's out of sync with the neighborhood and also to get into the house itself, this will not be occupied by the owner, it is an absentee landlord, that means you have two sets of people. Now we don't even know what kind of sets of people they would be, just that we're dealing with graduate students, you know, how many people can there be. But anyway, you will then have, generally speaking, a transient population. Mr. Flatt just said, with the driveway considerations, maybe people would be leaving once a year. So, as far as a neighborhood feeling goes, that is shot because people have lived there for years. So, let me see, of course there would be a lot more cars. And then you lose a certain communal feeling, I would say in the neighborhood from family houses and kids growing up, people getting old and the families all living together, you have a situation where two families in this huge place will be changing every year. The idea also that it is built to produce income, that's another situation. All the houses in the neighborhood are built to live in, to enjoy, to be part of this neighborhood and this is an income producing situation. So, I probably had some other things to say, but maybe I have said enough. But anyway, I would say this change is undesirable, the character of the neighborhood definitely would change. That is a detriment to all the properties right along that area and of course it will devaluate the properties. Imagine trying to sell a house when in your back yard is this monster with all these cars and two families living in it. That's all I have to say. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you very much. Anyone else care to speak? Mr. Flatt — Could I make a few comments at this point? 37 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Chairperson Sigel - I would appreciate it if you could wait until after everyone is done. Stanley O'Connor, 617 Highland Road — Janet and I own the lot at 1010 Hanshaw and I'd like to read a letter from Peter Carruthers, who lives at 1008 Hanshaw, so is a close neighbor. "1 wish to object to the proposed variances for the following reasons: The proposed dwelling changes the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed structure is absentee landlord, double occupancy. The dwelling will attract transient residents and students. The proposed structure is 50 to 100 percent larger than most structures in the area. Approval of this variance sets a precedent for other nearby undeveloped land. Peter Carruthers." He couldn't be here because his employment didn't permit it. I hadn't intended to speak in my own right, but I would suggest that in your determinations, objective facts are a relevant issue, rather than intentions. Although Mr. Flatt as assured us that he intends to own this building for 15 years, there is no legal requirement that he do so. Therefore, it could easily be sold to someone whose sensitivity were less exquisite. That's all. Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Louise Richards, 1023 Hanshaw Road — I'm a recent owner. I moved here two years ago from Washington D.C. One of the main reasons I moved is to get rid of the traffic, but I think I'll make this short because my main concern, I agree with the other concerns that there will be more cars, there will be more people coming out on Hanshaw Road and it is already crowded. There are people who walk and jog on the shoulders of Hanshaw Road, I won't do it because I don't think it's really that safe. More people being added to that mix, I don't think is a good idea. So, I'll just let it go at that because I think my neighbors have spoken very well about the other issues. Chairperson Sigel- Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane — My wife owns this lot, I am an attorney also and I represent her and we have a contract to sell it to Mr. Flatt, contingent upon him obtaining the necessary approvals of Planning Board and this Board to do what he wants to do. I'd like to emphasize that there are basically two applications before the Board. One is for the area variance concerning the road frontage itself and the frontage or width requirement which are basically, I think, the same question. The second, is the application for an area variance regarding a particular building that he wants to put on it. I am going to speak mostly to the first question because that's the one that I have particular knowledge as to. This lot, as indicated has existed in its present form for a long time. It seems to me that a lot of the objections that people are making are that they object to the fact that the Zoning Ordinance allows two-family residences because a lot of the concerns expressed for increased traffic, et cetera are really geared to the KK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 question of any residence that has two families. It's been said that this area is a single family residential area and I supposed that most of the residences are single family, but it is not completely true that they are. In fact, the neighbor, Mr. and Mrs. Beyenbach have, for many years and as far as I know, still rent out a separate building on their property so there are two families in that property line all the time. You still rent out to students, right? Mrs. Beyenbach — Just to one. Mr. Frost — Mr. Henry, you really should be addressing the Chair. Mr. Henry — But my point is that there are two family residences in the immediate area. The balancing test is the .benefit to the applicant versus any possible detriment to the neighborhood. The health, safety, welfare of the neighborhood and it seems to me, this is a residential neighborhood, what is contemplated here is to put a residence on this large lot and the neighbors have been aware of that potential or probability for many years. The Beyenbachs indicated tonight that they had tried to buy that property and wanted to put a residence themselves there: The Hutchens/ Hartman property used to be Bruckman, they were divided and Hutchens built a new residence there. Hartmans, when they purchased their property were aware of this 50 foot wide right-of-way, which is laid out for access back into this lot, as well as Hutchens lot, which was, at that time Bruckman. Deb Cowan has indicated her opposition to both the area variance regarding the particular residence, but also the frontage variances. However the Cowan's when they purchased 1022 Hanshaw, specifically agreed, in their contract to purchase that house and from this lot, that they would not oppose a frontage variance. In fact, I would like to read, for the record, from the contract when Cowans purchased the property, it said "Sellers may wish to obtain a frontage as to the lands owned by sellers to on the west and north for construction of a residence. In such case, buyers agree not to object to such a variance as to required street frontage. I respect that opposition to the particular building, her opposition to the 50 percent rule and asking for a variance for that, but to object to having a residence put on that property is contrary to the agreement that they made when they purchased their property at 1022 Hanshaw. Mr. Dixon — Is that in the Deed? Mr. Henry — No, it's not in the deed, it's in a Contract. It's been said about this, it's been described as a monster. I'm afraid I don't quite understand that. I think with being intimately familiar with the lot, I do not believe, unless you exceeded the height for the height requirements that you could see the residence from, probably from Hartman's or Hutchens, probably not form Beyenbachs because of the trees. Hutchens property has a forest on the back part of theirs, their house — do you have this thing, this is from the Planning Board. Chairperson Sigel — Not that exact sketch, but something similar. W ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Henry — I don't know if you can actually see what I am talking about, but Hutchens have a forest back there. Along Cowan, there is a row of pine trees. Along Beyenbach there are trees. This lot is very protected. From the road, you won't see the residence. Unless it's very tall. There has been some mention about the fact that the lot slopes down. There is a level spot, where a house can be constructed, you can construct it down the slope. Somebody mentioned fire access, it's level right straight in to that. The driveway would be no longer than the property next to Hutchens, which I believe is O'Connor's. It is in character to have a residence on this property with the character of that neighborhood. That's, I guess, all I wanted to say. Chairperson Sigel Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else. Please just re- state your name. Ms. Cowan — I would like to see a copy of this, I mean, I don't know. I will have to tell you that we were very naive when we bought this property. We were unrepresentative by council. Mr. Henry and his wife are both real estate lawyers. Admittedly, we should know what we signed. I have looked at my deed, it's not in the deed, it is on a contract, but I would like to explain a couple of other factors. When I was told by the real estate agent, in the presence of the Henry's that this lot was un -buildable. That I did not have to worry, we did not have to be concerned with it because people have tried to seek variance two or three times before and had always been turned down. We just accepted this. Recently, when all this has come up, what I found was that no one has ever tried to seek a variance before and that this was really an untruth. I also asked Mr. Henry at the time and his wife, we wanted Right of First Refusal before we bought the property. He said, and I know again this seems very naive to believe this, as a lawyer he said that that was too complicated to write into contract, "but you have our word that we will approach you first before we attempt to sell the property." So we took that in good faith and we did not have that looked at and we did not ask for any language to be put in and we have not been offered this right or even knew anything about this. I know that there are several people in the neighborhood who were not approached, who would have been interested in this, that might be irrelevant. This, truthfully, okay, we're here, I see my initials on it, but I can tell you that I was not aware of that, not until tonight. I don't know if there's anything legal that restrains me from having the feelings that I have, but those are my feelings. My feelings of zoning, as I mentioned, is to protect the citizen. We are uninformed or naive citizens. I don't know anything about the zoning process, there is very little I knew about this until two weeks ago when we started looking and copying relevant materials and trying to think of things to say that would be meaningful to you according to codes. 27 feet on a road is not a lot. This 27 feet on the setback is not a lot and you're basically cramming a residence, shoehorning it behind another residence. I just don't think it really is in character with our neighborhood or what we wish to do there and I would ask that M ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 the Zoning Board protect its citizens from that kind of outside development. Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Mr. Henry — I don't know what the broker told the.Cowan's, but it was not in our presence, no one said that this was an un -buildable lot. We put a clause in that contract for exactly this situation, of applying for a variance for construction of a residence and secondly, we did offer it to Cowan's. We had it for sale a couple of years ago, we offered it to Cowan's and they said, at that time, they weren't in a position to purchase it. Chairperson Sigel — I assume all the people in the area were informed, I mean anyone bordering this lot. Mr. Henry — They were informed that it was for sale. It was listed with a real estate broker. Chairperson Sigel — Have you had a sign up at any point? Mr. Henry — Yes, I'm sure the broker had the sign up before. We did not have a sign up this time. Mr. Flatt actually approached me out of the blue and said "Would you like to sell that lot?" I said "We were just talking about putting it on the market again and this will save us a broker commission." Inaudible voice from the audience Mr. Henry — It was a couple of years ago. Mr. Barney — We're not going to get into this. Mr. Frost — You really should direct your conversation to the Board. Chairperson Sigel — Did you have any other points to make? Anyone else wish to speak. Inaudible voice from the audience. Mr. Dixon — Does it make any difference? Chairperson Sigel — No, it doesn't really have any — Mr. Henry — Would you like a copy of the contract? Chairperson Sigel — I don't think it's really necessary. Anyone else wish to speak? 41 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 9:17 p.m. Chairperson Sigel — Yes you can say anything you'd like to say at this point. Mr. Flatt — I'd like to rebut a few of the points that were made. I looked at that lot in the very beginning for the specific reason of the size of it and the shape of it. Number one, I've built a lot of houses and I think that my houses have been viewed by the neighbors as assets. The main portion of that lot is so far back from the road that I believe that it would be impossible to see the house that I am going to build. In that regard, we have to look at who can see it at all and I believe the Cowan household is the only household that would actually be able. to see it. Say, maybe somebody over on the other side of the block looking across the valley where the creek is. I went to the Cowan's and made them an offer that I think rarely you would see somebody make and I went to the Hartmans and made them an offer about the driveway, which we talked about before. The offer I made to the Cowan's is to meet with them in person and have them help me pick a location on the lot for the house that they would feel would have the least impact and, if there was any chance of doing that, to keep the situation of their view similar to what they have now, I told them that I would voluntarily buy semi - mature 15 foot, was mentioned, pine trees from the nursery, at $150 a whack, and I would put a row of those in between the sight line of their house to this house and in the process of having that meeting with them, and they seemed fine with that, but in the process of having that meeting with them, Mrs. Cowan did show an interest in me positioning the house a certain way where the end would only show to them rather than the broad side and would I put the garage on the opposite end of the house so that they wouldn't have to see that. I said, well, I'm here to try to please you folks to try to make it a nice situation. In the course of the conversation, I brought up something that I feel is very important here tonight. These faces in front of me may change in four or five years and some of the neighbors may change in four or five years, but the ones that are left may not like who comes next and what they build next. I'm trying to give them a chance to give me their advice and their likes and dislikes and I feel that, actually, that's a pretty good deal in a situation like this. In closing I'd like to say to the folks that don't like the traffic, I imagine, from my experience on Hanshaw Road, that this would be about 1/10,000 of the number of cars going up and down that street so nobody, even with a computer is going to be able to figure out a difference of. percentage of increase of traffic that this house is going to add. The variance that I'm asking for to build two sides equal, I thought was going to make the neighbors happy. Okay, 3,000 square feet, with 1,500 on a side and three bedrooms, that's six bedrooms. How about I go a 2,500 square foot hose on one side and 1,250 on the other. I could wind up thinning the ratio out, but it's not going to be as nice as what I am proposing for them. So, when you start looking at it in that respect, 100 percent, 50 percent situation could backfire and these folks could be shooting themselves in the foot and when you look at it that way, I'm not saying I would do that, but somebody else could come along later and WIA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, certainly do that and wind up with six bedrooms. It's how you cut the cake. I'm looking at making it a single house and I don't feel that the house that I have a 820 is out of character with what's there. You have a lot of 1.7 plus acres that, gee when they came to the neighborhood, did they all say, "maybe we should get together and make a park out of it." Or "maybe we should come and lobby to the Town to buy it and make a park out of it because we don't' want to see one more house on the street." That whole area is parceled up with lots and you have one left, so is this "Gee, we should make sure that is never built on because it's the last lot on the street." It is a big lot, let's face it, it's huge. I'm talking about one house that will be very small in comparison to the lot lines. So the words "shoe- horning" I can't see a house being shoe -horned into 1.7 acres unless it's the Trump Mansion. Chairperson Sigel = Thank you. Mr. Barney — Can I ask a couple of questions? If the Board were to approve this, is it possible that you could observe somewhat larger than the ordinance required setbacks from the adjoining properties? Mr. Flatt — Well, I think we're over 100 feet from the folks on the east and I've offered the input - Mr. Barney — What about the people on the south? Mr. Flatt — On the south side are the Cowan's and I've offered to have them give me their input. Mr. Barney — Giving input, that sort of stuff, I don't want to knock it, but from this Board's standpoint — Mr. Flatt — Excuse me sir. I made the offer to put things in writing for them this afternoon. Mr. Barney — What you worked out with your neighbors is fine, I think that's great, but, I think, from this Board's standpoint, some of the questions I would have, if were sitting making a possible decisions is how far back from the Cowan's house can you comfortably locate the house to minimize it's impact. Mr. Flatt — Well, I think realistically, footage is not the situation here, it's the visible barrier. Mr. Barney — Can I ask you to answer my question, how far back from the boundary line do you think you can put the house? Mr. Flatt — Well, it's going to be at least 50 feet, maybe 75 is where we decided today would be a good place for it. 43 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Barney — You can do that without impinging on the sewer line? Mr. Flatt — She showed me where her sewer line ran from her house across this property to the main line and I already know where the main line is, so I am very aware of where those two things are and they are no where near where I want to put the house. I mean people are used to putting houses as you have it in your regs, 15,000 square feet. This lot is five times plus 15,000 square feet. Mr. Barney — But there are some constraints on where you can put a building, given that. Mr. Flatt — I don't view them as constraints simply because the size of the lot gives me so much room to work with. I never felt there was a constraint on it. Mr. Barney — So, if this Board were to grant a variance for the frontage issue, you wouldn't have any objection if they put a limitation that said the house would be at least 75 feet away from all of the adjoining parcels property lines? Mr. Flatt — That's correct. Chairperson Sigel — John, what would the situation be if this lot had been properly subdivided back in '61, but had never received the variances for the frontage? Mr. Barney — I don't know how you could subdivide it without that. Mr. Flatt — Can I ask a question? When was the — Mr. Barney — This is now our time to be able to discuss without interruptions. Chairperson Sigel — Or, you know, if, say it was subdivided, say the requirements were different then? Then I assume it would have been grandfathered. Mr. Frost — One of the things that, when we first started the dialogue with Mr. Flatt about the lot was trying to determine the legality of the situation. Not, to say that he did anything illegal, we just couldn't establish what we needed to establish. Chairperson Sigel — Any questions from you guys? Mr. Flatt — That was the question that I was just getting ready to ask. What date did the rules for road frontage come into play? Mr. Barney — These frontage requirements have been in place since 1954 or something similar to them. �� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Frost — Very definitely before the 1960's. The ordinance, as we know it, was pretty well established by this time. Chairperson Sigel — So what happened? The subdivision was just filed with the County as best as we can guess? Mr. Barney — Apparently the Underwood property subdivision got filed some time back in '61. This version of the map was filed in the Clerk's Office? Inaudible speaking away from microphone Mr. Barney — But the version that was filed in '61 or '62 was the one with the updated certification. These things happen. Even today we have had a couple of squabbles with the County over its accepting subdivisions without — they are supposed to get a stamp of approval from the Chair of the Planning Board before they accept them over there. Mr. Flatt — I'd love to make one more point. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Flatt — As an outsider viewing this, it seems to me there was some rather large oversight that didn't look like a large oversight at the time, but now it has become a large oversight, that this thing wasn't properly handled back then. Does this mean that Mr. Henry should be penalized and not be able to sell it to Mr. Flatt, who, obviously like anybody else is going to want this approval to build a house there prior to taking the lot. Which brings me back to what use is that lot? It's 1.7 acres, it's a nice home site in the middle of home sites. So, just because it was not taken care of way back then, obviously this bug would have been worked out at the time of this road frontage thing. It just seems to me that it would be unfair to penalize anybody owning a piece of land that size because of a former oversight years back. Chairperson Sigel — Well, the lot is deficient and so, it's not a given that the subdivision would have been approved in '61. Mr. Flatt — It was created deficient and the problem was that nobody wised up the owner at that time that " Hey that's not going to be cool." Mr. Barney — Wait a minute. You're putting the burden in the wrong place. It's not the Town's responsibility to wise up owners. If anything, it's the owner's responsibility to abide by the law. Mr. Flatt — Oh, I didn't say that it was the Town. Lk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Barney — I don't know quite where you're going with that, but you've got a problem today that you've go to deal with and I don't think that the Board is totally unsympathetic with the situation. But, on the other hand, with all do respect to my colleague, Mr. Henry, buyer beware. This property was apparently bought or maybe even subdivided, I don't know, out at a time when there should have be a subdivision approval done, that may not have gotten done. There's no obligation of this Board to necessarily unwind the problem that's been created. Mr. Barney — To alleviate a little bit of the impact of having a house there. It's always a little interesting when you have these flag lots as to exactly what is the front yard and what's the side yard for the purposes of applying the relevant provision of the ordinance, but I don't think it would be an unreasonable condition to impose, in these circumstances, just the side yard lot, 75 foot yard limit on all four sides of the yard. Which is more than double. Chairperson Sigel — So, Mr. Barney is suggesting a 75 foot setback from all lot lines for the lot as a possible mitigation. Mr. Dixon — It doesn't do it for me. Chairperson Sigel - It doesn't do it for you regarding the 27 foot width at the street issue or the 50 percent? Mr. Dixon — It's the (inaudible) Mr. Barney — You have done this probably six or seven times. I'm not going to say you individually, but the Board has done it six or seven times over the last several years, have permitted flag lots. This is a flag lot configuration, where the lots where clearly adequate, they more than met the minimum size. Chairperson Sigel — So, are you saying you are not comfortable imposing the 75 feet additional requirement? Or are you not comfortable approving? Mr. Dixon - I'm not comfortable approving the whole thing. Chairperson Sigel — John is correct. In the cases of most, if not all of the flag lots, I'm not saying that this is necessarily similar to others, there have been others that, I think, admittedly more rural areas where we've seen this. Probably not in as dense an area as this, so there is a difference there. John, how do you suggest we proceed? Andrew has indicated he's not in favor. We could adjourn. We only have three out of the five members. Mr. Frost — To have a positive vote, Scott, they've got to have all three people because there are two members missing, so all three people have to vote in favor for this to pass. we ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Barney — Unfortunately, under a recent Court of Appeals decision, if it goes to vote tonight and fails to pass, that is a denial. We used to take the position that if you didn't get three votes one way or the other, it was not action until you could get three votes. The Court of Appeals recently ruled that in the Board of Zoning of Appeals, if the vote fails to garner three votes of a positive that it is a denial. In fairness to you, I think you may want to, since we have only three members here and you know how one member feels about it, you may want to have it adjourned. Mr. Flatt — I'll take the adjournment. Chairperson Sigel — Harry, how are you inclined? Mr. Ellsworth — I thought I read that the Planning Board approved the subdivision. Chairperson Sigel — They did approve it. Mr. Ellsworth — Conditional on our 27 foot? Mr. Barney — Yes. Conditional on you granting the 27 foot variance. Mr. Ellsworth — Well, the second part I have a problem with. The 100 percent. Chairperson Sigel — Making the twin houses? How do you feel about the width at the street and the width of the setback? Mr. Ellsworth — 27 feet is pretty small, I think. We have, I think, approved something similar. Mr. Barney — You had a 15 footer in an R-30 zone two months ago. It's not unheard of. Chairperson Sigel — So would you suggest allowing the applicant to request and adjournment. Mr. Barney — I think if the applicant chooses to withdraw, request an adjournment until we have a full Board, I think that probably in fairness. Again, it's up to you. Chairperson Sigel — That seems fair to me. Mr. Ellsworth — Several people suggested, I think, the individuals of this Board need to go over and look at that lot before it comes up again. We've had two different people mention that. Chairperson Sigel — It couldn't hurt. Should we move to adjourn or should the applicant request? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 Mr. Barney — I think I just heard him say that he would like to do that. Mr. Flatt — I'd like to request an adjournment and request that Mr. Frost coordinate a tour or the lot with me present to explain how I would position the house and build the driveway and as part of the tour, I would also request that we stop several blocks down the street at the house I'm constructing to show the building that I plan to put there. Mr. Barney — I think the only problem with that is once you've coordinated people with up to groups of three or more, we basically have what amounts to a meeting, which requires, under the Open Meeting Law, to advertise it as such and invite the public to attend. So, I think rather than that, if these folks want to go up and take a look, they can do it on their own. Chairperson Sigel — If you could just maybe, you could sketch where you intend to put the house. I've been by the house that you have mentioned on Hanshaw and seen that. It works better, as John said, actually if we can go individually, rather than. Mr. Flatt — I would maybe offer then to show each person, individually. I'd like the opportunity to speak for myself as to where I want to put things and how it would look. Mr. Frost — Is that really appropriate? The basis of a Public Hearing is to conduct a discussion in front of everybody. Mr. Barney — It's not unreasonable for a Board to meet individually or collectively to go view the property. Mr. Frost — Yes, but with the appellant present? Mr. Barney — Well, I think you could get into a problem with that, but if you want to go and stake it out, that certainly would be okay. That way anybody could go look at it. Chairperson Sigel — So, do we need to make a motion? Mr. Barney — I think it probably would be appropriate to make a motion to adjourn. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 061: Scott Flatt 1020 Hanshaw Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 71=1-66.2 Residence District R-15 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 15, 2003, RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the appeal of Scott Flatt until the October 20, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon NAYS: None ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Frost — So, for the audience's sake, obviously no decision was made. If you come back to next month's meeting, this adjourned case will start up again. The Public Hearing is close, I think, at this point, so it will just be more continued discussion from the Board as to the wisdom of granting or denying the appeal. Inaudible voice from the audience Chairperson Sigel — They'll receive the minutes of the meeting, so they'll be able to read everything that you said. Mr. Barney — You have to decide if you want to re -advertise and start over again. Chairperson Sigel — I'd prefer to just continue. Mr. Frost — For those interested, you might want to call me sometime around October 15th if you're interested to see if we are going to have a new public hearing or just continue, but you're welcome to call me at my office. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the September 15, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 9:40 p.m. Sigel, Chair Lori Waring, Deputy Town (Xerk PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO X 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 area, 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 C1-05? 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 X If yes, explain briefly: E. Comments of staff' CB., other attached. (Check as applicable.) 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 (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope, and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting material. Ensure that the explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adeauately address. _Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. X Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency DATE: of Responsible Officer in Lead A Preparer's !§11'gnature (If different from Responsible Officer) Signature of Contributing Preparer Kirk Sigel, Chairman Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency DATE: of Responsible Officer in Lead A Preparer's !§11'gnature (If different from Responsible Officer) Signature of Contributing Preparer TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public bearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North T_ioga Street, Ithaca, New York on Monday, October 20, 2003, commencing at 7.00 P.M., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tiosa Street. Date of posting: October 14, 2003 Date of publication: October 13, 2003 Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of October 2003. Notary Public Secretary, CARRIE WHtTMORE Notary Public, State of New York No. O i WH6052877 TiogG County Commission Expre5 December 26, zP TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF ,PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chair- man of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HERE- BY GIVEN that Public Hear- ings will be held by the Zon- ing Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, October 20, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street En- trance, Ithaca, NY, COM- MENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters: APPEAL of Scott Flatt, Appellant, requesting var- ionces from the require- ments of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca ,Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create, by sub- division, a parcel of land with road frontage of 27 + • feet (60• foot frontage required) and 27 feet at the • maximum front yard setback (100 foot width required) at 1020 Hanshow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71- 1-66.2, Residence District R- 15. Furthermore, a request for a variance from the re- quirements of Section 11.2 is being made to create a two-family home with each dwelling unit having an equal floor area. APPEAL of Charlene Temple, Appellant, request- ing a special approval from the Zoning Board of Ap- peals under Article XIII, Sec- tion 54 and variances from Article IV, Section 14 and Article XIII, Section 57 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Or- dinance, to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit in a nonconforming building/lot, and to con- struct a front yard building addition with a setback of 18 + feet (25 foot setback required) at 246 Renwick Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-8, Resi- dence District R-30. APPEAL of Lisa Wapen, .Appellant, requesting a var- iance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted ,to reside in a single-family residence while constructing a separate single-family res ,den tial be at 138 Ridgecrest Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 45-1- 14, Residence District R-15. 'Said Ordinance restricts a tax parcel to containing only one residential structure. APPEAL of Dan Mitchell, Appellant, requesting a var- iance from Article VIII, Sec- tion 44 of the Town of, Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to bepermiRed to construct a building addition at the Ithaca Beer Company, cre- ating a new rear yard build- ing setback of 13 + feet (60 feet required) and a new side yard setback of 46 + feet (60 feet required) at 606 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33-3- 2.1, Light Industrial Zone. APPEAL of Ithaca College and College Circle Associ- ates, LLC/South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Appellants, Vincent Nicotra, QPK De- sign, Agent, requesting var- iances from Article IV, Sec- tion 11 and 12 and Article VI, Sections 27, 28, and 29 of the Town of Ithaca Zon-. ing Ordinance, to permit the' construction of a parking lot to serve multiple residences with said parking being lo- cated in an R-15 zone' (otherwise not permitted) and within the side yard setback of the multiple resi- dence zone (otherwise prohibited) at the Ithaca College campus and Col- lege Circle Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42-1-13.2, 43-1-2.2, and 43.1.2.3, .Residence District, R-15 and Multiple Residence zones. Said Zoning Board of Ap. peals will at said time, 7:00 p.m., and said, place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. ' Persons may sp- Pear by agent or in person. ndividuals r with visual or hearing impairments or oth- er special needs, as appro- priate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance. must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273-1783 Dated: October 9, 2003 Published: October 13, 2003 FILE C6W DATE ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2003- 061: Scott Flatt, 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71=1-66.2, Residence District R-15 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the appeal of Scott Flatt until the October 20, 2003 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The vote on the a MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Dixon NAYS: None ABSENT: Krantz, Niefer The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA: I Lori Love, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the attached 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 15th day of September 2003. Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAI'. SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 7:00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Monday, September 15, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M., on the following matters: APPEAL of Town of Ithaca, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article 111, Section 7 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a public utility building with a front yard building setback of 12 feet (25 foot setback required) and a side yard setback of 7.5 feet (10 foot setback required) at 202 Stone Quarry Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-3-14.2, Residence District R-9. Said variance requests are necessary due to the required placement of the building. APPEAL of Bonnie Howell, Appellant, Jim Wavle, Crown Construction, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain portions of an existing single-family residence with a side yard building setback of 12 ± feet (15 foot setback required) at 883 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25-2-18, Residence District R-15. The appellant also plans on constructing a new outside wood deck with the 12 -foot setback being maintained. APPEAL of College Circle Apartments, Owner, Michael O'Shea, Agent, requesting a variance from Section 3.02-16 of the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, to be permitted to construct and place a 54 square foot property identification sign (24 square foot limit) at the College Circle and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-2.2, Multiple Residence District. APPEAL of Cayuga Medical Center, Owner, Lawrence Hoffmann, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct an addition to the Medical Center, for use with Radiation Oncology, located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24-3-2.1, Residence District R-30. A variance from Article V, Section 18.10 is also being requested to permit a building height of 48 ± feet (36 foot height limitation). APPEAL of Jim Merod, Appellant, Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, requesting a variance from to be permitted to construct the requirements of Article a residential building with IV, Section 11.6 of the a height of 43 + feet (36 foot height limitation) at 17 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-13.22, Residence District R-15. APPEAL of Scott Flatt, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to create, by subdivision, a parcel of land with road frontage of 27 + feet (60 foot frontage required) and 27 feet at the maximum front yard setback (100 foot width required) at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Residence District R-15. Furthermore, a request for a variance from the requirements of Section 11.2 is being made to create a two-family home with each dwelling unit having an equal floor area. 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. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273-1783 Dated: September 5; 2003 Published: September 8, 2003 Ll a TOWN OF ITHACA ? 215 North Tioga Street f Ithaca, New York 14850 1' (607) 273-1783 APPEAL 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: w S tv- Lc. C / cz FEE: $80.00 RECEIVED: CASH - ( ) CHECK - ( I L I) ZONING: For Office Use Only Cz P�;:ti , (y RC-M-s;AeLl�c4z�. 73 000 f� at 10 ap �i-S t� , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 7/1 - ^� , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s) , Section(s) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: t, r 1 f! s OL- (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) C� Kes�Ga, ('e�J fel Com- UISaJ; (� V �. /, S L%.O w t)Cx-G4�7` ��.c�. CcV'a-ILL f v u. CL j tn,v G S! i kb , / U) tou,14 )lice j v(Iss; Ko �. r0co PV horse —�at S'a06)(k;C.4'- n�-s wkcts aL'%W eccG, ,`�e 0.o . -S t y P'`5 f c�. e '-'. cC .6`0` rL0 e o LL"f S- % d� . By filing this application, I grant periTussion 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: Date: Signature of Appellant/Agent: zVW =e Print Name Here: SCo 7t to �l 0`tt� Home Telephone Number: tz 0 �7 7j F 1.�2 c /c Work Telephone Number: % y5- Lf o y�L NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will gxvia. Your attendance at the meeting is advised. Town Assigned Project ID Number Town of; Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A plicant or Project Sponsor) 1. Appllcant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name: 3. Precise location (street address, road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map): l b ao 6(or c,�s[ti4.kt R�. Lc cw�l'ec� b e 1.41r�CQ_ (C� �.� E-(CLL-�..r. �.c,_w wi X7`4. acCesS Tax Parcel Number: 7/. 4. Is proposed action: NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): p eo�fvc�cY- a ��.,^ l y keas;-c(e.Lc/4c'^e (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected: Initially (0-5 yrs) Acres (6-10 yrs) Acres (> 10 yrs) Acres 7. How Is land zoned presently? 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? L YESNO If no, describe conflict briefly:QJ�or+r�'1 0�" V'6CA-�a446Lie Q.,ei,� '•j�t.�®�wyk t' Is /.7 �cr•�s 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: A-// sem U? c e.s Public Road? YES NO ✓^ Public Water? YES NO ✓ Public Sewer? YES NO ✓ 10. What Is the present land use In the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe: 11. Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local)? YES `� NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: yc>or es3 Xf--kc. C'0r ' rr rrr Zok�� 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permiVapproval. Also, state whether It will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AppllcanVSponsor Name (Print or Type 5 c�b`%l- cZ77'l Signature: Date: Rev. 8/92 ti PART II — Environmental Assessment. Scott W. Flatt 1020 Hanshaw Road Area & Use Variances Zoning Board of Appeals A. Action is Unlisted. B. Action will not receive coordinated review. C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following_ C 1. 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? No significant adverse effects are anticipated relating to air quality, water quality or quantity, noise levels, traffic, solid waste, or potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding as a result of the proposed action. This proposal is to obtain two variances dealing with inadequate road frontage for an existing parcel located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2. The project received Final Subdivision Approval, with conditions, from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on September 2, 2003. The subdivision approval was to match the existing property lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. It appears that this parcel was originally subdivided in 1961 without any Town approvals. The current owners have not been able to provide any evidence that the lot was legally subdivided, and the Town does not have any record of the subdivision. The applicant, Scott Flatt, is interested in purchasing this vacant parcel to build a two-family residence on, but needs to obtain the subdivision approval (granted 9/2/03) and necessary variances prior to the purchase and before a building permit can be issued. C2. Aesthetic, agriculture, archeological historic or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None Anticipated, C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish shellfish or wildlife species significant habitats or threatened or endangeredpecies? None Anticipated. C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of land or other natural resources? None Anticipated. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Suburban Residential," and it is zoned Residence District R-15. The parcel will require variances for inadequate width at the street line (60 feet required) and for inadequate width at the maxima n front yard setback line (100 feet required). These two area variances will be necessary to legalize this existing lot. The applicant is also requesting permission to construct a two-family dwelling on this lot with both units being equal in size. Section 11, paragraph 2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "in a two-family dwelling, the second dwelling unit shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%". There are only a few two-family residences located in this immediate area and it appears that they comply with the requirements of the 50% smaller second unit. This request is considered a use variance, which requires the applicant to show that the property is incapable of earning a reasonable return on investment if used for any of the allowed uses in the district, that the property is being affected by unique, or at least highly uncommon circumstances, that the variance, if grant, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and that the hardship is not self-created. It does not appear the applicant has demonstrated the need for two equal size units and it does not appear necessary for a use variance to be granted. CS Growth subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None Anticipated. C6 Long term short term cumulative or other effects not identified in Cl -05? None Anticipated, C7 Other impacts (includingchanges in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None Anticipated. D. Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III — Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: Michael Smith, Environmental Planne � , Review Date: September 3, 2003 FILE�e DATE S ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-070 Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Flatt Two -Lot Subdivision 1020 Hanshaw Road Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2 Planning Board, September 2, 2003 MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty, WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, Residence District R-15. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner; Scott W. Flatt, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on September 2, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, has held a public hearing on September 2, 2003, and has reviewed a plat entitled "Map of F.O.Underwood Lots at No. 1020-1022-1024 Hanshaw Road", prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., dated June 16, 1961 and updated October 21, 1986, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2, as shown on a map titled "Map of F.O.Underwood Lots at No. 1020-1022-1024 Hanshaw Road", prepared by T.G. Miller Associates, P.C., dated June 16, 1961 and updated October 21, 1986, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of a current, updated plat and three dark -lined prints PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003-070 PAGE 2 substantially identical to the 1961 map presented to this meeting except showing the east line of Lot C being moved 4.6 feet further west, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b, granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and c. marking on the final map the location of the sewer line running from Lot A northward to the sanitary sewer line running across the northerly side of Lot C, and d. delivery of an easement from the owner of Lot C to the owner of Lot A granting the right to maintain the sewer line referred to in clause "c" above. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe ,Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA. I, Lori Love, Tew-Eferk/Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of September 2003, TewR-Cle-rdDeputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca N iTr ,'fl�� �u I►I� }i •,►n }� An, 1 —i Ihi!11J} br,!gII11 inl1N1 t 'III lllull ., SII illllll dop N CSS_ (7 Nm om 10 CD:c DN m n TIZCM d r viz z D� X~ dz m m Dd zZ O m dm ~0 o nczi o m m 20 - �� a v 0 z m drrl �Ll r z n Ll m rrl z /u J �� mm D 2� zm C7 frl frl r a -u M 70 Printer Friendly Report Property Description Report Owner: HENRY, SHERI JOHNSON PO BOX 95 GROTON NY 13073 SHERI JOHNSON HENRY Last Sale: Sale Date: N/A Sale Price: N/A Valid: N/A Arms Length: N/A Deed Book: 623 Deed Page: 97 Prior Owner: N/A Structure - Building Style: 0 - Unknown Number of Baths: 0 Number of Bedrooms 0 Number of Kitchens 0 Number of Fireplaces 0 Overall Condition Unknown Overall Grade Unknown Porch Type Unknown Porch Area 0.00 sqft Year Built Total Acreage: Basement Type Unknown Basement Garage Cap. 0 Attached Garage Cap. 0 Area - Living Area: 0.00 sqft First Story Area: 0.00 sqft Second Story Area: 0.00 sqft Half Story Area: 0.00 sqft Ithaca (Town) Status: Active Roll Section: Taxable Swis: 503089 Tax Map# 71.-1-66.2 Location: HANSHAW RD Zoning Code: Site: 1 Neighborhood: 30050 Property Class: Res Vac Lands Land Type: Primary Size: 0 x 218 Land Assessment: $35,000.00 Total Assessment: $35,000.00 Total Acreage: 1.70 School District: Ithaca Utilities - Sewer Type Comm/Public Water Supply Comm/Public Utilities Gas/Elec Heat Type Unknown Fuel Type Unknown Central Air Improvements - Tax Information - Taxes may not reflect exemptions or changes in assessment! County Year Tax: $492.82 County Year: 2001 School Year Tax: $0.00 Page I of , littp://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imate/printable.asp?img=littp://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imatelmages/... 8/22/03 Printer Friendly Report Additional Story Area: 0.00 sqft Three -Quarter Story 0.00 sqft Area: Finished Basement 0.00 sqft Number of Stories 0 Exemptions - No Exemptions School Year: Page 2 of 2 http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imate/printable.asp?img=http://asmsdg.tompkins-co.org/imateimages/... 8/22/03 DEP Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning Mr. Andy Frost, Building/Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 G SEP - 4 2B TOWN OF ITHACA BUILDING/ZONING Telephone (607) 274-5560 Fax (607) 274-5578 September 2, 2003 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Variance, Scott Flatt, 1020 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 71-1-66.2 Dear Mr. Frost: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter -community, or county -wide impacts. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zonino. Board of Appeals in Torn Hall, 215 North Tioea Street Ithaca New York on Monday September 15 2003, commencinp, at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio2a Street. Date of posting: September 5, 2003 Date of publication: September 8, 2003 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5th day of September 2003. (Votary rubuc CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 WH6052877 Tioga County CCG; Commission Expires December 26, setback of 7, 5'feet-)10 foot height of 48-+ -feet (36 foot rsetbackt=