Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (82) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 18.-5-14 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcels involved, with address if known: 918 East Shore Drive 18.-5-14 with no readdressing or subdivision. History: 2010 – Area Variance for dock – Granted 2001 – Area Variance for addition modified from 2000 – Granted 2000 – Area Variance for addition - Granted TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2010 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Elizabeth Simkin , owner, James Yarbrough , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-32A( 3) "Yard Regulations" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain an existing structure with an insufficient side yard setback located at 175 Calkins Rd , Tax Parcel No . 31 - 14 . 3 , Agricultural Zone . Appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , owners , requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270-43K(8 ) (a) and Section 270-43K( 9) " Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the allowable length and square footage located at 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No. 18 . -5- 14 , Lakefront Residential Zone . The owners are also requesting an interpretation of the setback measurement as regulated by Chapter 270 , Sections 270-43k( 10) and 270-43k( 11 ) and possible variance if required by the interpretation . Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs , upon request, requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings . Bruce W . Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273- 1783 Dated : August 5 , 2010 Published : August 7 , 2010 i Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that it has existed in this location for some time without any complaint and is fully screened from the road and from any neighbors, 30 That while the request is substantial, but the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the community, 4. That the request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES. Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Brock asked about the deck encroachment referred to in Mr. Williams' letter to Homeowner. Brief discussion ; board decided that staff would research the issue and the applicant would come back before the Board for a variance if it was needed for the deck. Appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , owners, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270=43K(8)(a) and Section 270=43K(9) " Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the allowable length and square footage located at 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18.=5- 14, Lakefront Residential Zone. The owners are also requesting an interpretation of the setback measurement as regulated by Chapter 270, Sections 270=43k(10) and 270=43k( 11 ) and possible variance if required by the interpretation. Tim and Linda Hinkin introduced themselves to the Board . Mr. Hinkin gave a brief overview of his appeal . Mr. Niefer asked if a new boat hoist would be installed . Ms Hinkin explained that the hoist itself was not damaged and that they planned on reinstalling their existing hoist. Mr. Niefer asked for a compelling reason of why the Hinkins wanted to increase the dock width . Mr. Hinkin said that it would be more convenient and stable for people getting in and out of the boat. Mr. Niefer asked if the length of the dock would remain the same . Mr. Hinkin responded that it depends on how the dock is measured ; he listed 40 feet on the application because that is the maximum allowed under zoning. Page 3 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved Mr. Hinkin then approached the Board and explained the dock measurements using the drawings in the Zoning Board application ; discussion ensued regarding the dock's measurements . Chairperson Sigel asked the Board if they had any concerns or comments . Mr. Niefer said that he was concerned about increasing the dock width . Attorney Brock explained that the Code permits a minimum of 3 feet and a maximum of 8 feet for dock width . She added that the applicant was before the Board because of the existing decks that are being interpreted as docks , which means the applicant has over 500 square feet of dock space before the proposed dock is taken into consideration . Attorney Brock thought that the intent of the law was to prevent multiple structures from sticking far out into the water or impeding navigation . The existing docks are not sticking out into the water in a perpendicular fashion ; they follow the contours of the manmade parcel . Chairperson Sigel added that the decking essentially extends out the manmade portion of the land into the water. Mr. Hinkin noted that according to the survey, the work was done in 1932 . Chairperson Sigel stated that the Board could make a reasonable argument to measure the length of the dock from closest point of the high water line . He noted that the dock first meets the high water line at the vertex . Mr. Bates asked if Chairperson Sigel was interpreting the high water line to be at the corner of the deck and concrete walkway. Chairperson Sigel confirmed that was his interpretation . Mr. Bates argued that the applicants did not own that property because the house was hanging over the water. Attorney Brock added that the State allows people to build docks out onto the waters of the State so the Board needs to determine where to measure the 40 feet from . She asked if the dock could be constructed in other than 10 foot sections. Mr. Hinkin explained that they only want to use 6 pilings . Attorney Brock stated that if they measure from the vertex and allow the dock to go out 40 feet, it won't be out as far into the water. Chairperson Sigel did not have a problem with the Hinkins exercising their right to go up to 50 feet. He thought that they choose anywhere in the range of 40 to 50 feet. He's inclined to go with the longest measurement because he's worried about other situations where someone might have a dock or some structure that it interpreted as a dock that comes off at an odd angle , which resulted in a more significant difference between the shorter and longer measurement. Attorney Brock asked if the applicant was asking for a longer dock than what they previously had . Mr. Hinkin responded no and he went on to describe the dock as shown in the photographs . Attorney Brock confirmed that the water depth was not 5 feet before the dock reach 50 feet in length . She reminded Mr. and Mrs . Hinkin that they still have the right to , up to a year after the destruction of the dock, to rebuild it exactly as it was. Mr. Bates thought that the length of the dock would be close to 50 feet. Chairperson Sigel questioned what the square footage would be , including rebuilding the dock. Mr. Bates explained that the maximum allowed for the dock under the Code Page 4of8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved would be 400 square feet; the area of the existing dock (area of the deck) is 432 square feet. Chairperson Sigel estimated that the applicant would be adding 200 square feet of dock. He thought that the easiest way would be to grant a variance for what is being proposed . Mr. Niefer asked if the wood deck overhang is considered part of the dock. Chairperson Sigel explained that a deck over the water becomes a dock. Attorney Brock then read the Code definition of a dock to the Board . Mr. Bates and Chairperson Sigel estimated the total area of dock to be 768 square feet and the applicant is allowed 400 square feet of dock. Chairperson Sigel then asked Mr. Bates if he wanted the Board to make an interpretation as to how the length of the dock should be measure . Mr. Bates responded yes , and then asked for an interpretation on how to measure the dock from the setback lines . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 50 p . m . and invited the public to address the Board ; there was no one present but the applicant. Chairperson Sigel then moved to make a determination on how the measure the dock length . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=023: Inten2retation, Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. -544 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved, that this Board makes the determination that the dock length is to be measured from the point of furthest extent into the water along the longest line parallel to the direction of the dock until it reaches the ordinary high water line. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. SEAR Determination Chairperson Sigel moved make a negative determination of environmental significance based on part 1 of the environmental assessment form and for the reasons stated in part 2 . Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=024@ Environmental Assessment, Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. -5- 14 Page 5of8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth. Resolved, that in regards to the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, this Board makes a negative determination of environmental assessment significance based on Part 1 of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and for the reasons in Part 11 of the Environmental Assessment Form. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 56 p . m . The Board and staff discussed the sections of Code for which variances were needed . It was determined that variances were needed for Section 270-43K( 9) and Section 270- 43K( 10) . Mr. Bates raised the concern of how to measure the setback line in the water. Staff and Board consulted the survey map to determine the location of the property lines . Mr. Bates explained that the Code instructs the measurement to be taken from the adjacent property line ; however it is difficult to determine the property line for the railroad property because it keeps going . Attorney Brock suggested measuring perpendicularly. Chairperson Sigel thought that if the lines were drawn straight out into the lake the dock would easily meet the 20 foot setback requirement. He suggested that a finding be made as part of the resolution that it appeared that the setbacks are greater than necessary. Attorney Brock agreed and suggested that the variance cover any potential deficiency without necessarily stating what it is . Brief discussion took place regarding the exact location of the proposed dock. It was decided that the dock would be built in the location shown on the drawing submitted with " Hinkin" written in the upper left corner. Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal from the requirements of Sections 270- 43K(9) and 270=43K( 10) with the conditions that the total square footage of the dock not exceed 768 square feet and that it be constructed as shown on plans , and with the finding that all requirements of an area variance had been satisfied , listing how each criterion had been met. Mr. Ellsworth seconded . Vote carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010=025. Area Variance. Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. -544 Motion made by Kirk Sigel, Seconded by Harry Ellsworth, Page 6 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved Resolved, that this Board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-43K(9) and Section 270- 43K( 10) "Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the square footage and potentially does not meet the 20 foot setback from adjacent property lines located at 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. =5- 14, Lake Front Residential Zone, with the following: Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 16 The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is that of replacing a damaged dock, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the replacement dock is approximately the same length and only 2 feet wider than the previous dock, 30 That while the request is substantial going over the allowable square footage by a large margin, but nevertheless the uniqueness of the property does make the request reasonable, 4. That the existing walks and seawalls are not jutting out in a perpendicular fashion over the water, but rather hug the property lines so their impacts on the lake, surrounding properties, and the ability of small boats to navigate are mitigated, 52 That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that it is replacing an existing dock, 69 The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the dock was destroyed this past winter by ice damage, and 70 That while this variance is from Subsection 10, that nevertheless, this Board does believe that the 20 foot setback is easily met. Conditions: 1 . That the total amount of dock and other structure that overhangs the water not exceed 768 square feet, and 20 That the proposed dock be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant marked "Hinkin " in the upper left corner. Page 7 of 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 16, 2010 Approved A vote on the motion resulted as follows. AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Hinkin and staff then discussed what would need to be submitted to the Town with regard to his building permit application . Adjournment There being no further business before the Board , Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 8 : 14 p . m . ft Kirk Sigel , Chai person Page 8of8 E ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO . 2010=025 Area Variance Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-14 August 16, 2010 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that this Board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270 , Section 270=43K(9) and Section 270= 43K( 10) " Permitted Accessory Structures and Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to replace and extend an existing dock that exceeds the square footage and potentially does not meet the 20 foot setback from adjacent property lines located at 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5- 14 , Lake Front Residential Zone , with the following : Findings : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . The benefit the applicant wishes to achieve , which is that of replacing a damaged dock, cannot be achieved by any other means feasible , 2 . That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the replacement dock is approximately the same length and only 2 feet wider than the previous dock, 30 That while the request is substantial going over the allowable square footage by a large margin , but nevertheless the uniqueness of the property does make the request reasonable , 40 That the existing walks and seawalls are not jutting out in a perpendicular fashion over the water, but rather hug the property lines so their impacts on the lake , surrounding properties, and the ability of small boats to navigate are mitigated , 5 . That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that it is replacing an existing dock, 6 . The alleged difficulty is not self-created given that the dock was destroyed this past winter by ice damage , and 7 . That while this variance is from Subsection 10 , that nevertheless , this Board does believe that the 20 foot setback is easily met. ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2010-025 PAGE 2 Conditions : 1 . That the total amount of dock and other structure that overhangs the water not exceed 768 square feet, and 22 That the proposed dock be built substantially as indicated on the plans submitted by the applicant marked "Hinkin" in the upper left corner. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August, 2010 . Deputy ToV4 Clerk Town of Ithaca !• . „ - T- Ji, i t, ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2010-024 Environmental Assessment Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-14 August 16, 2010 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that in regards to the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , this Board makes a negative determination of environmental assessment significance based on Part I of the Short Environmental Assessment Form and for the reasons in Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August, 2010 . 9 +0,14 Deputy Town C erk Town of Ithaca LE O NT E ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION NO , 2010=023 Interpretation Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 18.-5-14 August 16, 2010 Motion made by Kirk Sigel , Seconded by Harry Ellsworth . Resolved , that this Board makes the determination that the dock length is to be measured from the point of furthest extent into the water along the longest line parallel to the direction of the dock until it reaches the ordinary high water line . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Carrie Coates Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 16th day of August, 2010 . Deputy To n- Jerk Town of Ithaca � D 0WEE Tompkins �kc u"nty AUG 11201 DEPARTMENT� OF PLANNING 01 S t7 *121 East C(u4r-Street TOWN OF ITHACA Iithaca,�Ne ,, York 14850 CODE ENFORCEMENT Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning .0 Telephone (607) 274-5560 and Public Works Fax (607) 274-5578 August 10, 2010 Mr. Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review Pursuant to §239 -1 , -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Area Variance for dock at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18:544, Lakefront Residential Zone, Timothy 11inkin, Owner/Applicant Dear Mr. Bates : This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 -1 , -m and —n 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 & Public Works r Inclusion through (Diversity 1y OF IT fY � 99 TOWN OF ITHACA 1B 21 41, 215 N . Tioga Street, ITHACA , N . Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273- 1721 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks, Trails, Water&Sewer) 273- 1656 ENGINEERING 273- 1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 ZONING 273- 1783 FAX (607) 273- 1704 To : Zoning Board Members From: Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement Date : August 5 , 2010 RE: 918 East Shore Drive — Area Variances Enclosed are materials related to a request for variances for the property of 918 East Shore Drive. This property presents a couple of problems . The home is built out over the water and the property is an oddly shaped parcel . The first issue is that the existing dock was destroyed by the ice last year. They would normally be allowed to rebuild as it was , but they want to build a wider dock the same length as the old. However, now that they are changing to a 6 ft. width, they must comply with the current dock regulations . Complying with the regulations now becomes a problem because the current home has a deck on one side that hangs over the water and a walk on the other side that also overhangs the water on the sea wall . We are calling the deck and the walk a dock for codes purposes . The deck overhangs the water by approximately 9 ft and has a total of 400 sq ft over the water. The width of overhang of the walk varies from 0 ft on the shore end to 3 ft in the middle, and about 2 ft where it meets the wood decking. The length is about 76 ft long. Thus if you average the overhang of the walk to be 2 ft, then it is about 152 sq ft over the water. We then add the two together and we have a total of 552 sq ft of dock before we even add in what the owner is requesting. The code allows 320 sq ft and allows for modification due to water depth, but it does not apply in this case. The second issue is how to figure set back for the dock. The property boundaries create a problem as they are not concave or convex . So the question is, how should we, the codes office, figure the set back lines in the water? Once you, the board, determine how this is to be done they may need a variance so the location of the new dock and the old boat hoist are compliant. 1 [� CC � Wf TOWN OF ITHACA � ��� -- 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 f ! IW JUL 15 2010 ; �__._ _ TOWN CLERK 273-1721 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273- 1747 BUILDING AND ZONING 273- 1783Vd �� Ct -� ,_ ��� HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273-1656 © D ` E I C V ail N,T FAX (607) 273-1704 Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form : SUBMIT THIS ONLY AFTER: ( 1 ) APPLYING FOR A BUILDING/SIGN PERMIT AND RECEIVING A DETERMINATION /DENIAL FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF OR (2) REFERRAL FROM PLANNING ROARD RASFD ITPON SITF. PLAN OR SITRDIVISION RF.VIF.W . ZBA Appearance Fee: $100 For Office Use Only For Office US9 On y Property is located within or adjacent to: Date Received a0 O Pleas,,pocheck all that apply: County Ag District Cash or Check No. �- Area Variance Use Variance UNA Zoning District L Sign Variance CEA Applicable Section(s) of Town Code: Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historic District :.)c7 - y3 1{ 64 Special Approval State Park/another municipality :2 - 413 K& The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to FC �((aU �ST 1 G<,AtnII --SS_( © .J �olL Q � dCl� at E1/ ��ST S'i +( ee % 42I l/c' , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, I Fr - S� - / G/ as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows (please attach any additional sheets as necessary): D ei /09 � oC� EAS e SA;5 � -,41 r4 5a- Pe L O .J n By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/Appellant: ' Date: �cK �O Signature of Appellant/Agent: Date: Print Name Here: / /in p`�T C, Home/Cell Telephone Number: or 2 F Work Telephone Number : NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will it Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 4-12-08 We purchased our home at 918 East Shore Drive in 2001 . At the time of the purchase the house had approximately 400 square feet of wooden decking that overhung the water (see survey), a 40 foot long by 4 foot wide dock, and a boat hoist (see photos) . Several years ago we replaced the wooden decking with composite material and had been contemplating putting in a dock with pilings but felt the existing dock, which sat on brackets resting on the bottom, was adequate . This past winter the ice pushed our hoist into the dock which essentially turned most of the dock on its side, bending many of the brackets and posts . I disassembled the dock into sections and we placed it and the brackets on shore and decided it was finally time to put in a more permanent dock . The pictures show the pre-existing dock we want to replace, with the length remaining the same but widening it from 4 to 6 feet. The reason we are seeking a variance is because the pre-existing deck that overhangs the water already exceeds the 320 square foot limit for docks . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARIANCE CRI'T'ERIA FORM - (to be completed by Applicant) Applicant: Address of Property Concerning Appeal. Tax Map No. : TEST: No area variance will be granted without a consideration by the Board of the following factors: 1 . Whether undesirable change w0 be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties : Yes No. Reasons: ej(0 0A 2 . Whether benefit sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No ✓ Reasons: 3 . Whether the requested variance is substantial : Yes No Reasons: ��<f1G ( ��c NAB'^-r4- C, � yJac- tom 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood?: Yes No ✓ Reasons : n 5 . Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created : Yes No Reasons: � ck- i( Al :22 c( �� k AnnRG —2iz-'l' <A ST GJ t .J el 6( ,4 -rA _LET N `P<g C� Revised 4- 12-08 12 . Are there any drainage ways or underground tile systems located on the site? 1)© Will this project alter existing drainage patterns? A) Q If yes, please describe: 13 . Is the parcel included in a farm plan prepared by the Tompkins County Soil and Water District of the USDA Soil Conservation Service? 0 Are federally funded cost sharing practices in place for the parcel? C) Name of program(s) : 14. is the parcel currently granted an agricultural tax exemption? Yes L`� No X / Signature of Applicant: Date: FOR TOWN USE ONLY: NOTE : This form and a map of the parcel(s) should be mailed to County Planning as part of the GML in and n referral. It should also be mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary along with the Notice of Public Hearing (Attach list of property owners within 500 feet). Name of Staff Person - Date Referred to County Planning - Revised 4-12-08 Response to 270-43K of the Ithaca Town Code K( 1 ) (a) The proposed dock will consist of 6 pilings, approximately 1 foot in diameter and will extend above the water approximately 6 feet. Each pair of pilings will be joined together by 2 x 10 treated lumber with 6 inch lag screws to serve as trusses to carry the joists. The pairs of pilings will be approximately 11 feet apart. The pilings will be installed by Ron Knewstub. The joists will also be 2 x 10 treated lumber set 16 inches on center with appropriate tie downs. The decking boards will be 5/4 treated lumber. The dock will be 6 feet wide by 36 feet long. (b) (c) (d) We have provided this and you have the survey of the property from when we purchased the house in 2001 . (e) We contacted the Army Corp of Engineers and given that the scope of this project falls within the parameters of the existing general lake permit, we are not required to obtain a special permit from them. (f) We don't believe this is necessary. (g) We believe we have done this. K(2) We believe that we will comply with this. K(3 ) Does not apply. K(4) Does not apply. K(5) Our current boat hoist covers 72 square feet. K(6) We will use no cribbing. K(7) The width of the proposed dock is 6 feet and will have no extensions. K(8) (a) The proposed dock will be within the 40 foot maximum. (b) The water depth at the end of the dock will be in less than 5 feet of water but we are not requesting to extend beyond 40 feet. K(9) In your e-mail message you noted that the existing deck that overhangs the water is considered dock space. We currently have 437 square feet that was there when we purchased the house in 2001 . As you note, we will most likely need to seek a variance as this is in excess of the 320 square feet limitation. K( 10) Our boat hoist is over 50 feet from the nearest lot line. K( 11 ) We have approximately 150 feet of lake frontage along the railroad. The dock and hoist would be near the middle. K( 12) We will not have lights on the dock. K( 13 ) Does not apply. Page 1 of 2 Subj: Re: Your inquiry about the need for a permit from the Department of the Army Date: 6/28/2010 9 : 13 : 36 P . M . Eastern Daylight Time From: Lsh305 @aol . com To: Julie. C . Rimbault @ usace. army . mil Julie, Thank you for sending the attachment with the sample permit which we have since reviewed . The parameter of our piling dock will be 36' out into the lake from our existing deck, and will be 6' wide for the entire length encompassing 216 feet in total . Given that these dimensions do not exceed the 150' maximum length allowed into the lake in the regional permit, nor the 1 ,200 total square footage maximum requirement, while being well within the 10' setback from other owned property , and not covering more than 20% of navigable waterway , while also being completed prior to the September 6, 2010 expiration of this permit, we will be proceeding with the intent that our dock activity falls within the scope of the regional permit. We also understand in reading the document, that because our dock will not require an additional permit from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, that our notification to said office should be made, upon completion of the work, with details, including drawings, being sent to the Buffalo, NY office on the form sent in the attachment. Should drawings and additional documentation need to be sent to your office in Cortland , NY prior to undertaking the work, please let me know and we will be happy to do that. Thank for your time on the phone, and the information that you provided via e-mail. Sincerely, Linda Hinkin In a message dated 6/22/2010 2 : 30: 04 P . M . Eastern Daylight Time, Julie. C . Rimbault @usace.army . mil writes: I am writing in response to your telephone inquiry . Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority over construction , excavation , or deposition of materials in , over, or under navigable waters of the United States. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U . S . Army Corps of Engineers regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including freshwater wetlands. Per our telephone conversation , please find the attached sample regional permit for your review. As explained , you need to fit all the terms and conditions in order to be able to use this permit for your project. In addition , please pay special attention to the notification requirements listed in this permit. Finally, as explained on page 3, if your activity does not require notification and subsequent authorization from our office, you are still required to submit project drawings and a compliance certification form to our district office (provided at the end of the attached document) . If upon reviewing this document you decide that you need to submit an application , the application form can be found at: http://www. irb. usace.army. mil/regulatory/jointapp2008instructions. pdf For more information, please visit www. Irb. usace. army. mil/regulatory . Very truly yours, Julie C . Rimbault Biologist U . S. Army Corps of Engineers Auburn Field Office Wednesday, July 14, 2010 AOL : Lsh305 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION o be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name lb Nit AJ 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) Tax Parcel Number: ( �^ 4. Is proposed action : .- _�tkE NEW? EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION ? �� CE >' t 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : ' � ` t k S ` , 4 (7 07 O� U C � Q14 ( S Attach separate sheets if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected: Initial) 0-5 rs Acres 6-10 rs >10 rs) Acres 7. How is land zoned presently? 8. Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? Yes NO If no, describe conflict briefly: / �1< ( '.06 '0 �Ce_ 9. Will proposed action lead to a re nest for new: J Public Road? YES NO ✓ Public Water? YES NO f 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 V NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: -� / 6 w 'J 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE: Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): Signature and Date: Revised 4- 12-08 PART II = ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. Be 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 : Could, because it is on the open water of the lake . However, there was a dock there previously. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? Explain briefly : None anticipated. The only thing changing is the dock width. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, unique natural area, wetlands, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly : Yes , there will be new pilings added to the area. But this should only be a disturbance until completed. 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 : Yes , this will exceed the square footage of allowed dock size in the town' s zoning. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: None anticipated. Area and dock to be used as it was before . C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -059 Explain briefly: None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) Explain briefly : None anticipated . 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 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 adequately 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. _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 eparer' s Signature( If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel Chairperson ame & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer ` DATE: gA0I �, o Signature of ResponsK le Officer in Lead Agency / 918 East Shore drive. lc .. TOWN OF ITHACA 215, NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA , N.Y. 41 www . town. ithaca.ny. us = ' CODE ENFORCEMENT - BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR.G0 L" ?: , Phone (607) 273- 1783 Fax (607) 273-5854 Date Received (b ;I (� Permit Number. ?. I o Fee Paid 6-5 Occupancy Class. Value of Imp. 1 )0 u Construction Type. Rcpt: No: 7 `� �� Zoning District , BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FORM L/BUILD EXTEND ALTER CONVERT DEMOLISH GENERAL INFORMATION Brief Description of Work Value of Improvement $ Property Information: Tax Parcel Number Street Address 2( 9 rt s� h,7 hkk V� Property Owner. I �a Name I N K, I /�J Phone # / �v Cell # Mailing Address ` ) Email If owner is a corporation, names and addresses of responsible officers must be included. Builder. r Company Name �� tJ ���� S�1 Ph# C) 77- �� � , Fax # Mailing Address /,' > Q <�fA 13 Project Manager Ph # Cell # Email Contact Person (Primary point of contact for all communications regarding the building permit): Name Daytime Telephone 730 ' C' Cell Phone J Email �� T�I ,� C' / �"(,� � • �(J(.�C� Rev 11Y20I0 Page 3 of I l c� Protect Information - --Existing — —Proposedd --- —Gross Square Footage oL• Existing Proposed # of Stories Basement # of Dwelling Units First Floor Building Height Second Floor Water Private / own Private/ To Over Second Sewer Private ft ow Priva Town Total # of Rooms Sprinkler Yes no es / no Total # of Bedrooms Occupancy Class Is topsoil or fill material going to be moved onto or within the site in excess of 50 cubic yards? yes no If Yes, SWPPP application submitted? yes no Is topsoil or fill material going to be moved onto or within the si in excess of 500 cubic yards? yes `Xno If Yes, Fill Permit submitted? yes no Electrical Application will be applied for? yes no Does work involve any outdoor lighting? yes �loo' no The UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES for permission to do the above in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and other Laws and Regulations of the Town of Ithaca, or others having jurisdiction. AND AFFIRMS that all statements and information given herein are correct to the best of his/her knowledge and belle[, AND FURTHER AFFIRMS that all work shall be performed in compliance with the Codes of the Town of Ithaca, the NYS Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and all other applicable state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. I ALSO CERTIFY that the structure for which this Permit will be issued, or has been issued, will be built, or has been built, according to the latest standards of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, AND FURTHER CERTIFY that the approved plans will not be deviated firm without prior approval from the Architect/Engineer of record, if appdcable, and the Town of Ithaca. vl�� T 4 Z/ � Signat& of Property Owner or Authorized Agent D to For Office Use Only Tompkins.County Health Department.- Approval of Septic System(s) and/or Weil(s) late issued . Insurance Ceitificates::NYS Worbers' Compensatio%. Disability� Liability On Ella P'UA (�)L' W Plumbing Permit- Water & Sewer- L Permit Number$,. Date Issued Appiapriate Highway Department Permits: Culverts; Driveway, Work in Right-of-Way Date Issued Stormwater Permit (SWPPP)° Submitted: Date Issued._ WatedSewer.Taps (new) % Submitted APPLICATION APPROVED Date, CEO Init APPLICATION DENIED under.Section (��I" y3( k) 1 Date: CEO knit (� - mil C.F L li • r Rev 1 /5/2010 Page 4 of I 1 encroacnments either way across property lines except Esy: ,_,p( seeL DATED: el L 1gRit-i to S1� ' 4 ova . • I 4t I ' ` • 'n ! ' t fi � 6 • MAOC` 1'F `r %C C3 7 (01 • u INA 64 0 g�� •....• !; 'Alm ', QOTE - rtZtA1.LCauLAR AND DIL� E 7 6y EDWqr�p. SpIZIG6 1 DuL' YL1G 1115 L ► DSED I� ZB/ ) 932 DI S_ T1ME " ��,30K �88�.�. . SfaetGG ED ' AVEA A-L50 5tAcWt4 ON C17'Al,SbAt��, f•IF.pS of It yzA- 42'5 Aup �. r5f • Ct-�r< ti` /� - .. �- a i. P. . . eD�Q lf'1..�'T�elr�it4 =1.�C_� �yL✓ . -�i: J. ,� 1 . i iAkT of DiEEt) Elk °�aTOW � I TAK 1`•TAP PAQCEL " a , i di ` > . , � REA - 298N 5 FrS - l.4 / s r l�1bTiE : "TNlS PLtoPERT `{ , • ' ' � t , f.1DW 11J TL•4E 70Wt1 CA`( I.lGA ->' � �' ' ' • s. }, aF lTI1AC n o of • T ` i--0 i� A tCam. :�! , b CIF LtyesE VRJQ4 p/� �'£y0, � . >. pp� Gc"cCE7C ovcRNA+� 6; S I LryER �N ar ' Ja$ 1p8, i_ 1J � J i T� f:11SCLU� E ti t . _ .. .ALp �- ALL .• •a: V suCO . ' �° • v 21DAR1AN R1 (.HTSr> •i: f!y - 1g POO, GE Op - _ Q �T c •. C j � 1`4)11( � P.lvC linlO . S \`_.. �� T • e.e _ a? J lose AT>�.i7 t;~4t1lAwo } , , .. ZQ x MESI �, � r tin o • .: ,: : - 08 . . co., i A�FSEAI 41t L N VT1T t R ,t�: f pot E ` U ' ' °.. 3OOST ,LayC V� i� :- e�lLeaA.o �V Z'1%4, . . O WAMO �ToE CA UGLt Dew��a • 14F* o lcoryF Flo �'� � v ;y Cry Y A ^Y 1S1 C . c�PLL I , IT A.CA Oqp Co . �A1L ! 1 1TLIACA DEEDS AT y,f;, 1 4F% kItA ro Dacus Sti. 703 TAx Mt,tt ' Rt • 13 . GaLPoCp�low LIED• Y'� -cet_ 13sa: 10-2 - > * ' 1°TC : u . WAkL o : • .� 7. 1 L LEPS ran. u �fAc . CNW 1laEL . . } 908 SQ . Fr. -T�NE i�(, ' 8 E 1 iota � B . 1 ��° QtOA,G PROPER 10rX 4.!411 ME4upER5 • -.t� ;': n I-tNC . e \ .off ,! =•; ' yiT i 1,7S� �qCA 3 � 4 \\ '�{ S Li03 / uUB r R3 Ar .}7(// R Lt• - Pty + ;t -- -�, . o_ RAV - bi To J *l y vsp.oT. CLAt115 1. L� �4 �" nDEEb To � T11T: tSFS Yz = 33 ' Ro4G GYB85 a,uoeur IT LL PUBLIC It DK�VC So ° - ' ° 1 . S 2 t-r EAST S pF�� ' AMatapcp 318 A04tZlo,u.L_ PA SFiov / VAo , 18 - ' ALMATIONA • �4 a' 7. 1 TO iNlf tA ► [OT O'DMMIIM{t16 TO lICTIO$ 7100 • OU °RIYISIOR L. 0. T. �1 1DU[ATIOS tAQ• 4R1 IrtO111AITlO [T [TAT [ f ALL CCRrmCAf10M5 O [Rl.q LAI►, I1 N ARC TALID 100 1 ,'t TMI■ MAP lNp COp, I1 1 ,• eo , n , _, .. . _ �b ✓4r �a fM�vP �'� y ' '+� i b ' " n dne....-mot. � <_a ,. , �,.• d S N H »� �� rmmw raueu raFlWeL aPW12m Yep4N1iY ' e p N �B I e 6 ��,y'��#' R.�r�{Sr�Y ,� d �3y • �p9SQ'i ^ a t e,vyr 9 prb rrA :kt. FY # �sy+;r rY tij ci JIM cafzr:" 3 rvr f" aa �ri.Y kA" ' a 1 F a Z.t p OD „ya i s : 4eo-iF w I co a �f�a?� _ �� a a� � N m �` £•*' �'a'a"£ � 6rtkt#-��� � � f o �A ma :.ate. r p FWry � w» aeq RG9mw` 4w arsmm rsacama r° ri-aa, atl zraq �" rna aw uswxx �.msm : i.w aw ,�t.ww 9wNam +,wa guar r t�� �• / S /7 do I do it „ t ; ! to do, I t O \y � ! ! �..4 :n It 14 0 It 10 it do , dlVn / I it �{ �{ rya'. o A IL To ' N ' Krr ,-1 �I / 1 gg�; / , y \ % .S v'i� : ' yr / . . � it 1f Id !do do Ilp fill 0 . 4i od. / d Aj /At rT dog. dome � �4 ' . � � D r . ° ern D � oddo 0 d0 hG . a > rn dod—di U) rn0 �� . r� Cl «, o C I � l p Colo\ n I ci i do ., Z - s i Woo: 4 14 d'ol y y sa , t�yu va lot r.;4 �L^cS- ar ` ;� fi' ��. �ia�'Y„",.•,,c, Y�,. . y S . fi, } , r M } go- r 1 � C .rt x i+ t i r ; L v � m ir lfl z ,Y• ? � r 4P' � F� t��' •�`'� .,i , r � Y 1 � 1 r. l IT Al ors ; r If - j . �N s«' - � � rl � �• � IT all wrim •1 y� 1 Y a• 6, Page 1 of 1 ONO J i r file://I:\Photos\918 East Shore Dr. OOl.jpg 8/2/2010 /. • �� .� or Or der •�* J NOV .w R •~` r r �j TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, MAY 21 , 2001 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, May 21 , 2001 , in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of David Schaffner, Appellant, Barry Kasonic, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a non-conforming building/lot at 401 Winthrop Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 72- 1 -3 . 1 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of room additions and outside wood decks with trellises. A variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Ordinance is also being requested to allow said decks to encroach within the 30-foot rear yard building setback. APPEAL of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca Appellant, Diane Cohen, Agent, requesting a use variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit the use of an old school building for the operation of a commercial retail architectural salvage operation at 855 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 31 -2- 15 , - 16, Residence District R-30. Said Ordinance does not permit retail operations in an R-30 zone. APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, Owners/Appellants, Ernie Bayles, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 ,080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the property being adjacent to Cayuga Lake. A similar appeal was granted on November 8, 2000, but has since been modified with a larger addition. APPEAL of Frank Rogan, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 32, 33 , and 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to modify previously approved retail and food services at Franco ' s Restaurant and Rogan' s Corner pizza shop and convenience store to permit additional seating and the construction of accessory structures at 823 -825 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40-4-2, Business District A. Said uses were granted previous approvals in the 1980s and 1990s. Additionally, variances from the requirements of Sections 37 and 38 of said Ordinance are being requested to allow for the parking of vehicles and accessory structures to be within the required front yard (setback of 50 feet) and side yard (setback of 30 feet). 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: May 14, 2001 Published: May 16, 2001 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a . the applicant cannot obtain a reasonable economic return from the property; and b. this property has been up for sale since the Waldorff School closed; and c. the cost of converting the building to another permitted use exceeds the value of the building; and d, the requested use will not alter the character of the neighborhood; and e. the alleged hardship is unique; and f. the alleged hardship has not been self-created; and g. this property is unique in that it is bounded by two major roads on each side, it is a very small parcel and is not conducive to be occupied as a residence. Conditions: a , there be no outdoor storage of any merchandise; and b. all work done on the premises be done in accordance with all appropriate laws, rules and regulations; and c. that the variance be time limited for a period of ten years. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Sigel, Stotz. The motion was declared to be carried. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , Owners/Appellants , Ernie Bayles , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 , 080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines , with part of the property being adjacent to Cayuga Lake . A similar appeal was granted on November 8 , 2000 , but has since been modified with a larger addition . Ernie Bayles , 527 1 /2 North Aurora Street - Mr. and Mrs . Hinkin received approval last November for a variance for a non -conforming property to add a second story addition . Their plan at that time was to add the second story over the portion of the building that they thought made sense . The variance was granted . They then came to me to develop plans . I started to work with their proposal and made ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED some suggestions that would make it more successful and cost effective . The result was a slightly larger addition because we are trying to fit this over an existing foundation and footprint . Mr . Frost thought it would be appropriate to bring the new configuration before the board . . The previous proposal was to add 884 square feet to the second floor. The new proposal is to add 1 , 080 square feet on the second floor and a small area of 60 square feet to the first floor to accommodate a new staircase . Mr. Ellsworth - At the last meeting we spent a lot of time listening to the neighbor complain about losing view of the lake . The size of the second floor has been increased . How does this impact the view? Mr. Bayles - This current orientation is less objectionable because it presents a narrower fagade to the properties whose view would be impacted . The neighbor who was at odds with the project at that time no longer owns the property . Mr. Ellsworth - Are the new owners of the property aware of this project ? Mr. Bayles - I am certain . It is part of the requirements that the neighbors are notified of the appeal . The sign is posted . Mr. Ellsworth - Has the plan been shown to the new owners ? Mr. Bayles - Mr. and Mrs . Hinkin have talked with the adjacent owners regarding their plans . Mr. Ellsworth - I do not like the way the application is worded . It leaves me to believe the addition is hanging over the property lines . Mr. Bayles - It is . The present building overhangs the property lines . I recall the minutes from this meeting last November. It stated the board had never seen a property that was so non -conforming . The building overhangs a manmade seawall and goes over Cayuga Lake . It does hang over the property line if the property line is drawn at the edge of the seawall . It has been that way since the property was built in 1925 . Chairperson Sigel - I was strongly opposed to the variance last November. I still feel the same way . The lot is less than one third of the required lot size for an R - 15 zone . It extends over the property line . I do not think it is appropriate to build a second story , particularly with the proximity of homes behind it . Mr. Bayles - The improvements would improve the character of the neighborhood . It may detract from someone ' s view of the lake , but it will improve someone ' s view of a ratty little shack . The Hinkins are experiencing a hardship . They need an addition to adequately use the house . Chairperson Sigel - The lot is so small and the house is so non -conforming that you should not be allowed to do anything substantial to the house . Reasonable upgrading to the home might require some variances . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Stotz - Is any portion of the proposed new addition going to be over the lake ? Mr. Bayles - The corner of the house will be over the property line . The original proposal was to extend over the property line at a different location . We have rotated the addition 90 degrees . The degree to which we are extending over the seawall has been reduced . Mr. Ellsworth - Is there less now hanging over the wall than previously approved ? Mr. Bayles - Yes . Attorney Barney - The last proposal did not alter the footprint . Mr. Bayles - The original footprint does have one corner hanging over the seawall . The existing roofline does continue a 90-degree corner. The floor plan has the same corner cutoff. Mr. Krantz - I agree with Chairperson Sigel . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 8 : 12 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 8 : 13 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith - The board should also consider the view from the lake and Stewart Park towards the house . Mr. Bayles - Is the previous variance granted in November still in effect if this variance is not passed ? Chairperson Sigel - Yes . Mr. Bayles - The new plan is a much more attractive plan . Attorney Barney - What is the sense of the board on this application ? Mr. Niefer - I favor granting the variance . It enhances the value of the neighborhood . I do not see that it will have a significant impact on anyone 's neighboring interest . There are no neighbors protesting the project . Attorney Barney - The board would need to require the applicant to get approval from all required agencies for the corner that overhangs the seawall . The Town does not have the authority to permit something to be built over the lake . Mr. Krantz - I would vote against the project . Mr. Stotz - I am undecided . On the one hand it has a narrower view from the lake . They are also encroaching over the lake . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost - The encroachment on the lake is less than a dock . Mr . Ellsworth - I agree with Mr. Niefer . Chairperson Sigel - I would vote against the project . Attorney Barney - The board could skip over the environmental assessment if you are inclined to vote against the project for environmental reasons . Mr. Stotz - I will vote in favor of the project . RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -33 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Timothy & Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. =5- 14, May 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 , 080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the findings in the environmental assessment review completed by Town Staff included in the packet of information given to the board. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Stotz, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: Sigel. The motion was declared to be carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -34 - Appeal of Timothy & Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18. =5- 14, Ma y 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 , 080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15 based upon the following conditions: a . the addition be in conformance with the plans submitted; and b, no construction occur until all required permits have been obtained. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 MAY 21 , 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 18, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Ellsworth, Stotz, Niefer. NAYS: Sigel, Krantz. The motion was declared to be carried. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Frank Rogan , Appellant , requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII , Section 32 , 33 , and 34 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to modify previously approved retail and food services at Franco' s Restaurant and Rogan ' s Corner pizza shop and convenience store to permit additional seating and the construction of accessory structures at 823-825 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 40-4- 2 , Business District A . Said uses were granted previous approvals in the 1980s and 1990s , Additionally , variances from the requirements of Sections 37 and 38 of said Ordinance are being requested to allow for the parking of vehicles and accessory structures to be within the required front yard (setback of 50 feet) and side yard (setback of 30 feet) . Bill Seldin , 120 Northview Road - Eight years ago the restaurant and pizza/convenience store came into being . The proposed site plan was ultimately approved by the Planning Board on May 1St . With that approval , they noted the wooden deck , two wooden storage sheds , and the relocation of six parking spaces . We received approval for Franco ' s to seat 130 persons and Rogan ' s Corners to seat 40 persons . A number of concerns were expressed over the course of two meetings with the Planning Board . There are no residential neighbors surrounding the parcel . The Planning Board expressed a concern regarding the parking spaces that encroached on the road right-of-way . The six spaces have been moved back . There was an encroachment along the northerly line . We have a written encroachment agreement with that property . The adjacent property owner agrees to the encroachments . We have a formal lease agreement for 25 years for 10 additional parking spaces on Mr. Fish ' s property. The number of parking spaces exceeds the requirements under the ordinance . We have deleted two spaces . We now have one more parking space than what is required for the seating . We thought the big issue was going to be the traffic . Jim Napoleon completed a traffic study . It was completed while the students were out of town . Mr. Napoleon came back and performed a new traffic study . The Planning Department did not feel there was a traffic problem . The outdoor seating is only available from mid May to September. None of the uses overlap . Students use the facility primarily from the end of August through May. The deck is available for use in the summer months . The peak for Rogan ' s Corners is around noon during the day. The peak time for Franco' s is in the evening . The uses complement each other. The Planning Department reports that access to the site is from Danby Road or Coddington Road . The visibility and access from both sites is adequate . The amount of patronage use at Franco' s and Rogans has been established for over a 6 year period . There is no evidence that this has created any significant impact on traffic volumes in the area . We have a historical experience that leads everyone to believe this configuration works . PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO 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 CI-059 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 adequately 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 Preparer' s Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Kirk Sigel, Chairman Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE: Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency FILE A'\A DATE RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -33 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Timothy & Linda Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No . 18 . -5-14, May 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by Ronald Krantz , seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 , 080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor, at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14 , Residence District R - 15 , based upon the findings in the environmental assessment review completed by Town Staff included in the packet of information given to the board . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Stotz , Krantz , Niefer. NAYS : Sigel . The motion was declared to be carried . h ' WJ& 00 S ,2,< Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , � Cl(ljfd Town Clerk/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 21St day of May 2001 . CL Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILC0 � DATE . o RESOLUTION NO . 2001 -34 - Appeal of TimothV & Linda Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No. 18 . -5- 14, May 21 , 2001 . MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 1 , 080 square foot second story addition and 60 feet on the ground floor , at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14 , Residence District R- 15 based upon the following conditions : a . the addition be in conformance with the plans submitted ; and b , no construction occur until all required permits have been obtained . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Ellsworth , Stotz , Niefer. NAYS : Sigel , Krantz . The motion was declared to be carried . ra Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA : I , ��- Anc) Vd Town Clerk/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 21 st day of May 2001 , Town Clerk/Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca MAR- 19 - 2001 MON 02 : 07 PM FROM : TOWN OF ITHACA FAX : 6072731704 PAGE 3 Town Assigned Project 10 Number Town oft •lthoca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For U14LISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY ' PART I - PROJECI INFORMATION o be corn leted b A Ilcant or Project sponsor) 1 . Appllcantrspono r. 2. Project Hams; Tp M 14 i N I N / LrzeeNi E, i54` L451 A2.G►d1?L4T .jAi Al Ki N ADDITION 918 b • S IaO" ASZ1 V t 1 Precise location street address, road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc, or provide map); 91 S L , 514&fLit, t? l4vE:o 14560 Tax Parcel Number: I & 5vS 1 &4 r 4. Is proposed actin ; NEW? EXPANSION? X_ MODIFICATIOWALTERATION? s, Deecrlbe project briefly; (include project purpose, present land use, current and future consiruatlen plans, and other relevant Items): ADD11' UN � R�h►6Vd-t•ION► 'Co 79 5 • F. S � GO �p Seem "U �pl .oJYt' Aqp A 10 PNO PPR.GX � M � 11;I�Y 60 fof , ro "rN1r jLklstlNeq 1 .81 .5 450* , Firuor pn.orE -!Y SwAlt, coNr� I�IUL TG PSI: USED AS d 5i "6L$ FAMri�Y XL51DIbWC* J Attach separate sheets If nscessarV to adequately describe the proposed Project') 8. Amount of land affected : Initlally (0.6 yrs) < 1 Acres (6-10 yrs) 4L Acres (a 10 yrs) !4- 1 Acre's 7. How Is land zone f presently? Item I: SIOLL O-c, bL. (L - IS a. Will proposed ac on comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? 1f>=9 NC )L If not describe conflict bristly: A D Al T1 o M W t LL I1.?c?l6Nb O V " p 1t.-0 ptwtti—( u NL, 69 Will proposed ac on land to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO )0 Public Water? YES NO Public sewer? Y'83 No 10, What Is the pre nt land use In the vicinity of the proposed project? Resldantial Commercial Industrial T Agriculture PerWForest/Open Space other Please Deacrlbr. l 11 . Does proposed action Involve a permit, approval, or fundim now or ultimately from any other Governmental ea may (Federal, State, Local)? YES No X If yes, list agenry hame and parmitlappt•ovat/fuhding : 12e Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES x NO If yea, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether It will require moditteatlon. Ply Vto ✓S Arrn-ovpL� Fun_ DIP1FEtuA6NV Pr�owosat� TOWN MaJOLVeviom 2000 - '1Z 1 CERTIPYTHAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Appilcant/Sponso Name (Print or Type) : 5AVLJESr ptLC0alT& mob Signature * L/Ooo Date : Rev. 8/92 03 / 19 / 01 15 : 10 TX /R.X N0 . 4622 P . 003 wompra pur uagalrx all] ioj 6VZ sullrwllsa pur uollarulsuoD 'Sirliairw sulplina ssapuenrim nib .' subpe'luasoidai:`saariiuog))waiajjlp ion pa1ii1i1scins io wau A013 ;)#W . 0110 11ar»u03 siya 33irJu3 io 'iajlr aniVAi oa /Upogine Aur seq 'iallaS aye Aq �upijm ui pazuoLpne ssaluii 'iallas agaJo III;& ON •sapilruuoj awes• aqi pm . paanaaxa pur juawnaop amirdas C. A(I aprui aq 11VIS wawaai�.V sigi u► s;Aurya iff •juawazdV osiga Aq papasiadns Bair Aurd iagp `Aq apuw suoIquivasaidai Jo saiaueiirn� sluawaAV io►id 11r pur Aur `.saiurd aqa u;);)waq uopmsurii ailaua aqa quoj seas wawaai3d siy,L • u . . d ,(gaiaga paaaajjr a_q aou llrgs luaalaaj$d, atp Jo suoisinoid 3uiwrwai aye ` irunqui Aur Aq pilrnui, pairl:)ap sl luawaai y sr 7 A Aur aaurlrq piedun 31.11 »a[ IOD of is io w a )uadxa siunouwr a c ruosrai �(ur io nips at si wrai oarsaai r iasr� am a� J `�(awoaJr ur. io P . PI it � iIS l}�, «,�a I d I buagr uopalloa r jo saawas aga a5rVua oa paimbai s► ialISS nnrl ,(c papin id alri isaiaiui aye urtp iaj2it[ Iuana ou ui pur `wnuur iad %( ) jo sa2irga is _ alu of lgns aq lJrgs iumArd u► sArlaa • L 4 is a . . . - , . • 11 S °qi oa pird si ivaura2i3d siy ui yuoj gas sr aaud pnj agajqun iaseqjind aql oa ssrd io i' s a ''auia iE sigi of iurnsind plomaii aqa of ap!j :9 1p juawamidai 5upussaaau oaia i surd io aimmis a l w `r io T) fro aaa iadwi io ' auras sr iob o i lun aupiaia g q �P ' . p . . q ?l • q I . p p Ir aq aouura gaigti jo aauasai , age sit oa ib ` siasii sadid palraauoa jo uo►araolai aqa ` siaiAx PUP sainnol `salpi3 `scan s rqs im 'sadld I rb pur Juan `iairm 2unsixa . asnai .oi Ai! pgrw : 01 paJ►wiJ IOU air .anq apn1aui sapua ►off° t srq )ll a4 �1 �o� pird aq l[ib �oaiaga %( ) sn[d sasoa . lrn»r, aqa '`iallas . ' aqa Aq paarldwaauoa io ion papin id .iou � iob wiojiad asm.uagao jo ,s[ruaarw io iogrl gsiuinj oa pannbai. S1 iallas app pur osiir sal uiluo mP, s •Juana aql ul 0-axis qof aq1 1r punoj s pwa uuuoa uboujun io uappiq qa►b 5uidoa w p plua )suadxa Ix s od aqa apnpw aou saop u►aiag uodn paadr amid all 11q ) UooIsiapun' si a ` uoprllrasu► aqi wiojiad : oa si, iallaS aqi - auana aqa ul • ulaiaq quoj aas Allraylaads ssalun papinoid• aq of si �liom uo misuo� iayao io 3uprio� ip `2uiioob ` jrauiaala `�uigwnjd ` uoprllmsul QN S uosvx Aur ioj jasrgajnd. age Acl uoiar[[aaura 01 Palgns you si jpwaAV. s►ga . `aiojaizq .` ulajaq quoj ias s.ulaii, . asogl »ruasuoz) pur iapio " Asop oa ivaw;)AV siga 'jo uorjnaaxa uodn sdais `aaripafuuii saJea iallaS , ?Iij 1171.11 pur a in woasna ue adisa upads air a psa scan ' oid a i ar i s ucisia un iasr • �.ni x p I . q P P P � II . P q. P P g y P p y d f.L dI `. •lanpoid ay jo adraaai pur 1ian1lap aqa uodn iasrgaind aqj uodn, ;)q lJrgs ' uppDruisap io .a5rwrp o1 , , sr `ssol jo Nsu oq j xpeai uagb sIanpoad io ianj)oJd ' agi jo /ianilap idaaar oa saaiVr, iasrgaind aq j £ iogrl pur slruaarui jr;)A auo ioj si Aouriirb aqZ iasrganid 3y o� paianilap pur i iallas aqa Aq paAs uagb anpaajja awoaaq llrgs Aluriium aqL -(Aiddr saanpoid pasrgaind jo sanuriirb iacpo aixm idaaxa) pagsiuinj ivawdmba pur aainias aqi of Ajddr ergs fouriirb jo wioj pirpuris aqa, - Z . fi:. I # awnloA - l>; UM lT;arugaad, AJisnpul woonlirg put uagalrx OSZ •iau.no nlHuddoa aqt jo uoissiuuxl uanum loud aqi inoqum asiVait o io '8u!pio3w lu i6do�omgd 'jra!ueqxiw 'a!umunla 'sueaw hue - Aq io uuol hue ui •pan!wsuen io wands lewulaj a ui paiois 'paanpmdai aq dew uonwggnd slp ja ued ON suoi!uanuo,) ppuddco leuogewaiul pup upuamv.ued aql iapun pama j %144 IIV 'VgNN •(q 1661 lgS!AdO3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : alr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DIE Q : . . . :. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 4 JasrqDJnd. II . . . . . . . 4 . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . :paidaaav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;paidaaav Jasrgaand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . paldaaaV tj l+k � W I` q ` . Cr i I �wl r t�srtj din qi o# suoiiaJduloa �o uoprJJrisur `�( raniJap pairdiarlur naau app girm suolr �(rlap pins Job suos> aJ �uruir xa ,,a ►aot tcalllim `Alawq 3A llrgs JallaS aqi 'Jnaao op s�(rlap Juana aqi ul u! � .. I � 'JallaS all jo loJiuoa aqi Japun iouA?sU M)i Jagio Jo/pur `poO Jo sJar `AJanrlap Jo awp aqi it impoJd aili jo Aiijigrlirnr oanya'' sAupp- Ioi Jaafgns sr ' aaurwJojJad put ' airwixoaddr pawaap saJ1 oi paiiuJ►l u q pasn aq llrgs uanr3 tiagm sairp 3 qr aqi Jrtll spurisnpun JasrgaJnd aq,L . . . Aq paialduloa aq Ilrgs iarJiuoa sigi ui giroj Jas saainJas pur slrrJairtu aqJ lrgJ pur aq IJib ui aq of s► `amidoJdde j' `uoiirllrisui aqi gargb uodn oirp . agi Jo airy AJaniJap aqJ Jrgl sairdpnur JallaS aq.L ZI d. •uourraossv uo►irJi►qJv uraiJauid agl jo salnJ aqi Japun plaq aq llrgs uoiirJugJu aql •uoilarps►anl Juaiadwoa jo iJnoa hut ui paJaiva aq hrw panpuaJ pi-emr aqJ uodn 1uaOpnl pur . uoprJiigJr Aq palli3s n. o WoJj guiSll WiUl . o AslAOluoa panlosaJun Auv • llnj ui id asraJnd . aqi 1 .aq llrgs JrJJuoa sigi Japu , w . joi w ( g g jo JuauArd a� rui of amlrrj Joj asnra Jo uosraJ oq iou llrgs ivan. it u saaJSr JasrgaJnd . . aqi, sa�iiapid -AI snpur -lo' 6"Isna "glim . �i[waojuoa ' u► 'larJiuo3' s►gJ wJojJad ll►b ll Jrgi , saaa2r JallaS aqj, • II � alrsaJ uo A:)uaiayap iau hut Joi algril aq Jlrgs JasrgaJnd aqy •JasrgaJnd aqi Joj ivaSe jo Altardra aqi ui Jar 01 pawaap aq llrtJs JaiJaS all `JasrgaJnd aqi Aq JuaumaJBd sigi jo garaJq uo airsaJ hut Suilaa3Fa ul uorssassod s,aallaS at{i ul swau asogI llas of JasryoJnd aqi Aq ivawaaJ3d srgi jo garajq uodn iq$►J aqi sitirlaj aajlaS ay L 'Oi • f I r; , it A=7^t r i ..,* Elor �� � ',� � � •you a OU 2 ti. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA MONDAY, MAY 2144 2001 6 : 30 P . M. 1 ) Decision on Margaret Rumsey, 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road, 2) Appeal of David Schaffner, 401 Winthrop Drive. 3) Appeal of Significant Elements of Historic Ithaca, 855 Five Mile Drive. 4) Appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive. 5) Appeal of Frank Rogan, 823 Danby Road. Andrew S . Frost Director of Building and Zoning 2734 783 Dated: May 14, 2001 MAR- 19 - 2001 MON 02 : 07 PM FROM : TOWN OF ITHACA FAX : 6072731704 PAGE 2 TOWN OF ITHA CA FEE: $80000 215 North Tioga Street RECEIVED: Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 27347$3 CASH - APPEAL CHECK - q to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING: and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to% A D b Al 5.&4ra kha 19TO". A o yr4/ p K 1'o A N Lk16 Ti M ` 1%44Q — C.01w4 On-M% KJ & 5U % t 'V ) 1"eA at 1 $ II:. . 45 e ¢Ari DR1V1!: , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 8 S ' I as shown on the accompanying apj ilication and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of: Article(s) X I 1 Section(s) 5 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDEPSIGNEa,D respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal, affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca 2vning Board of Appeals or staff to enrEr my property to m I t in connection with my application. Signature of Own /Appellant: Signature of A llant/Agent: "'� Date: 3 LL c I Print Name Here: tLN I A Home Telephone Number. S34 ' 6 3 I I Work Telephone lumber: 27 S 3l 2 2 NOTE: If control c Lion of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will IM Your attendance at the meeting is advise& 03 / 19 / 01 15 : 10 TX /RX N0 . 4622 P . 002 ■ ERNIE BAYLES * ARC HITECT • DATE : March 23, 2041 TO : Andy Frost , Building Code and Zoning Enforcement Building /Zoning Department Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca , NY 14850 RE : 918 E . Shore Drive—Appeal for Zoning Variance Dear Mr. Frost , On behalf of Tim and Linda Hinkin , the Owners of 918 E . Shore Drive , I am submitting this letter and the enclosed materials in application for relief from the requirements of Section 54 of Article XII of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . The subject property is non-conforming in several ways : the lot size is too small , the percent coverage too great , and yard setbacks are not observed . In fact, the existing building overhangs the lot line in at least 2 places along its boundary with Cayuga Lake . The current Zoning Ordinance would essentially preclude the Owners from enlarging the existing building in any way . This presents an unnecessary hardship on the Owners as it precludes them from building additions and renovations that will enhance their enjoyment of their property and increase their property ' s value . Although a request for such a variance was granted in November of last year (Town of Ithaca Resolution 2000-72) subsequent design work has resulted in a somewhat different proposal . Hence this new application . The difference between that application and this is that the original application was for a second story addition of 884 square feet and this application if for an addition of 1080 square feet on the second floor and an addition of 60 square feet on the first floor. Please schedule us for the earliest possible hearing date . Thank you , � � Ernie A . Bayles Enclosures Cc : Tim and Linda Hinkin • 527 'A AURORA STREET ITHACA , NEW YORK 14850 PHONE : 607 - 275 - 3722 FAX : 607 - 277 - 1316 E - MAIL : CJB4 @CORNELL . EDU PART II — Environmental Assessment : Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Enlarge a Nonconforming Building 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_ Cl .' Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels existing traffic affic 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 , solid waste , or potential for erosion , drainage , or flooding as a result of the proposed action . The proposal is to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of 1080 square feet on the second story and 60 square feet on the first floor at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18 -5 - 14 . The building is nonconforming because the lot is not the required 15 ,000 square feet (only approximately 4792 square feet) , it exceeds the lot coverage and the existing building extends into the setbacks . The existing building extends beyond the property lines , over Cayuga Lake . The second story addition will include three bedrooms and two baths , creating a five bedroom house . The first floor is being reconfigured with the addition of space for the entry. The second story addition will be adding approximately 12 feet to the height of the house . C2 . Aesthetic , agriculture , archeological historic or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? None Anticipated . No agricultural , archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site . The house sits on a manmade point, sticking out from the rest of the shoreline . The only screening from the lake is one large tree on the western point . This tree will lessen the visual impact of the two-story house in that location , but the addition will be very visible from the lake once that tree is gone. The house to the south is a two-story building that sits back from the lake and the two houses immediately to the north are one- story structures . All three of the houses partially view the rear of the house and will clearly see the addition . While the addition of a second story will further block some view for these houses , the current house already blocks some views of the lake. Further to the north are other residences that are placed right at the water edge. This house and addition are visible from eastern end of Stewart Park, with the City of Ithaca . Given the nature of the proposed action , no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources or to community or neighborhood character are anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna fish shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? None Anticipated . The building addition will be keeping within the footprint of the existing building , except for the 60 +/- square foot first floor addition . No significant vegetation or wildlife habitats are known to exist on the site . 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 this site as "Suburban Residential ," and it is zoned Residence District R- 15 . 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 C 1 -05 ? None Anticipated . C7 Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? None Anticipated . D Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated . PART III — 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 Planner ,, Review Date : May 10, 2001 1 \ L c \ t \ 7 20 \ 1 i VAk c kLAGEOF :a e is C HEIGHTS ._��.__•_ I iaa �~ *HACA '1 1 1 1 / 4i 1111 { 1 f • i+;MOO \\ {I III II ,`' . Tk. as 2 11 . M a • {I 1 �I 1 ry ta c 1 t +• 1 1' a 11 < IM 1 I 4 ' It a 0 II 1 1 O , o►t& j74 + • U , I , I \ 1 111 1 ' I 1 ; ; 1 ' I II ilf P4 I �I i I I �1 2 , ' l l I11 I i • � • � + � � ; ; III, ,/ a I I I I 1 ,a i 1e I \ }�i?•:�Vw� 1 � � 1 1 1 I I I SPECIAL DISTRICT INFORMATION _ _ Saar,.. n.o car Sams Ooviu �--•� FnOtprim ` LEGEND Building --7 PrcelCoonector 43.1 Puoel Lot Number TOWN OFITHACA NNoprny Line r tr Previous Lot Number •. a ! '•:' Former Property Line ' ' Subdivision lot Number TOMPKINS COUNTY. N.Y. r - ✓ Hecial '�y j �' Current Yesr 3.6 Ac DcvdSuney Ac,.p v o so v.. .. . • Mmicl Dico;a /v Block Limit LI1 Ac C Computed Accap 1 •. 6 Munidpaliry n/ Exuma] Tax M+p ILSo AcO C�okpcd CroW) Acreage re o io ,. . or ;.r.i bTiGtary Tract/Wotldm & Rim La Number ID Block Number loos Scaled Dimemioo low Dw&&wvey Dimension NaN . i i EXI5TING: NO SECOND FLOOR pEowo j �MASiFR BORM NOVEMBER 8, 2000 AFFROVAL 884 SQFT ( NEW) 'eEOaaaAl NEW AREAS SHOWN " MARCH 233 2001 WITH COLORED HATCH llAMK APPLICATION N 5 PATTERN _ 1080 SQFT ( NEW) N ERNIE BAYLES, ARCHITECT NOTES: SCALE 527 112 NORTH AURORA STREET HINKIN HOUSE DATE: 05/11 /01 1/ 16" = 1 '- 0" ITHACA, NEWYORK, 14850 918 EAST SHORE DRIVE DRAWING NO 607-275-3722 CJB4 @CORNELL. EDU TOWN OF ITHACA, NY 2nd FLOOR PLANS Am 102 OATH MICE unurr I OATH MA9TERODRM GAB E — O Hui aasEr aosEr EMR KITCHEN LMNG EXI5TING 0 0 X11 OnrH MICE U➢p1Y MA5IER ODRM RAG 0NM GAE 0.DOEi — I O HALL a DSEr EMR( KTCHEN (MNG \ NOVEMBER 8, 2000 AFFROVAL NO NEW 5QFT - - - - - D umm EWR S.A .n'e . . . < OEDRDfAI - GnR'GE yry' onw mrn.a ��..,.5. Oi —II O aosEr � e. CIMET.+- I , II II I II II — DINING _ I KNCHEN A b — _ WHO MARCH 23, 2001 NEW AREAS SHOWN � II zs...� d WITH COLORED HATCH = APPLICATION PATTERN 60 5QFT ( NEW) I I — N / SCALE ERNIE BAYLES, ARCHITECT NOTES: 1/ 16" = 1 '- 0" 527 1 /2 NORTH AURORA STREET HINKIN HOUSE DATE: 05/11 /01 ITHACA, NEW YORK, 14850 918 EAST SHORE DRIVE DRAWING NO 607-275-3722 CJ84 @CORNELL. EDU TOWN OF ITHACA , NY 15t FLOOR PLAN5 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer; Sigel. NAYS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin ; Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 -5 - 14 , Residence District R - 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines , with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake , Timothy Hinkin , 210 Willard Way , stated they had put an offer in on the house at 918 East Shore Drive contingent on getting approval from a structural engineer that the house could support a second story addition . The structural engineer determined the structure could support the addition . The second contingency was authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the second story to be built . The house is a 1 bedroom house . It started to be built in 1935 . It has evolved over the years . They would like to make the house a year round home . There is one large bedroom downstairs and a small room that could be used as a bedroom . The small room is not adequate for use as a bedroom for a typical family . Mr. Hinkin stated he is a profession at the Cornell Hotel School . He spends a lot of time working at home . He has a home office in his current home . The small room would work great as an office . Most of their family and friends do not live in the area . They entertain company in their current home and would like to do so in their future home . Mr. Hinkin stated they plan to greatly improve the structure . The structural engineer felt the current roof is not adequate . It was suggested that they replace the roof . They do plan on putting on nice siding and architectural shingles . The property value will be increased . Hopefully it will upgrade the neighborhood as well . They have notified their neighbors of the appeal . He did hear from one of his neighbors who is present . The issue is if it infringes on the view . Mr. Hinkin is not aware of a Town Ordinance or zoning about buildings obstructing someone 's view . The proposed addition would be within height restrictions . The proposed addition does not obstruct the other building 's view . Mr. Frost stated he received a letter indicating the building is feasible of handling the addition . Chairperson Stotz stated part of the building is suspended over water . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED? - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Hinkin responded only a small portion of the addition would be over the water. They would be staying within the footprint for the addition over the main part of the house . Mr . Frost asked if Mr . Hinkin would be maintaining his home at Willard Way . Mr. Hinkin responded no . This would be a year round residence . Chairperson Stotz asked how many feet is being added to the height of the house from the existing roofline . Mr. Hinkin stated it would add 9 feet from the existing roofline . Mr. Sigel asked if there are any sections in the Zoning Ordinance regarding obstruction of views . Attorney Barney responded it is only to be considered in granting variances . Mr. Hinkin stated they have lived in Ithaca for 9 years . Their house on Willard Way was a bit of a wreck when they first bought it . The spent a lot of time and money restoring the house . This will be their ninth property refurbishment in the last 20 years . They are done very well and add value to the neighborhood . Attorney Barney stated Section 77 , Subdivision 7 ; Subparagraphs a-h need to be looked at by the board for their determination . Subparagraph d and f need to be considered carefully . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 39 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Michael Pinnisi , 920 East Shore Drive , stated he faxed a letter to the board expressing his concerns . He is speaking in opposition of the appeal . He is doing so with a great deal of unhappiness that he has to do so . The Haefeles are anxious to sell their property . He is happy that they have found a buyer. The Hinkins have put a lot of thought into the project . The plans for the property are very beautiful . It would be a nice piece of property . Mr. Pinnisi stated that his side does need to be considered . By doubling the height of the building they are diminishing his light and view of his property . As a result , the Haefeles ' proceeds on the sale are going to be obtained at least in part of his financial expense . The Hinkins' greater enjoyment of the parcel is going to be at the expense of a diminishment of his own enjoyment of his own property . Mr. Pinnisi stated he bought his property at 920 East Shore Drive when it was a wreck . He has put substantial money and a lot of effort into fixing up the property . He has done a complete interior and exterior renovation . He is now at risk of having his investments and efforts diminished by a non -conforming use . If this were a proper use of the property ; he would have no grounds to complain . The building extends out over its property line in the most intrusive way _ It extends out over Cayuga Lake . The reason for the setback requirements is to prevent encroachment upon ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED neighboring properties . It is problematic when talking about a precious resource like the lake . He explained a view of the lake is about all he has at the house . It is sandwiched in between terrible properties ; a highway and a railroad track . Mr. Pinnisi is trying to sell the house . The view is the major selling point . He stated he has a problem with the process that brought them before the board . He was given no notice of the fact that this was going to be happening with his property . The first he heard of the appeal was a letter he received from Mr. Frost , which gave the agenda for the hearing . The October 30`" notice that was published November 3`d arrived in his mailbox on Monday , November 6`" . He called Mr. Hinkin on Tuesday , November 7t" Mr. Pinnisi stated he has tried to be reasonable . If someone would like to improve their property at the expense of his property , then he should be compensated . Otherwise , he will be suffering a taking without just compensation . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has a Constitutional protection against it . If he were not going to get an accommodation , then he would ask the Zoning Board of Appeals enforce the zoning provision . The building is non -conforming . To allow an expansion of the non -conforming building would be to exacerbate exactly the kind of harm the Zoning Ordinance is designed to prevent . If there cannot be a reasonable accommodation , he would like the board to uphold the law . It is a non -conforming building and it does not meet the criteria to ignore the fact that it is non -conforming . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Pinnisi 's house was at the same elevation as Mr. Haefele 's house . Mr. Pinnisi stated his property is at a slightly higher elevation . His house is on the other side of the railroad tracks . It is higher by a couple of feet . The Haefele property is down a small embankment from the railroad tracks . He has the advantage of looking over the top of the property below from inside the house . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Pinnisi how long he had lived at 920 East Shore Drive . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has lived there since August of 1998 . He is going to be moving soon . Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Pinnisi feels a major attraction for his house is the view . Mr. Pinnisi stated the primary view from the house is up to the northwest . It is north of this property . He does have a view of the water that would not be affected by this project . The view from the bedroom and bath is directly west . The existing house dominates it . He can see around it to Stewart Park . Mr. Frost asked if he is looking over the roof of the house or is he seeing the house as well . Mr. Pinnisi stated he is seeing around their house and over their house . He is able to see West Hill and horizon over the top of the house . The major component of his view would not be taken away by the addition . He could still see to the north and south . It does not mean that this is not taking something away from him . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated he would be losing the view of West Hill over the top of the roof , which Mr. Pinnisi already sees . Mr. Pinnisi stated he would no longer have a continuous view across the horizon and the hill . he would have an interrupted view . Mr. Frost asked if it was the least desirable of all the views . Mr. Pinnisi responded yes . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Pinnisi 's house was too far away for sunlight to be blocked . Mr. Pinnisi responded yes . The loss of light is not the primary concern . He is concerned about having to look at the backside of the house instead of looking over the top of a ranch house . Chairperson Stotz asked if the improvements to the appearance of the house mitigate concerns . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not know what the plans are . When looking at the diagram , the back of the house is innocuous . It has vinyl siding that is in good shape . It has shrubbery . The house itself is not problematic . He has never had a complaint about the look or maintenance of the property . It would be improved somewhat . Mr. Ellsworth stated Mr. Pinnisi could still see the lake from another direction . Mr. Frost stated he is not losing the view of the lake . He is losing the view of West Hill . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Pinnisi if he had proof to show that his value would be affected . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has spoken to his realtor. The realtor feels that she is obliged to have to disclose this as a potential impediment to the property . He does not have concrete proof that it will impact the marketability . He could get an appraiser to give him an opinion . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the advertisement mentioned a beautiful view towards the northwest . Mr. Pinnisi stated it is not that specific . It does advertise the view . Mr. Ellsworth stated he still has a view . Mr. Pinnisi stated that his argument is not that it takes away the entire view . It is that takes away some of it . It takes it away in a way that is non -conforming with the Zoning Ordinance . He bought the house and improved the house with the expectation that the code would apply . He is now hearing that it may not . Mr. Ellsworth stated it would be hard to get a financial statement from someone . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Pinnisi stated it has been discussed a lot in New York City . The question is can you give a variance to let someone build an over height building to take away from the height of the building that is across the street . It has been held that taking away light , air and view is a diminishment to the value of the value of the property . There is not any of that authority in Ithaca , but the principle still applies . One of the best views in Ithaca is of the lake . Every little bit that he has he would like to hang onto . Mr. Frost stated it has been established that Mr. Pinnisi is not losing the view of the lake . Secondly , if there was more land around this building so it was not too close to property lines there would be nothing illegal about them having a two-story building . Mr. Pinnisi stated he should not say there would not be an impact on his view of the lake . He has not done the measurements . He does not know how tall the building would be . He does not know how wide it will be . He is guessing there would be some diminishment of the view to the very southern end of the lake where he can see Stewart Park . Stewart Park is quite beautiful to see from the eastern shore . Mr. Frost stated the addition is not going beyond the existing exterior walls . The only impact is the height above the existing walls . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not think of it as looking over the house to see the water. He thinks of it as looking over the house to see the broader view of the hillside . According to the diagram , the addition would block the view of West Hill . Attorney Barney stated the diagram is a different elevation than what Mr. Pinnisi 's house . Mr. Pinnisi 's house is at a higher elevation . Mr. Pinnisi stated the picture was taken from the driveway next to his house . Mr. Frost stated if this was a vacant lot , they would have the right to build a house as long as they were able to meet setback requirements . Mr. Ellsworth stated it would be hard to get a realtor to give a statement on how much the selling price would be decreased . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not know if a realtor would be comfortable quantifying how much money it is going to be . He would not have difficulty to have a realtor say it is reduced somewhat . Mr. Frost stated if the property to north improved their property ; it would increase the value of Mr. Pinnisi 's property . Mr. Pinnisi stated it is a question in what manner . If the property were improved by putting up a 20 foot wall along the property facing his property it would not help . If the property were to be renovated on its existing footprint it would help . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that while there might be some loss , there is also a gain . There is a balance . Mr . Pinnisi stated he is not comfortable about which way the balance is going to tip . It is a gamble . He is going to break even or lose . Mr. Sigel stated he is sympathetic to Mr. Pinnisi 's point of view . The existing house appears to be a modest structure in the general view of the lake . The lot it is on is extremely small . The house does not fit on the lot . It is the most extreme case of non -conformancy the board has seen . From Mr. Pinnisi 's point of view , it is reasonable for him to expect that the law be applied very stringently to the lot because of the extreme nature of the non -conformancy and the direct impact on his property . Chairperson Stotz stated if the board decided the applicant could not put an addition on the house because it is non - conforming and blocks someone 's view , it raises many issues about the entire lakefront . People are forever modifying their property to some extent . Mr. Sigel stated he does not agree there is no degree of non -conformancy . He would argue if there were a house 1 foot into a 15 foot setback with no one directly behind them to block the view , going up another story is a modest proposal . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there a many non -conforming lots along the lake . Mr. Frost stated there are some lots that are non -conforming . The board is trying to measure what degree of loss is suffered . He has looked at the property description on the tax map . It includes a file photograph dated July 31 , 2000 . There is a tree that basically obliterates the view over the house . The board is trying to balance the loss from construction . The picture from July shows that you cannot see anything over the roof of the house other than the tree . Mr. Pinnisi stated he did not have the time to take photographs and get an appraiser to indicate a loss . He did not get legal notice of the hearing as he was supposed to get . He can provide the information if need be . Mr. Frost stated he received legal notice . It is not a requirement that the neighbors be notified . The Town does it as a courtesy . It is given to adjoining property owners . The notice served its purpose . Attorney Barney stated the legal notice is that a notice needs to be published 5 days in advance in the Ithaca Journal , Mr. Pinnisi stated he could get some photographs if it would be helpful to the board , He does not know if it is the proper course to be deciding some level of loss that he has to absorb so that someone can increase an already non -conforming use . It is not his understanding of how the process operates . He knows that he is losing something and he does not like the way in which it is being done . He is looking for some protection . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Sigel is saying that this is such a severe case of non - conformancy that a second story should not be allowed . If there is another case that is not quite as severe , how do you make the definition ? What is the breaking point ? Mr. Sigel stated it is the job of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated the board is here to make a determination in accordance with the standards in the Ordinances to whether this is a situation that permits a deviation . Chairperson Stotz stated it is not based upon the degree of non -conformancy . It is based upon other factors such as view , compatibility with surrounding buildings . Mr. Sigel stated there was a case a few years ago where someone had a house along the lake that was over the property line . They owned the adjoining property . They wanted to go further. The board did not get to the point of denying it because the applicant got the impression it was going to be denied . They came back with a different plan . Mr. Frost stated the board also needs to look at what aspects of non -confomancy are involved . If the building was already exceeding the height or what was proposed would exceed the height then it would be exacerbating something that is non -conforming . In this case it is an area that is deficient . If the lot is made a legal size lot , what they are proposing still has the same affect on the adjoining property , but there would not be anything illegal . Attorney Barney stated if the owner had more land they could build out and not up . Mr. Pinnisi stated he was asked previously if there would be any objection to there being a two- story building there if it were conforming . He had said no , but actually the answer is yes . This building does not meet the minimum lot size requirements . If they were to seek a building permit , they could not build anything on the site . It would be vacant land . He would be able to look at the water. Attorney Barney stated the Ordinance permits anyone to build on any lot , a single-family house , even if it is a non -conforming lot as long as they meet the side yard setback requirements . Mr. Pinnisi stated the building is there because it is grandfathered . If it met the setback requirements he would have plenty of view . Mr. Frost stated it would also give them an alternative to build sideways rather than upwards . Mr. Krantz stated one of the things that help the board to make its decision is a public hearing . Lee Haefele , 55 Larue Road , Spencer, stated he is the owner of the property at this point in time . The lot is not very small . There is between 110 and 140 feet of lake frontage . Many of the neighbors are on 25 foot lots . He does have a hardship . The house has been in the multiple listing system for 2 . 5 years . It has had several buyers fall through , including Mr. Pinnisi . It does not want to be of a size and shape people want to buy as it is . The remodeling is an excellent idea . It improves ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the neighborhood . He does not see a problem with the view . There is no valuable view between the roof and the tree . He finds the request for compensation by Mr . Pinnisi ludicrous . Mr. Pinnisi has , been compensated . He does not have access to the south side of his property without crossing Mr . Haefele 's property . Mr. Pinnisi has been doing so since he owned it . Mr. Haefele stated he takes hard feeling on Mr. Pinnisi coming before the board with the idea that he has had free use of the property for parking and access . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the other potential buyers fell through because they were unable to get a loan . Mr . Haefele stated there has been a number of people interested . There have been various reasons why it has not been sold . Mr. Haefele stated he feels that Lake Source Cooling had a lot to do with it . The street was dug up and negative press carries a long ways . Mr. Haefele stated they left the house because it was too small . His thought was to remodel it with an upstairs addition . Mr. Sigel asked when Mr . Haefele purchased the house . Mr. Haefele responded they purchased the house in 1994 . Attorney Barney asked if his office represented the Haefeles when they bought the property . Mr. Haefele stated Mr. Marcus represented them . Attorney Barney stated he needs to disclose that his office represented them during the closing of the property . Mr. Haefele stated the potential buyers have an excellent plan . It will improve the neighborhood . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 13 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith stated there is a small impact from the lake . A two - story house would be seen . Once the tree is removed it will be an obvious two -story house . There has been a concern on the other side of the lake over two-story buildings and larger structures . The opposite side of the lake is heavily wooded and the homes are not as noticeable . Chairperson Stotz stated there are no adverse impacts . Mr. Smith stated there is nothing significant . Mr. Niefer asked if the tree would be removed during construction . Mr . Hinkin stated they will have it looked at before construction . It has lifted up the surrounding are and patio . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 70 = ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-544, November 8, 2000. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Hinkin stated he did everything they were supposed to do regarding notification . They did not try to get this pass the neighbors . They have had a structural engineer and building inspector out to the site . Chairperson Stotz asked how does the applicant envision dealing with the bottom of the house when they put the second story on . Would the addition have cedar shingles ? Mr. Hinkin stated it would be cedar siding . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the tree is removed , would the view of Mr. Pinnisi be increased . Mr . Frost stated this time of year views are increased because leaves off the trees . Mr. Pinnisi should see more light . It would be hard to measure . The tree is higher than the proposed second story . Mr. Ellsworth stated there should be more with the submittal . Mr. Frost stated there would be more light and a better view without the tree . Chairperson Stotz stated it is a 9 foot addition . It is not a huge multi -story building . He does not see it as unreasonable . Other views are not being blocked . Mr. Ellsworth stated he is unable to tell the distance between the 2 houses on the site plan . Mr. Hinkin stated it is about 80 feet away . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Smith stated if they were to add 9 feet on each house along the lake it would make a different impression form the lake view . Attorney Barney asked if any part of the addition would be going over any part of the building that over hangs the lake . Mr. Hinkin stated the far west corner would be over the lake . The roof over hangs it now . They have spoken with DEC . The corner is going to have to be re -enforced . It can be done with beams or posts in the lake . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would have to get any approval . Mr . Hinkin stated they would need to get approval from The Department of Environmental Conservation . They would not need to get approval for the beams , but they would for the posts . Mr . Frost stated the Town has flood plane regulations , but going above something existing is not going to impact the flood characteristics . Attorney Barney asked if the second story in a way that it would comply with side yard setback requirements . Mr. Hinkin stated they are staying within the existing footprint . There is a flat roof on the room to the north . Mr. Sigel stated he finds it objectionable that the addition would be extending over the property line . The board did have a case on Forest Home Drive where they wanted to go over the property line . It was a similar issue of view of Fall Creek . Mr. Frost stated the buildings were about 20 feet apart . Chairperson Stotz stated the blockage of view was considerably greater. The addition is not out of character with that side of the lake . There are many two -story buildings . Mr. Ellsworth stated the lot sizes much smaller. Mr. Sigel stated the board needs to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment of the character of the neighborhood . The blockage of the view is a detriment the neighbor. Chairperson Stotz stated he does think there would be some blockage of the view . It is a question of how much . He feels it is minimal . Mr . Niefer stated it is not a water view blockage . RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 71 - ENLARGE NONCONFORMING BUILDING - Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, November 8, 2000. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED MOTION made by Kirk Sigel; seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board deny the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings: a . That the addition is inconsistent with the neighborhood in that it creates an adverse affect on neighboring buildings from a view standpoint; b. That it involves construction off the property boundary lines. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Krantz, Sigel. NAYS: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. The motion was defeated. RESOLUTION NO 2000- 72 - ENLARGE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING - Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-544, November 8, 20000 MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. . RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings: a . That while the building does change the character of the neighborhood. the degree to which it is changed is insignificant, b. That while it does block the view of at least one neighbor, the blockage of the view is relatively insignificant, C, The property is built on an existing footprint; and is not enlarged further beyond the footprint. d. The affected adjacent property is at a higher grade and located at least 66 feet from the property at Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, e. There has been no evidence presented of any monetary decrease in value to the neighboring home due to the proposed construction . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer, NAYS: Krantz, Sigel. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS : Chairperson Stotz asked what is the status on the Eddy Lawsuit . Attorney Barney stated they made a motion to dismiss . It was argued and they are awaiting the decision . It is a technical defense . When they initially served the papers they did not give the return date . They subsequently supplied . They supplied it after the Statue of Limitations period . It might be sufficient to get it dismissed . The judge has discretion to extend the time to serve the notice . Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Sigel and himself attended the Planning Federation Conference . It was very informative . There was a solid day of Zoning Board of Appeals issues . Mr. Sigel stated he enjoyed seeing what happens at the Planning Board level before it comes to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Stotz stated there was a big discussion about special approval and the designation of special approvals of the bodies that can make special approvals . It was discussed if the Town Board retains it for themselves , or if they delegate it to the Planning Board . It was rare that it be at the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated it always used to be with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a trend moving it to the Planning Board . Mr. Smith stated Mr. Ellsworth , Mr . Sigel and himself attended the SEQR training . The Planning Departments sends a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals chair when they are an involved agency in a Type I action . It is asking if it is okay that the Planning Board be the lead agency . If there is no response within 30 days , the Planning Board assumes lead agency . Mr. Smith asked if each board member would like to receive the information . It would still need to be one response . Mr. Sigel stated the board receives notice of the Planning Board agenda . It includes notification of SEQR hearings . Attorney Barney stated the notice could be sent to each member . Mr. Frost stated at the December meeting the board would need to set a meeting schedule for 2001 . Does the board want to change the day of the meeting ? Mr. Sigel stated the board could meet the second to last Monday of every month . TONVN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTi,CE OF PUBLIC HEAI:;iNGS WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER 8, 2000 7 : 00 P. M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, November 8 , 2000 , in Town Hall , 215 North 'fioga Street, Aurora Street Entrance ( parking lot side), Ithaca , N . Y . , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P . M . ; on the following matters : APPEAL of G . D . Blanpied , Appellant, Margaret C . Robbie; Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 1V, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 + acres in area , with a lot width of 31 + feet at the street line and 31 + feet at the maximum front yard setback line, located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56 - 3 -25 (next to 1586 Slaterville Road ), Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL_ of David Axenfeld ; Appellant , George Gesslein , Agent, requesting a variance from Article VIII ,' Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road . Town of Ithaca 'l ax Parcel No . 33 -3 -2 . 7; Light Industrial District . Said District does not permit a land use of retail businesses . A special approval under Article aiL Section 54 of said Ordinance might also be requested ; since the property was originally developed and used for retail businesses . APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman , Appellants, Susan Cosentini , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 1V , Section 1 I . Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be pennitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of 20 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation) located at 203 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures . APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XI1 , Section 54 of the Town of ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 5-- 14 , Residence District R - 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake . 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 hearmo 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 . f=rost Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : October 30 , 2000 Published : November 3 , 2000 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $ 100.00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273- 1783 CASH - SPECIAL APPROVAL CHECK - �, to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING: and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been inforined that authorization is required to : add a second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Ithaca , NY Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 - 5 - 14 as shown on she accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to : Article(s) X II , Section(s) 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED •-espectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization. (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary. ) SEE ATTACHMENT " A " 3y filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my ,property to inspect in connection with my application. Signature of Owner/ pedant Date: / o / //(5t� Signature of A pellant'/Agent : x z Clzz, ��"� Date: is % l �oo Print Name Here: I D ?-H 141 n// , 1 nJ t ,q SI „� {� 1 ,) dome Telephone Number: 273 - 3254 Work Telephone Number: 255 - 2938 NIOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months, the approval will apqrg, ATTACHMENT " A " Special approval is requested to build a second story addition to a property that has been used primarily as a vacation home. In the current configuration of the home, there is only one adequately sized bedroom , which makes the house unsuitable as a primary residence for a family or for hosting guests . This addition would remain within the current foundation footprint of the existing home and add approximately 884 square feet to the current square footage of 1 ,328 . The new space would be divided between a master bedroom and bathroom suite and a second upstairs bedroom and bathroom as shown in the attached floor plans A , C and D . This addition would provide for the current downstairs master bedroom and bathroom to be used as private guest bedroom space and the extremely small (75 square feet) second downstairs bedroom to be used as office space. Modifying what is essentially a one bedroom home into a three bedroom home we feel will increase the property ' s value, which should have a beneficial effect on the neighborhood . City water and sewer service the home so the addition would not cause any negative environmental impact . A licensed structural engineer will inspect the home to determine the structural and economic viability of the addition . The results of that inspection will be available by the next zoning board hearing date. The purchase of this home by the appellants , Tim and Linda Hinkin , is contingent upon the granting of this zoning request due to the inadequacy of the downstairs bedroom space. Basically a one bedroom house bedroom 7X9 with closet space that intrudes on that footprint. This space would be adequate for a home office, essential to my job as a professor Could not currently accommodate a typical family Ail of our family, and many of our friends live in other states — when they visit, they stay for extended periods of time with us . An adequate I " floor guest bedroom is essential to accommodate elderly parents and other guests. The addition would be a structural and aesthetic improvement to the property , including all new exterior siding and roofing' (which currently isn ' t structurally adequate for snow load . ) This is would improve the neighborhood value and increase assessment for taxes . {! U + l77 C✓� !v�'JGN JL�G J -�. 0 ^ � %'qL .i No zoning or ordinance preventing obstructing view - Within heio. ht restrictions �•� C��''` �'� S Does not obstruct vie \V of lake / L re / 7 - � 3 W o � 3 0 cn W C) o CD 0 1 � � m CD Q , 00 t✓ T� I W rT� J 0 0 1 • (� R v1 t f ¢ �� � •y rLtir. 'Ti r.a, i-T•e r n s .x �� s. ,�5.7F ,� < � R �a 41 1 i• t 5 .V L G • `.� x♦ � .d•�.s °• j+� G 3- inn�. • sHr,tivM1y;► t,i•ba � •�� - r.:kiVyY • !) ' f aP r a ,-zL a ail t a� �+:t a,� � •D'•' ,�L _ ���LG,G a5x .y„ ' t-rir '� .at•t`.F t . - rte 1rCta ri •Js r'.�lt s - w. ,�d �rt r' YZ•►+�► , �}' ♦, , . t fit; ar , �tf�. t�}.o .�.f1 s \k� �� - - ¢ i� irjt r.>F r� '�• c r�i. 1Li .� ti r ° . • r- F — , y ,fiy+` `�! ry P►i- t d f F'nr /'�.S` Fs(a� si •4 �J 5 .��s 1ri r (- �? 1 � �.�a.t)a •����«- ��L�Z�l�Ti{ �'yJc„L. ;�Cdtf�r3.� il{ �� Gas`(a`trV's�t ; L�.! • ws rrr OIL Sim 1 ♦" v, i, v' t•• r! 3 ti-' ai T ,ot A I' f `LV ei 4 . •.2.�'r`r'�+5►-+�'garar � tNF ''� •31•Y � ,I <pd a. J5< .rT 5 a y P � t�S��� , L � .v 4 ~ f ° • rF ; r "r�p� • .a.l 'r � -a ,J ^iR A ^L}atd t • 'Y � Kf" ' .. :, `'>i•�a 'j•n. r r �17a Jj ` gr ,ii�''c,;t Oet : � � 'i..� s . •� •r.�r'-G:=.i.ad4+ �` 'j ,ror�Y-;y7�� 4�.a�v4Y ro..y .+•,x Lzsi �=t`�.v�' -n�r�'a}tf'}`i«�Kg=�E , • '17 � 1,0.., ak. t'S= J,••. .�xLG � _ ' !ati?''!.�,� _l�r..•wyrsyw+R� r'sl< 'ter. r. :: t.���'3:tii {•=•�.a♦b.�y�. �'JwRG'•a+''V6cv_ b'hCr�'Y�eil'�. •:. }' ij-� 'Y�`�••�aYrSa ,a= : To:.. �a!iQ�a`�Ljl�•AI �rl;.rfis rrL,Cr •pI � .wik �.�; r "t is - .w• - 'L-Y+i• v'{_P� ♦. ♦ C`•1. .1:•R•a• a ' �1 ,. a.'� `r"ash i a.; +. r' T . y> >< �... .•J 4 ...Pi'^ ati Gyv ��+Ywi 7♦,•'•r4 . �h' �J+V�.-i�^C'1 °aC �+'Yt.1•r � �L L' F . • ♦wy f .+vr4 '� �� tl�tct. . ik-a'Las ►` �►xar. .) f 2•tt:' Alf -^ ��, +t�.5j� � .w�T� �. Y•.r.. aa�rw .mot '"q� ."�°` L• - v',5 F TVY x tr 73ra A } M r .i rp u tmf .w iy � .. > ., ,f.._.,_ � i %,Y v i c - [ •,r �Sel,r'• .++. ",e .. r •Y t � '� Y�� i F r �' ) ,.x . 3 t. L rav 1✓�; S� '} s"�C�''' - f� 1 r , v:,..a �' T .. 41Jty: ! ! .R-.) .t ti � 'r. t"'f � i ....• Tr [ r- a a . r� . •>,,,♦ . . • s t s.'7 'L A. ^• + Y°••'� 1 . ti �.�i-S f"f.' �-tae3.� e::a f ��� a ��,,r+ aatt •raT rl y !• III � , ya . f tr +a r -•. s •..t• �t. 1 "tas r -'_ i '�?i,�r•• gut *l ' Ga 'haa : .. � '•. leS n c :2r D e t ,, fir , t i. 2 jF .tES�i r. - .r•.�.- y. v ,r eft.: y�' J'r typ��S • i•O�`i. •v7�+ii1�' - ���rva�v.tLYii..tisrS�a+«a .. ^ ;�,• S f '�ro - . �' {,, )w�•l-�.ti # • • OL8 _ w�ct t�" b�� ��Y a '•!A.{ . •t.v.iL �dE r.'fit �}••J r v, s k' al' : t fir: •t a _ }' 7 JA► ,:M'L > 'H. s 1 R t =✓'`. a 3 • "l is it ,A• Y y _ GN ± e .t.ie J� ;�. * r ft P•.MOf O h • M • yti `F } +} y y n °^•.+� s•.iiipf�ili"� =Mr `} w 7. . f G l •t V d r v �y }� . ) }f 4 :r i P •' 1° a 74 + tr rj�•r `.-ir .`l. M2 r Y •'M7{''T•� 'Z - n y . V t4,7 2,i w1 T:,a� .4 7J { Ll �. r, y r.. �a[ rvy rKJ y. •<' y �. -''t �1 fy • x a iryak a M a [ f Il l r,,• b , i + .Y+ •�ay�.a h� a � L • S•�- F.,l - t '2 � w� �✓y f - � r . ?'a. � 1� p � � Si t1 a TrS 1 S K�v, Ji Yif r .. 1, • .:°Y.7,✓ ♦." •. t > 3t 4j f 1 4 ♦• 'C y 1 *G-. ' •. t r Z . ,. tt : q, �� w t t > .t ti ♦ .aa +<• �• . 0 f 1' h rr ( ♦ r Jq •� a {- � Z 1 C a +i 4 `�` 1S .I} t.y ' r. ( . .hk r. r tt _ 2,�'ear+,� r P - 5 a /r y � a r ••' s• S ,J v ' i7triry 1� 1-•o- {. r'* t v l; \ r; Ca k w ')fy' Y f i' Z a.•5- q - { S pp� • J r t. , \ wf Y Y � \ ; t f (� ; •M � 1 � t IG,t ( . r a0 E I ; wl7 ! h ,rY t • ♦ I a} . roe . f P ,frt A ✓, 5� 4 -' f ° y : ii ♦ �4 . l .Y,y Ii , �.1. < Y •1. e a{f . IJ l �' ' x4� �, � rZ' T +(RC, � 1 ` • .G ) R y 1.a {\. T � t 'Y {,1 .. y4 y t4 � / i r' . ...i Y a ti` ]� d ! 't .� v 5 t P I r. � . �<M\ ., 7 w ♦ e1 . s • �v w R , r �•r a i , r a. r. . x fl r `+ 'Cxw tj a sr+, .: �.t v G rv.3 'Jv L w 1. �R 1 i r r J s LI 4 ♦`^ 5 dR y. Jvt i , �>Ld t t... .7 a. 1 v � �'LT�.� r' 1 •. +ia 5. f a : 'w C \{�. ., .. t ti r i6 1 . }a •'{' 1 3 '•.+,< fhaF •�'j►�.R �+ �" e� �i avrr. .p•5. t.� ^r z.F ' r 4 i -r - r Y 5 ofk rr tyM a♦ ,� - Si .f •I .� ` �},'•%R!'•�. •s�✓ •)✓3 a . •L m ~r ���.�'' ,. s Rff � �i�+« •V �+� -s uw.fw.a s► L ,.. •• v � Y wC•a '�• '�� ?` ; z � l^.-5 .�r u �, f •>dw to �aC:f � �'y j$ +�a y` i•�,. ��-er V�� y, v. Y `. .y� .� vfy./ 'fv < 5 �• �� �� u 'Y� - �� 4.y l x Y f t ✓. y a5 ♦sf .w-� a`� , . 4 i ♦ r 3 1 ) IA. i1 nk J� !.ati : ` 1 < 1 vY r 1 a. Z FR \}! }A \ Y.'. + f c � 4. 5• Tit 4 4 f a �,. .v t •Nt.•? �t+ ` '•- 'Y,,l'�,o! . nmOv, ht , i .r t fa ' Jy •tea .•C � . , ✓ t •y i r. ✓ L ' • t + � y i C L �.• t .ati Ji ti, l� �v. k r "'` 1 -v.'.a 1 Fi a:`b4 f ) > I+.ti 4 aY�L� Y }A z t ♦ � a ;.+v , .� • S� a �.. 41 - r • �� a / ./. . ♦ -t`Y•+ 1 a. c },r , r f y�, x ra• t `V .+ 513aL'a- ' •r y 4 r y <,t'C _ ♦ 1't'a r 'v ti �P.P , ^-. 1 ua -. u w - 1 ' r r. r �,� r° i4 ,, ♦ f f , e t ,,,-i' Ri. T4,.J • s •Ni :�+ r.4.,1 ,-^ ^ ti � r 1 .,r Rt7 rp yYt ♦ , v- i r - T . e~ .sC l hi' yx . r� Frf t y la j. ��{yeY �at 1 �w••i,s r.r r'aR. �: • t + K • �'JV Vi / 1 . 4tj to • y `S , �' Sry rSTY IyY y t �Cl ( �h yr� ft f f � X1-. ♦ . ' \. •' c tvt . � a. t„a, y i S a 9r Tr , etr � l't .rs� Y 4 r ♦ r y� .. GGG+��,yl T�R a "`{ yam <.: y; t • � 7 1 s J ♦ v y is .• � L r .a ! � R !.a -f r ! K\ y ✓ �tA J ot1 •{ ri rY4+ .. . .. y t, r3 .x • r t '>' f f .. f r} f its ( •. - . 5�. �„at"i7 . i a ' Y rFt x .:^ vl' t A r V 1 1 :. . . " • .... .. . . ,. . ' k5.. . .,d :.,Y "�' r �. a a. •mt .. .r ,. t i y ) Giti . c r . . a„ r n . .. •: \ ` } ,Yw Ir „ .` -. . R. 1 .. .y. . w. 111 � � • • b ' D . r r Di DO / D \ - r D :1f7 Z a t .- j •, 17 f.. r . A will OWLG . O CUPANCY MAJOR AREA HGT . R CHARACTER GRADE ACj _ PH . DPR . _ SiNGLE MULTI- j( l 1 . 3 2 B A 6LK . FR BRK . STN . .( � % FAMILY FAMILY , J � � FOUNDATION WALLS v PIERS STH . B BLK . BASEMENT AREA i NO 1 / 4 1 / 2 3 / 4 i . EXTERIOR WALLS SIDING ON SHEATHING 1 1 SINGLE SIDING - 1 - .. . . . . _, ` - .i _ _ • /^ SHINGLES , 00 u/ • A� '1 STUCCO ON FR . BLK . f C BRICK VEN SOL _ _ . . ST . L / F .. � -- - -� - - 1 ' STONE VENEER ' _ • ST L / F I t SIMUL . STN . VENEER PT ' D UNPT ' D BLOCK . . _ - . 'rf� � / .- •. METAL � � LK ` SHED DORMERS ], q _ . _ . . _ . . - � . TOTAL L / F I ROOF TYPE -_._. . '.- . _._ _ , . •� { ._ , . .. I ._ . _ ._ I MANSARD HIP 1 - - - -� - GAMBREL FLAT ROOF MATERIAL ASBESTOS SHINGLES o ' / 1� ASPHALT SHINGLES J} WOOD SHINGLES Jam''}� .. \ l ✓ \ � BUILT- UP COMP . . ^ J . - • � METAL ROLL ZC .) I SLATE TILE 1 INSULATION nnnF Z cLC .. ur Ja L_ MAIN BUILDING I 2 3 _ KITCHEN POOR AVERAGE GQ0D ' �) BATHS /' 1 ) . 5 2 2 - 5 POOR ERA GOOD INT. CONDITION POOR AVERAGE GOOD EXT. CONDITION POOR AVERAGE HOUSE SUITED TO LOT POORER SAME I BETTER PORCH ( S ) COMPLIMEN NO �XES ` I , RANCH R . RANCH 3 . SPLIT - LEV. 4 . CAPE COD 5 . COLONIAL 6 . CONTEMP. 7 . MANSION 8 . OLD STYLE W 9 . MODULAR IO . BUNGALOW 11 . MOBILE 12 . 2S MODERN _ - 1- 13 . 14 . 15 . 116 . OTHER BEDROOA", S 12 3 45 TOTAL RMS . ' 1 2 34 5678 9 " ) ' Z 7C to ID I < �' o � 3 n 0 o x Z FTT TYPE � p O y A C -i -i -i n • : I o O O rO Z n (n 2 ; C n n O r Z = = M O O N N D D C v Z Z Z ��. i- DO — O co n CA N A �pp O O p O _ _ . : . : _. �• i CD p Z Z N .0 Z l,1 Ln D m > � z Z if- � , n m o f � CID 1 to Z o O O O O _ O t O D T O x 0 0 0 0 `^. . . ' x 1 tD Z r m A ;o M X Z m D D D < < < ,<! <. V m x cn N m m m m iC x > i N m N m A to W - r m G7 G7 G7 � - - . � � � .. Z ; o �V p (7 l m m m D rn 03 0 mm o m �qq h0 O O W . Cl o O O (�' R Z M O V , . O J r ' S+ [Ifn CIA rte. ® -• -D z a m o s s o a O r- Z ti ni > c 0 9 ° ; z -1 ? t Ol C z ^ ^ a o m I 1 y o z rn x c u D v. r m m n rrr n x > m u u+ T 7 b 1 O ea•. s z r x i u b < u, a o u 1 _ m ^ O Z a x < o O r o u z b b T O r O -� - z z a` i o x a a z Z y N a m m b m r r r n O r z a > r m r u R S > x m O Zb N n T z A o s 0 n r u m Z { > 0> y s c � x T r H a D r i N . ) a o o c f o r _ b b z n > n b > n � 4 T r a T C z s s z > - o D I o c 1 O V m r r _ 3: X Z ^� x z T 0 a m y � y � n = x n z 9 f - r r x -1 r _. O n r o o m y 0 = x r ^ y x > I y m m N < z r m > m m E !. 0 o D u n m o z D JJ m x T > _ x D O> P m �'. O O -. O x m > m 0 < n ; - t f r Z x a O r o O n - - n u u x x 0 > x n a y Z > aI u n r _ r m r m m i < •< \ \ c rn PI n n w o O n N N n = £ o u > y. N N N N Z O Z N N M w w x (n b - > m -1 > b N n + > { w w m m w () { > ^ > Z x T T En y b 1 N > O n n b S N n x b �1 n O D £ w > z G m p ti O x m ! N n 2 a a s a 0 ti o ± S 0 _ ; m m o t . . o o ! � ° r n z0 r o o m x ; n ; n < A n r x > 0 F O ^ 6 y N w V x < f T ' r C)> .r A s C Z m D m S^ y > > -� nC an 0 >T n lo., n ^ o ? x Z N E v z a > O - n - r n > r x z z Z ^ ^ < Ic r r n I- m C na _ z C b r { 3 n p 1 m n n 0 n O D O m S z y 0 O IF. S N y — n n to D ♦ -i c c c m n TO SXCTCH n RErER D Si RUCTURA DAARTEA A rOR m x T O D r;n > < D u 0 u l m y = o RR7Wi PORCH INS a n 0 ; rxr n ; y m r x T x r a n n O �� \ _� w A y m m N y m m b 1 m m b b 0 < S m n b r b r 2 f l r ^ o n. £ D i \��� , z z r. A m -O < D r y < > r 'a - N r -' O .. m z < -� O D m f ! > > o r \\•\, ` O v b O O v N O O z p• O < r m > O +a \ ` N O < n m m n x m m n K �, n n x 2 A N Cl y z C { D r I2 O N x I D r T > ? m n D n m ? Ia m m D x D j = m ; n c p _ x x O r u I IN IN lu I O I I :.tissvesattor,., of Professional Land Surveyors ; and that 1 found no �ccire . ` � " �� al _ 7 , GY131ble encroachments either way across property lines except: = a c 4 , . eT VVil fall :s _ I = = : I . . 4P 111M ►� AG ►� � rIG Ii7G ,,! . MO ION UH0 1..101- F_ TLLIALIGU <_ AR ApEA 61JI1_T W `.+ �'. AI� U DIeE 9 BY EDWAED 5PIQ1(G6 Y 1 V)L) Q 1.IG IIIS I I I� ETI1gE " �� 'SO/ '�88�. . SI' QIGG DIL" D Z8 / 193Z DIKED - ' . A ? F_ A AL � o '541o44N ON CQANOALL ' 1 \ �1,4- t2 '� ANO FART of DEED -703 . TAky MAP PAQCEL Ns • ° RSA = :L9gti S FT NOTE : THIS PROPER.T `( 4lOW lIJ Tt1E TOWIJ CAYI, � of lTl-14Cq � �E� •• /ao�� t- �.�y L A )� E .� O`JV-`' r / -y - - - ..t� 0 J r llc1jE V � V �~ U r ' j v� aTi E Y ovi� HgN6s ? i o' F 1 ] Tr WALL Z Jo P 8 .> ' e � \ I � C3 ��-�f �1J / �11o� Etir / t'1Ff. l� �US cf - ., „ • t) g . .� �O , •, -Y ; >JCLUOE ALL v sue , Z�°U���lg \s RIPARIAN RI ( NTS �� �> } � e L ) _ 8; f \w Z ! o1� SCD cNo �o . , ' \� 7 1 � . e _ 0Y �A��7 loaf SlZ'k4l' pot •I %r N Piz E SE 0A LIME 1 � QA . . C ~c ` . . r f F aF U 0 . ° : C3o ST - ' rr11uC - <-IAl : k 1 G e .,ILeol.o Ct' oSSIr,) � 9 _ AS C eeacevr_o IN oc � « � A ) LN . ago a Q� DEt_o5 , 5 > e liov� tl oe^IV 144 w r Now v : r ` S ToN OIgj,Rp TO CAYUGA w•1Y in '• ) S '° co"� c ALL CAN �9 " :; eAILr-oA o C ° . 11 IT /AACA DEEDS 1 .1 �'.•` pin AT P^GE 462 boa �' J 45 V FAN ` E R vE 7 P�0 VacCvOs P MoRT�AGE INC . � . ` > oeT14� 8�. 703 T'., M*P 1'P.2GCL T1o: 10 - 2 - 7. 1 � !K UOTC : U WALL of ANC . c �1wTaE LINE a , . . .. l�PJ2A . 1909 54 . T. �f 1ET Tb R�(. f11 1 i'� mo ALONG PRoPE T`�tKLlwnsA�Ll ME4NpE25 . \ ' n � - i g1651oFZELLZ // nnr1 ) 8 - P ` 111 \e o� D Z •� rl� y J. &75 2 4, . . °9 3 a :�; W p� H 0- T i�yls� — o . z ' � c� cs� _•--� / ' - � 51. . 6 �`' '�� •. r.. a T'1E1+ S . '-175 � Y To ( `I D'S. . 4. 1T1S LtrO :. + . : • . � xul� 'ZAr•1e5 Yz = 33A cam ' i.R SED RuES RoAt, ExcFPTf a° j GIt3135 DQwt A A" b UTlLIryL` Pu9uc 3 y - EAST SHoF, E '�' Al1ENpcp 3 A I AOD\T 10N►.L- � I, y TO St{O�,/ HARMING 1 'Q 7• IPAI' L , T�`x ALTLRATION• TO THIs X4p eor TO ONCTION , 00•IPOQ MIITY VRol " 310 ” L , M. T. WtAT [ TDUCAf10A IAw. ART AI+o I11AIrro AT LAW AIL CCNil11CA LIONS UrnION ART VALID TOA I 1N1 • YAP • yP r-ni-Ir • fu . .. • .. . � n I � e a � m a !l �nzP x b r O 1 f z x n m b ..9 W I N . 'L U F x I O D I C7 W Dz C.. I 13SO19 Z Lij W 00 ❑ s' I II i II II II II II LU n U F OL x Q x I I I I - - - - - I I ❑ I I I I I I I I I I A I I I I j j I j I I n i - I I I v t � t I I 1 j I i a ! j rA • t I j o I - j .0 LLJ uz LL i I I i j ' i I i I I I ' I 1 y x Ema r Fo 135017 m ' L - - - - - - -� FYI If . . _ I 5 O W F uz x O x Z h m i Ica i I � 3 i i I 1 I I I I I j I I • I I � I I I I i � I I APR 2 777 = N TompKins; County TOWN OF ITHACA DEPARTME NT1101 F PLANNING BUILDING/ZONING 4je*' ))su 4\ uaA 1 - Y Ithaca, Ne.w York 14850 James W. Hanson, Jr. * * * Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 April 25 , 2001 Mr. Andrew Frost, Building/Code Officer Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Special Permit, addition to residence, Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive, Tax ID # 18 -5 - 14 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 intercommunity, County, or State impacts . The Department offers the following comment on this proposal : • The Town may want to consider the long-term, cumulative impacts to lakeshore property that may result should similar variance requests for residential property become customary. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, kmV, 4, V JnnesW. Hanson, Jr. issioner of Planning I f Recycled paper TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that 1 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 Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Monday, May 21 2001 , 2001 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of posting: May 14, 2001 Date of publication: May 16, 2001 CZ 0 J A N Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Del ment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this loth day of May, 2001 . Notary Pull r CARRIE Wry AORE_ . . _ Notary Public , State of N6W%York No , 01 WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December COMMENCING `AT 700 -,by a ent ' 'or -in )person. PM , on the following .moi- IndmTuals With visual ` or tern 3 Bearing:_ 'impairments-, or IAPPEACzof David Schaffner, -other t special needs; - -as Appellant, Barry;; Kasonic, ap ropriate, will ;. be. pro, Agent, . .' requeshn au vrTd, -witfi assistance,.,-as thorizdtion from ;the Zoning necessary,,'. uponi request. Board of'Appeals under Arh- Persons .desiringg, assistance cle XII Section" 54 of the, must make .-such, d :•'request. :Town of-lthaca2oning Ordi .not leis than 481 ho6rs prior nance;. to enlarge a non ' to 'the time of, 'the public +conformingg building/lot dt :hearing. 401 ' 'Winffirop .Drive' Town -,;- Andrew S. Frost of Ithaca Tax Rarcel No:; , _ '- Director of t72 1 3 : 1' ..Residence 'District Buildm and Zoning R 15 The enlargement con 9 273-.1783 sists .of-room additions and '' ' Dated: May 14;12001 outsrdewood decks with el- f\A , l'6;�2001 . Irses. A `^variance ;from :the'- requirements . of 4kticW 7'4V; Section -14 of the Ordinance i - is . also ' being - requested to. allow' said;: .decks •,ito ' en= ,.roach, -within the- 90-foot :rear ya'rd' setback, 'APPEAL -'of Significant4Ele-'. , meiitsi 'of,- Historic;;Ithaca- 'Appellant, - :`Dia'ne Cohen, '' Agehl reguiesting a4se:vari: ance' from 'the requirements of 'Article';.V -`Section '1'8-.of '. the,Town :of Ithaca ' Zoning • Ordinance; to'perrnit:the-use of an:old3choolbuilding .for • the . operation;of.acommer- cial retail 'architechir6f.;'sal- vpge -ope,gtion 'at. 855 Five 'Mile., Drive,, -Town ;6f. thaca Tdx± Porcefs' ;No; 31 :' -2.15, l'-16; Residence District00.-. ; Said- Ordinance -does, :not:' permilretad operations in on-R=30 zone f APPEAL'- of Jim othy . 6nd; Linda Hinkin, .ti;Owners/ Appellants;:"Ernie %Bayles, Agent; .': requesfing '. au- thonzation`from: the ; oninq BoardofAppeals underArtr cle .XII;. , Section 454. " of `the TOWn of.lthaCa .Zoning 'Ordi- nance '= W enlarger-a 'non- conformingg buildingg with the addition of an' 1 ;080 sqquare foot;'second ;storyy, : T I tion"' and 60 . feet -onabe 'ground ,floor, 'at-, 9. 18 E6st.iShore Drive,; Town of= Ithaca Tax Parcel ,; No:' :1.8-5. 14;; Resi- dence �-Dktrriet `.R- 15r Said building , is nonconforming as'-it :extends, beyond_ prop• ;•erty dines; witli; part ' of the Troperty ' being'• adlacent, to Cayuga 1ak6. A'_similar ap- tppeal was: granted - �on f'November.8;'2000,>but'bas 'since :been -;fnodified=,.with: a APPEAL. '.of' Hank ,•,Rogan, Appellant;requesting -a spe- 1 approval from the Zon- ing-Board'of_Appedls+under ` ArticPe '.VII :Section. 32 433, land 34 of the'Town'of Ithaca : Zaning -.Ordinance . to fbe perm itted'flto' moDy'`.', prer viously;a'pProved-retdil and food .:servic'es --at.. Franco's Restaurant ond,Rogan`s Cor- her 'pizza shop:and';conve- `nience 'store'to permit addi- tion6L s'eati'ng ond:'-.the ,construction of - accessory structures ai823-825,Donby ` Rood,'TOwnPof Ithac&; Tax ;:Parcel "No: 444-7•;Business i'District 'kl Said .uses' were. � granted :previous appProvals; 1OWN-OF'.RHACA' m - the ', 1980s `and, .1990s: 'ZONING. BOARD OF ,Additionally,-variances from - APPEALS` NOTICE OF �the :requirements; of ;Sections is PUBLIC HEARINGS ;' 37 "and 38 and -Ordi- .<MONDAY, MAY 21 , nonce 'are being';requested 2001 7:00 PM to allow46r the,1parking'oF iB :direction'of the Chairman ,vehicles and, accessory of the Zoninq Board oT Ap- structures lto be -.within the peals NOTICE IS HEREBY required front.yard.'(setback GIVEN that Public Hearings , of 50 feet I and = sidle yard iwill; be held `by_.the Zoning (setback oR30-leet) x Boord of Appeals of the aid Zonmg3Board of Ap IToym;of,lthaca on Monday, peals; will at sordtime 7,:00 'May .21 '200:1; in.. Town p.m.; and ,sard_ place,'hear ' Ho(I, 215 Nwth Tto all persons , in '. support of Stre`ef; Tioga {Street ` n-.. such matters or o Iecbonst ,. trance • 'Ithaca N 'Y' . _ thereto:<Perionsin vaooeai TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, in Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street, Aurora Street Entrance (parking lot side), Ithaca, N .Y . ; COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of G .D . Blanpied, Appellant, Margaret C . Hobbie, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 + acres in area, with a lot width of 31 + feet at the street line and 31 + feet at the maximum front yard setback line, located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56-3 -25 (next to 1586 Slaterville Road), Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of David Axenfeld, Appellant, George Gesslein, Agent, requesting a variance from Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -3 -2 . 7, Light Industrial District . Said District does not permit a land use of retail businesses . A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of said Ordinance might also be requested, since the property was originally developed and used for retail businesses . APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman, Appellants, Susan Cosentini , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of 20 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation ) located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures. APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5 - 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake . 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 30, 2000 Published : November 3 , 2000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. Sigel. NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 5 - 14 , Residence District R - 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines , with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake , Timothy Hinkin , 210 Willard Way , stated they had put an offer in on the house at 918 East Shore Drive contingent on getting approval from a structural engineer that the house could support a second story addition . The structural engineer determined the structure could support the addition . The second contingency was authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the second story to be built . The house is a 1 bedroom house . It started to be built in 1935 . It has evolved over the years . They would like to make the house a year round home . There is one large bedroom downstairs and a small room that could be used as a bedroom . The small room is not adequate for use as a bedroom for a typical family . Mr. Hinkin stated he is a profession at the Cornell Hotel School . He spends a lot of time working at home . He has a home office in his current home . The small room would work great as an office . Most of their family and friends do not live in the area . They entertain company in their current home and would like to do so in their future home . Mr . Hinkin stated they plan to greatly improve the structure . The structural engineer felt the ' current roof is not adequate . It was suggested that they replace the roof . They do plan on putting on nice siding and architectural shingles . The property value will be increased . Hopefully it will upgrade the neighborhood as well . They have notified their neighbors of the appeal . He did hear from one of his neighbors who is present . The issue is if it infringes on the view . Mr . Hinkin is not aware of a Town Ordinance or zoning about buildings obstructing someone 's view . The proposed addition would be within height restrictions . The proposed addition does not obstruct the other building 's view . Mr. Frost stated he received a letter indicating the building is feasible of handling the addition . Chairperson Stotz stated part of the building is suspended over water. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Hinkin responded only a small portion of the addition would be over the water . They would be staying within the footprint for the addition over the main part of the house . Mr . Frost asked if Mr . Hinkin would be maintaining his home at Willard Way . Mr. Hinkin responded no . This would be a year round residence . Chairperson Stotz asked how many feet is being added to the height of the house from the existing roofline . Mr . Hinkin stated it would add 9 feet from the existing roofline . Mr . Sigel asked if there are any sections in the Zoning Ordinance regarding obstruction of views . Attorney Barney responded it is only to be considered in granting variances . Mr. Hinkin stated they have lived in Ithaca for 9 years . Their house on Willard Way was a bit of a wreck when they first bought it . The spent a lot of time and money restoring the house . This will be their ninth property refurbishment in the last 20 years . They are done very well and add value to the neighborhood . Attorney Barney stated Section 77 , Subdivision 7 ; Subparagraphs a- h need to be looked at by the board for their determination . Subparagraph d and f need to be considered carefully . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 39 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Michael Pinnisi , 920 East Shore Drive , stated he faxed a letter to the board expressing his concerns . He is speaking in opposition of the appeal . He is doing so with a great deal of unhappiness that he has to do so . The Haefeles are anxious to sell their property . He is happy that they have found a buyer. The Hinkins have put a lot of thought into the project . The plans for the property are very beautiful . It would be a nice piece of property . Mr. Pinnisi stated that his side does need to be considered . By doubling the height of the building they are diminishing his light and view of his property . As a result ; the Haefeles ' proceeds on the sale are going to be obtained at least in part of his financial expense . The Hinkins ' greater enjoyment of the parcel is going to be at the expense of a diminishment of his own enjoyment of his own property . Mr. Pinnisi stated he bought his property at 920 East Shore Drive when it was a wreck . He has put substantial money and a lot of effort into fixing up the property . He has done a complete interior and exterior renovation . He is now at risk of having his investments and efforts diminished by a non -conforming use . If this were a proper use of the property , he would have no grounds to complain . The building extends out over its property line in the most intrusive way . It extends out over Cayuga Lake . The reason for the setback requirements is to prevent encroachment upon ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED neighboring properties . It is problematic when talking about a precious resource like the lake . He explained a view of the lake is about all he has at the house . It is sandwiched in between terrible properties ; a highway and a railroad track . Mr . Pinnisi is trying to sell the house . The view is the major selling point . He stated he has a problem with the process that brought them before the board . He was given no notice of the fact that this was going to be happening with his property . The first he heard of the appeal was a letter he received from Mr. Frost which gave the agenda for the hearing . The October 30t" notice that was published November 3"d arrived in his mailbox on Monday , November 6"' . He called Mr . Hinkin on Tuesday ; November 7t" . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has tried to be reasonable . If someone would like to improve their property at the expense of his property , then he should be compensated . Otherwise , he will be suffering a taking without just compensation . Mr . Pinnisi stated he has a Constitutional protection against it . If he were not going to get an accommodation , then he would ask the Zoning Board of Appeals enforce the zoning provision . The building is non -conforming . To allow an expansion of the non -conforming building would be to exacerbate exactly the kind of harm the Zoning Ordinance is designed to prevent . If there cannot be a reasonable accommodation , he would like the board to uphold the law . It is a non -conforming building and it does not meet the criteria to ignore the fact that it is non -conforming . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Pinnisi 's house was at the same elevation as Mr. Haefele 's house . Mr. Pinnisi stated his property is at a slightly higher elevation . His house is on the other side of the railroad tracks . It is higher by a couple of feet . The Haefele property is down a small embankment from the railroad tracks . He has the advantage of looking over the top of the property below from inside the house . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Pinnisi how long he had lived at 920 East Shore Drive . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has lived there since August of 1998 . He is going to be moving soon . Chairperson Stotz stated Mr . Pinnisi feels a major attraction for his house is the view . Mr. Pinnisi stated the primary view from the house is up to the northwest . It is north of this property . He does have a view of the water that would not be affected by this project . The view from the bedroom and bath is directly west . The existing house dominates it . He can see around it to Stewart Park . Mr. Frost asked if he is looking over the roof of the house or is he seeing the house as well . Mr. Pinnisi stated he is seeing around their house and over their house . He is able to see West Hill and horizon over the top of the house . The major component of his view would not be taken away by the addition . He could still see to the north and south . It does not mean that this is not taking something away from him . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated he would be losing the view of West Hill over the top of the roof , which Mr . Pinnisi already sees . Mr. Pinnisi stated he would no longer have a continuous view across the horizon and the hill ; he would have an interrupted view . Mr . Frost asked if it was the least desirable of all the views . Mr. Pinnisi responded yes . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Pinnisi 's house was too far away for sunlight to be blocked . Mr. Pinnisi responded yes . The loss of light is not the primary concern . He is concerned about having to look at the backside of the house instead of looking over the top of a ranch house . Chairperson Stotz asked if the improvements to the appearance of the house mitigate concerns . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not know what the plans are . When looking at the diagram , the back of the house is innocuous . It has vinyl siding that is in good shape . It has shrubbery . The house itself is not problematic . He has never had a complaint about the look or maintenance of the property . It would be improved somewhat . Mr. Ellsworth stated Mr . Pinnisi could still see the lake from another direction . Mr. Frost stated he is not losing the view of the lake . He is losing the view of West Hill . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr . Pinnisi if he had proof to show that his value would be affected . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has spoken to his realtor. The realtor feels that she is obliged to have to disclose this as a potential impediment to the property . He does not have concrete proof that it will impact the marketability . He could get an appraiser to give him an opinion . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the advertisement mentioned a beautiful view towards the northwest . Mr. Pinnisi stated it is not that specific . It does advertise the view . Mr. Ellsworth stated he still has a view . Mr. Pinnisi stated that his argument is not that it takes away the entire view . It is that takes away some of it . It takes it away in a way that is non -conforming with the Zoning Ordinance . He bought the house and improved the house with the expectation that the code would apply . He is now hearing that it may not . Mr . Ellsworth stated it would be hard to get a financial staternent from someone . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Pinnisi stated it has been discussed a lot in New York City . The question is can you give a variance to let someone build an over height building to take away from the height of the building that is across the street . It has been held that taking away light , air and view is a diminishment to the value of the value of the property . There is not any of that authority in Ithaca , but the principle still applies . One of the best views in Ithaca is of the lake . Every little bit that he has he would like to hang onto . Mr. Frost stated it has been established that Mr. Pinnisi is not losing the view of the lake . Secondly , if there was more land around this building so it was not too close to property lines there would be nothing illegal about them having a two- story building . Mr . Pinnisi stated he should not say there would not be an impact on his view of the lake . He has not done the measurements . He does not know how tall the building would be . He does not know how wide it will be . He is guessing there would be some diminishment of the view to the very southern end of the lake where he can see Stewart Park , Stewart Park is quite beautiful to see from the eastern shore . Mr . Frost stated the addition is not going beyond the existing exterior walls . The only impact is the height above the existing walls . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not think of it as looking over the house to see the water. He thinks of it as looking over the house to see the broader view of the hillside . According to the diagram , the addition would block the view of Vilest Hill . Attorney Barney stated the diagram is a different elevation than what Mr. Pinnisi 's house . Mr. Pinnisi 's house is at a higher elevation . Mr. Pinnisi stated the picture was taken from the driveway next to his house . Mr . Frost stated if this was a vacant lot , they would have the right to build a house as long as they were able to meet setback requirements . Mr. Ellsworth stated it would be hard to get a realtor to give a statement on how much the selling price would be decreased . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not know if a realtor would be comfortable quantifying how much money it is going to be . He would not have difficulty to have a realtor say it is reduced somewhat . Mr. Frost stated if the property to north improved their property ; it would increase the value of Mr. Pinnisi 's property . Mr . Pinnisi stated it is a question in what manner. If the property were improved by putting up a 20 foot wall along the property facing his property it would not help . If the property were to be renovated on its existing footprint it would help . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 NOVEMBER g . 2DOO APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPPOVED - APPPOVED - APPPOVED - APPROVED Mr . Frost stated that while there might be some foss , there is also a gain . There is a balance . Mr . Pinnisi stated he is not comfortable about which way the balance is going to tip . It is a gamble . He is going to break even or lose . Mr. Sigel stated he is sympathetic to Mr . Pinnisi 's point of view . The existing house appears to be a modest structure in the general view of the lake . The lot it is on is extremely small . The house does not fit on the lot . It is the most extreme case of non -conformancy the board has seen . From Mr . Pinnisi 's point of view , it is reasonable for him to expect that the law be applied very stringently to the lot because of the extreme nature of the non -conformancy and the direct impact on his property . Chairperson Stotz stated if the board decided the applicant could not put an addition on the house because it is non - conforming and blocks someone ' s view , it raises many issues about the entire lakefront . People are forever modifying their property to some extent . Mr. Sigel stated he does not agree there is no degree of non -conformancy . He would argue if there were a house 1 foot into a 15 foot setback with no one directly behind them to block the view , going up another story is a modest proposal . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there a many non -conforming lots along the lake . Mr. Frost stated there are some lots that are non -conforming . The board is trying to measure what degree of loss is suffered . He has looked at the property description on the tax map . It includes a file photograph dated July 31 , 2000 . There is a tree that basically obliterates the view over the house . The board is trying to balance the loss from construction . The picture from July shows that you cannot see anything over the roof of the house other than the tree . Mr . Pinnisi stated he did not have the time to take photographs and get an appraiser to indicate a loss . He did not get legal notice of the hearing as he was supposed to get . He can provide the information if need be . Mr . Frost stated he received legal notice . It is not a requirement that the neighbors be notified . The Town does it as a courtesy . It is given to adjoining property owners . The notice served its purpose . Attorney Barney stated the legal notice is that a notice needs to be published 5 days in advance in the Ithaca Journal . Mr. Pinnisi stated he could get some photographs if it would be helpful to the board . He does not know if it is the proper course to be deciding some level of loss that he has to absorb so that someone can increase an already non -conforming use . It is not his understanding of how the process operates . He knows that he is losing something and he does not like the way in which it is being done . He is looking for some protection . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Sigel is saying that this is such a severe case of non - conformancy that a second story should not be allowed . If there is another case that is not quite as severe , how do you make the definition ? What is the breaking point ? Mr. Sigel stated it is the job of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated the board is here to make a determination in accordance with the standards in the Ordinances to whether this is a situation that permits a deviation . Chairperson Stotz stated it is not based upon the degree of non -conformancy . It is based upon other factors such as view , compatibility with surrounding buildings . Mr. Sigel stated there was a case a few years ago where someone had a house along the lake that was over the property line . They owned the adjoining property . They wanted to go further. The board did not get to the point of denying it because the applicant got the impression it was going to be denied . They came back with a different plan . Mr. Frost stated the board also needs to look at what aspects of non -confomancy are involved . If the building was already exceeding the height or what was proposed would exceed the height then it would be exacerbating something that is non -conforming . In this case it is an area that is deficient . If the lot is made a legal size lot , what they are proposing still has the same affect on the adjoining property , but there would not be anything illegal . Attorney Barney stated if the owner had more land they could build out and not up . Mr. Pinnisi stated he was asked previously if there would be any objection to there being a two -story building there if it were conforming . He had said no , but actually the answer is yes . This building does not meet the minimum lot size requirements . If they were to seek a building permit , they could not build anything on the site . It would be vacant land . He would be able to look at the water . Attorney Barney stated the Ordinance permits anyone to build on any lot , a single -family house , even if it is a non -conforming lot as long as they meet the side yard setback requirements . Mr . Pinnisi stated the building is there because it is grandfathered . if it met the setback requirements he would have plenty of view . Mr. Frost stated it would also give them an alternative to build sideways rather than upwards . Mr. Krantz stated one of the things that help the board to make its decision is a public hearing . Lee Haefele , 55 Larue Road , Spencer , stated he is the owner of the property at this point in time . The lot is not very small . There is between 110 and 140 feet of lake frontage . Many of the neighbors are on 25 foot lots . He does have a hardship . The house has been in the multiple listing system for 2 . 5 years . It has had several buyers fall through , including Mr. Pinnisi . It does not want to be of a size and shape people want to buy as it is . The remodeling is an excellent idea . It improves ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the neighborhood . He does not see a problem with the view . There is no valuable view between the roof and the tree . He finds the request for compensation by Mr . Pinnisi ludicrous . Mr . Pinnisi has been compensated . He does not have access to the south side of his property without crossing Mr . Haefele's property . Mr. Pinnisi has been doing so since he owned it . Mr . Haefele stated he takes hard feeling on Mr . Pinnisi coming before the board with the idea that he has had free use of the property for parking and access . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the other potential buyers fell through because they were unable to get a loan . Mr. Haefele stated there has been a number of people interested . There have been various reasons why it has not been sold . Mr. Haefele stated he feels that Lake Source Cooling had a lot to do with it . The street was dug up and negative press carries a long ways . Mr . Haefele stated they left the house because it was too small . His thought was to remodel it with an upstairs addition . Mr. Sigel asked when Mr . Haefele purchased the house . Mr. Haefele responded they purchased the house in 1994 . Attorney Barney asked if his office represented the Haefeles when they bought the property . Mr. Haefele stated Mr. Marcus represented them . Attorney Barney stated he needs to disclose that his office represented them during the closing of the property . Mr. Haefele stated the potential buyers have an excellent plan . It will improve the neighborhood . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 13 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith stated there is a small impact from the lake . A two -story house would be seen . Once the tree is removed it will be an obvious two - story house . There has been a concern on the other side of the lake over two-story buildings and larger structures . The opposite side of the lake is heavily wooded and the homes are not as noticeable . Chairperson Stotz stated there are no adverse impacts . Mr . Smith stated there is nothing significant . Mr . Niefer asked if the tree would be removed during construction . Mr . Hinkin stated they will have it looked at before construction . It has lifted up the surrounding are and patio . ZONING BOARD Or APPEALS PAGE 23 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPPOVED - APPROVED - APPPOVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 70 _ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Timofhtr and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, November 8, 2000. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Hinkin stated he did everything they were supposed to do regarding notification . They did not try to get this pass the neighbors . They have had a structural engineer and building inspector out to the site . Chairperson Stotz asked how does the applicant envision dealing with the bottom of the house when they put the second story on . Would the addition have cedar shingles ? Mr . Hinkin stated it would be cedar siding . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the tree is removed , would the view of Mr. Pinnisi be increased . Mr. Frost stated this time of year views are increased because leaves off the trees . Mr. Pinnisi should see more light . It would be hard to measure . The tree is higher than the proposed second story . Mr. Ellsworth stated there should be more with the submittal . Mr. Frost stated there would be more light and a better view without the tree . Chairperson Stotz stated it is a 9 foot addition . It is not a huge multi - story building . He does not see it as unreasonable . Other views are not being blocked . Mr. Ellsworth stated he is unable to tell the distance between the 2 houses on the site plan , Mr. Hinkin stated it is about 80 feet away . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Smith stated if they were to add 9 feet on each house along the fake it would make a different impression form the lake view . Attorney Barney asked if any part of the addition would be going over any part of the building that over hangs the lake . Mr . Hinkin stated the far west corner would be over the lake . The roof over hangs it now . They have spoken with DEC . The corner is going to have to be re - enforced . It can be done with beams or posts in the lake . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would have to get any approval . Mr . Hinkin stated they would need to get approval from The Department of Environmental Conservation . They would not need to get approval for the beams , but they would for the posts . Mr . Frost stated the Town has flood plane regulations , but going above something existing is not going to impact the flood characteristics . Attorney Barney asked if the second story in a way that it would comply with side yard setback requirements . Mr. Hinkin stated they are staying within the existing footprint . There is a flat roof on the room to the north . Mr. Sigel stated he finds it objectionable that the addition would be extending over the property line . The board did have a case on Forest Home Drive where they wanted to go over the property line . It was a similar issue of view of Fall Creek . Mr. Frost stated the buildings were about 20 feet apart . Chairperson Stotz stated the blockage of view was considerably greater . The addition is not out of character with that side of the lake . There are many two- story buildings . Mr. Ellsworth stated the lot sizes much smaller. Mr. Sigel stated the board needs to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment of the character of the neighborhood . The blockage of the view is a detriment the neighbor . Chairperson Stotz stated he does think there would be some blockage of the view . It is a question of how much . He feels it is minimal . Mr . Niefer stated it is not a water view blockage . RESOLUTION NO, 2000 71 - ENLARGE NO*CONFOR11 ING BUILDING - Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shone Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-544 November 8. 2000. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board deny the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin . requesting approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings: a . That the addition is inconsistent with the neighborhood in that it creates an adverse affect on neighboring buildings from a view standpoint; b. That it involves construction off the property boundary lines. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Krantz, Sigel. NAYS: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. The motion was defeated. RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 72 - ENLARGE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING - Timothy and Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, November 8, 20000 MOTION made by David Stotz. seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings: a . That while the building does change the character of the neighborhood, the degree to which it is changed is insignificant, b. That while it does block the view of at least one neighbor, the blockage of the view is relatively insignificant, C, The property is built on an existing footprint; and is not enlarged further beyond the footprint, d. The affected adjacent property is at a higher grade and located at least 66 feet from the property at Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14, e. There has been no evidence presented of any monetary decrease in value to the neighboring home due to the proposed construction . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. NAYS: Krantz, Sigel. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS : Chairperson Stotz asked what is the status on the Eddy Lawsuit . Attorney Barney stated they made a motion to dismiss . It was argued and they are awaiting the decision . It is a technical defense . When they initially served the papers they did not give the return date . They subsequently supplied . They supplied it after the Statue of Limitations period . It might be sufficient to get it dismissed . The judge has discretion to extend the time to serve the notice . Chairperson Stotz stated Mr . Sigel and himself attended the Planning Federation Conference . It was very informative . There was a solid day of Zoning Board of Appeals issues . Mr . Sigel stated he enjoyed seeing what happens at the Planning Board level before it comes to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Stotz stated there was a big discussion about special approval and the designation of special approvals of the bodies that can make special approvals . It was discussed if the Town Board retains it for themselves , or if they delegate it to the Planning Board . It was rare that it be at the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated it always used to be with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a trend moving it to the Planning Board . Mr. Smith stated Mr . Ellsworth , Mr . Sigel and himself attended the SEQR training . The Planning Departments sends a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals chair when they are an involved agency in a Type I action . It is asking if it is okay that the Planning Board be the lead agency . If there is no response within 30 days , the Planning Board assumes lead agency . Mr. Smith asked if each board member would like to receive the information . It would still need to be one response . Mr. Sigel stated the board receives notice of the Planning Board agenda . It includes notification of SEQR hearings . Attorney Barney stated the notice could be sent to each member. Mr . Frost stated at the December meeting the board would need to set a meeting schedule for 2001 . Does the board want to change the day of the meeting ? Mr. Sigel stated the board could meet the second to last Monday of every month . FILE DATE 06 RESOLUTION NO . 2000-70 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Timothy and Linda Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14 , November 8 , 2000s MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by James Niefer . RESOLVED , that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 18-5 - 14 , Residence District R- 15 , for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Krantz , Niefer, Sigel . NAYS : NONE . The motion was declared to be carried unanimously . Lk Carrie L . Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA. l � 0r6Ck �� l T4wn-AQ4@-r-k/ 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 8`" day of November 2000 , T4w4 6G�Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca I FILE I bi&q DATE RESOLUTION NO . 2000-71 - ENLARGE NONCONFORMING BUILDING - TimothV and Linda Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No. 18-5-14, November 8, 2000. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Ronald Krantz . RESOLVED , that this board deny the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18- 5- 14 , Residence District R- 15 , based upon the following findings : a . That the addition is inconsistent with the neighborhood in that it creates an adverse affect on neighboring buildings from a view standpoint , b . That it involves construction off the property boundary lines . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Krantz , Sigel . NAYS : Stotz , Ellsworth , Niefer. The motion was defeated . (INwi 1 1A ,6vol /a / / — /Z Yjv Carrie L . Vhitmore , Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS . TOWN OF ITHACA . I , 7D e QV(% I( � kt( T Q- Fk/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 8t" day of November 2000 , Town Clerk./Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca FILE DATE ( p RESOLUTION NO . 2000-72 - ENLARGE NONCONFORMING BUILDING - Timothy and Linda Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive , Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14, November 8 , 20000 MOTION made by David Stotz , seconded by James Niefer . RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5 - 14 , Residence District R - 15 , based upon the following findings : a . That while the building does change the character of the neighborhood , the degree to which it is changed is insignificant , b . That while it does block the view of at least one neighbor, the blockage of the view is relatively insignificant , C ' The property is built on an existing footprint , and is not enlarged further beyond the footprint , d . The affected adjacent property is at a higher grade and located at least 66 feet from the property at Tax Parcel No . 18 -5 - 14 , e . There has been no evidence presented of any monetary decrease in value to the neighboring home due to the proposed construction . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES : Stotz , Ellsworth , Niefer. NAYS : Krantz , Sigel . The motion was declared to be carried . Carrie L . Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA . I , Tie lLILMk ICeaea-� rk/ 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 8th day of November 2000 . eputy Town Cli rk Town of Ithaca Ns 1 3 2000 T mpkinse County �� 1W& i i\ X11 DEPART k*142)VEast N � �1 *ANNING TOWN OF I ONIN BUILDING/ZONING @our-t�Street � ! ,Y AI i/ Ithaca, Ne.w York 14850 James W. Hanson, Jr. * a * ,+ Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 November 7 , 2000 Mr. Andy Frost , Building/Zoning Officer Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street 216 Ithaca, NY 14850 Re : Review pursuant to § 239 —1 and —m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Special Approval for 2 "d story addition to existing residence, Hinkin , 918 East Shore Drive, Tax ID # 18 - 5 - 14 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 proposal , as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests. Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. The Department has the following general comment unrelated to our review under §239 —1 , & -m : • The Town may want to consider the long-term , cumulative impacts to lakeshore property that may result should similar variance requests for residential property become customary. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record . Sincereiy, JmeJ/ ts W . Hanson , Jr.r.missioner of Planning �� Recieled paper ,., z�� ��lv�o �'f� �1�C� � �cJ��fJ � 1$ �; � Q.�. _�� — 11��s X1.0;,c __ '� �� � � � � .� 'Q� � __ - ',� i 7 �'1�� - . t ��, +,� � ''t .� -.. ,�. �� � �,� r;��' ,, :,. .� _� - ,- /`�� . , - � ��e�� - - ��,�� x r t _'� ./ PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO X If yes, coordinate the review proce ss 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) Cl . 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 adequately 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 Preparer' s Si ature(lf different from Responsible Officer) David D. Sto z Chairman- e & tine of esp sib Of icer ad Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE : i nature of Res onsi Officer in 4ad Agency L_ 1—:1 1 1 1 F1 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 as PROJECT INFORMATION o be com leted by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Appllcant/Sponsor: 2. Project Name : Timothv R . and Linda 3. Precise location (street address, road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map) : 918 East Shore Drive , Ithaca , NY , Tax Parcel Number: 18 - 5 - 14 4. Is proposed action : NEW? EXPANSION? x MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items) : To build a second story addition on an . existing home remaining within the current foundation footprint . The addition would include a master bedroom and bathroom suite , a second bedroom with attached bath , and a balcony . (Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) 0 Acres (6-10 yrs) 0 Acres (> 10 yrs) 0 Acres 7, How Is land zoned presently? Residential 8. WIII proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES NO X If no, describe conflict briefly : Current home does not conform with existing zoning . An application for special approval is being filed . 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new : Public Road? YES NO y Public Water? YES NO _ Public Sewer? YES NO X 10. What Is the present land use In the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential X 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 _y If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding : 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether It will require modification. I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/Sponsor Name ( Print or Type ) ; Timothy R . Hinkin Linda S . Hinkin Signature : Date : '/0 // C o V U 0 Rev. 8/92 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE: $100.00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED: Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273- 1783 CASH SPECIAL APPROVAL CHECK - ( N7aa ) to the Building Inspector/Zoning Enforcement Officer ZONING: and the Zoning Board of Appeals For Office Use Only of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been informed that authorization is required to : add a second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Ithaca , NY . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18 - 5 - 14 , as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents. The Special Approval authorization is requested pursuant to : Article(s) XII , Section(s) 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this request for Special Approval authorization (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) SEE ATTACHMENT "A" By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with my application Signature of Owner/11!1,� I Date: / O Z i /Co -._..� Signature og pe Agent: 4,t y Date: o% Io o Print Name Here: D7"f1 y 141,V k, r n> 41 N Home Telephone Number: 273 - 3254 Work Telephone Number: 255 - 2938 NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months, the approval will gam' ATTACHMENT "A" Special approval is requested to build a second story addition to a property that has been used primarily as a vacation home . In the current configuration of the home, there is only one adequately sized bedroom, which makes the house unsuitable as a primary residence for a family or for hosting guests . This addition would remain within the current foundation footprint of the existing home and add approximately 884 square feet to the current square footage of 1 ,328 . The new space would be divided between a master bedroom and bathroom suite and a second upstairs bedroom and bathroom as shown in the attached floor plans B , C and D . This addition would provide for the current downstairs master bedroom and bathroom to be used as private guest bedroom space and the extremely small (75 square feet) second downstairs bedroom to be used as office space . Modifying what is essentially a one bedroom home into a three bedroom home we feel will increase the property ' s value, which should have a beneficial effect on the neighborhood. City water and sewer service the home so the addition would not cause any negative environmental impact. A licensed structural engineer will inspect the home to determine the structural and economic viability of the addition. The results of that inspection will be available by the next zoning board hearing date. The purchase of this home by the appellants, Tim and Linda Hinkin, is contingent upon the granting of this zoning request due to the inadequacy of the downstairs bedroom space. ) escrip ion lential f t�y ♦ tAs 4y to gftl'I}Y."1. i,Ri �L � iJ' J To � ,�i Y} tf •, i ...ry 11 �y f i at � , ely YM°yHM to If, vi • J i ,Y �. ]� t ♦ CM, y Ti4$ h ,. � kyf r ,�.r Amy t n {y_ r 4 . F l e " ! Colo. f F, N Iij if "Rr -�".' .+S 1 '-'? I il • f L �+r ! `Y fA" . r&" JR.a, at ,r A 'M'L+ ! '" x :a4 f f d •�Y3} t•• rt _w., y„ r < b + It I, rt . w n♦ 4.y '.. .� L^yttl 4' .rA 7 G ,. i -Y ; :. n 'S,• t YYY y Awa• � � r {'qg7 Dti.+ r, , N it tit rn bs ( _, x y j kill 1 . Nl I . it I It 14 r r A > � to Lt -.-' ' a r4 ��C� a 3 t ( ` 5 too r'* �'y� �5t.�dR } °` t9;. �. I' r'' ., rsl I S 1.f �r.n. µ+. , r Wr� A�)�'y , ^ « t",L,' k4j'vl5hryen2 N ,.,.�' LX"+4n a ,a ff +.MrM�t } J 1 1 I Y $ '^ Y µ � 4/1A�dl �71'yf„ �+ I y' .^".'y wb+P "ah , f 1 ,N ar4Qr e r i ,5., h]�1 .t+i.7R"J✓Iro riylig5. !� n sy .{+ 'yr^^'n+p t! t �sf"� ." ♦ +�7'.d'qwk b .kt ti y .a u5 p, tr ljor t M x6 y:t'! iiudtlh�fix T•. x vi kttx " l.'. r ii 7r t4:s C11,t ja df {v »t y5�. ., ae• rrr . ii'"� S+ F., a4a'ty + i x A'� ;t :,xi,'Eo i°»t '" x ew it�stot "i,f lit j »xt y'• ww y ' wr 4y 4 .,> 3M5 a ,9' � C rf` ,.v }' .,y� ty / IJ y`Y4 1ty1111111111111111 S xta ViN tli> f1AL4 tl to�e .yL.�,..,� s f :4. i w5 ! r �,It s i s d �tuf ° � ' � ♦ -.v , 5 Y1 K '{ r 14 4 w 4 JY1,. gE `1,a ;I t} rA 4y,Wi r t q ,}f i} '+' Ott { { ti �+ 'T 15#' ` • �tx It +X.t3' 5.ratW fy `+ T :,� w - xa �kr» S"?Si ! f � r So"'G 5a gmF9 $ v '�5 +YxtJ.`7`..r I.•at `.y..,} 4� }£!' T rg�~" PAS "� 4.s } � .n.hrmr•fC G✓ ypy]g �.,y,4'+r'+^vii ±` if1' r:n ••S�i:..i16W'u..4 "jl.r st e f LL rRR r. 01 3, , pp r lu.Ce »y '.",t N , • „q 1 r!y:xrt^^xcaa'4C3a`7 mmua .n ^s$' It h A" ' r '6 +Y ^loo. t ✓ dJ.Y�l77J;Id 7pN7$t ,d''f�h"`witr ra 'f i tlD `w•yv.r�.��{+�..x.'ti.A..0 , �l� ' •,Itt^y. ",�'t..,;'oil •A 1 „ Z r �tf : € 5 r}) +rr.dfR4�w1'+ »i .a. .°JC f �, - $�dd..: :.'�G4^cT.r °dd}:i , . r!;r t ry a 'k to f III, }\ u ' an I ^q +� 5T11 'Xl'd'ft r2 >•t}^ W S ixL" p rK,.JC.�.u6f ,de.tt Rf q' iF rCott ( '1 Mc .S } "5�»e L"'.xtxf.RkWO1 ` S,as..i�.s_.'Lw,e.ar. Ct r r�t t a +.n jor ^i�1ri!'l..v5oi '4(,xlJ"/y^M�YY'w{`SY<t ✓}�yrjrs. ••n..�wn+r w•.wdv. N N """^y'NM i..YRvd ^!r f • tit r},S+S,.�..et c...q wba!u t4 Nn°Tt h ^`S M'f Y�S�t c ri J l a r",-I CI rh ' t M i...r. v •: i ° d `. :. to ' ^e L1ti ✓ F..}� 1 � 44�'aY W,pNo 'ik 1 J'tr�'jY I ii YA O"{ { + M �.a� �e li' li�r'] 3' ,�111� 4y } 7 .�i x9{' T�} ,C .t 3 1 1 fat It to I•, r_ h Lat L r f N"J a F i y. r k ! + e` 'y. } 'wd ,rI K i ti } ,{3 ., M t J i t r is L ] r ^� ♦ cMR 3 !. t.Y '}4`• T'� b, h qL i. �♦t ld T4 .y �: w 'T$' s (U,�f y} }Y } vfiG Yt{' 1 v( 14 14 \ "+t L l `1 C ) r c r� e> d ,.\, P Cott A a,`�'r '?r r ' u N �'j t t YiwJ w •5, A� 5 fin.}a t ( _ > Y t t. tiI 1 y t t V .a 'a Y '7 $ fi . tAf i u f ... hri t 1. ' is .t. t • a " inlp, , ° r.,Y "s, n 1 + { e IV,] a.,, s'e •,'f�y.`9 + f yC1 raw t s�4 S `{ 1S' y � t j to . P t 4 �r `Y. {rW st It { w d . +.. Nli J't )ti &t'( . 1 '<R' whlv!}ie F t, : r Ir5 •r"� '� Y f ' a •t �: ' r tip " 1. t4 .j ° ��' `�+a tvr5 A Y Y t' *w5 aw • 5 to Yd T .+-'§M �„ FWD i ! b S t t . .a. r ':) ,4 ( i.:Sq r r ( .i r°''•xsti F -4 .Y t i , 1 r ; r w^ r I w rr T -{, IIt to . Sf � ! i c . Sy a i i,{U x" v f i y [h {✓,C o ro A t x .tl ' .+' ' ' x ,» '}n 1 t P ) Zw°!S 7 tft i s f $." ] . f k as x, n A ti l t I. iF f y +Zy, .,6.. 3 _ i, drag dro 2 3 t h W It w r .n 5. . . qs 1 }" ' .L 4 P•k s' q sl r ,_t °'r6.a1Ctl _..5 Mt 1F,. . r j a gytl r rr x yy�, ? 4 5 3 ' }k $ t i`9 t ty � iv 'l t . V 4'N5 tl �i m.;t ^rt�sMu 1 ZxM° ! 9 'd'tt x r r 1 • r M �r{tYa WL ;.; t LJ vZ h' 4 .� s i o f hf +. a`' l it X. 3 tl] 1 a �n A +. T YN ;fit "L,�iej� i ,� w} w 4. .i IN, V ! ' �y a .-k Mh!°.rv"t '4 ttf ,.e ar{d iS,Yp v. N'r •i! 9 !" y3' y d .ft . .M4 y � "! ' r sq(fi 1P'rr ll �k lY; - olt, oN . K1 a't`.. y,r / S, • a v!ti'w i Y 11 J 1 1$5 w Lv r ' ,jf ) N ♦ tl jTly; v .�+` ,NL wfJ)'r 'w r y » � �•� s •{5, tf } v ♦ry S {kRr .e q�, •r{'4+t " 1trA J .4iY'Li'"M ` L'7 -, _ } l a f E C t` { r . 5.', ti a«` :, f, t?"pg 1.Al ) :`eYS `. ?y' r L . r r �♦ i)Y,d.' 151+. 1y t"'(n kl i.�4v ,t� 1'vft to a + X/5k�� ((�,3$t( jt' ':r k''�t dti 2' "FjZ` Y v.A'iXf'M"S��ypp trl "'. .1E ltry �"�i '' ° ^` kk^fY? .l. E� 'iJ Not ' H x P`f 't t♦ C " '. S S ✓C' a` .4 t )t $}�] t .j.ik I�tT I K d° ) a`]4(l . . t P \ `. "S� 5 ] j "l '' n h�I ! `+1 J9 yyyy» 7' R # f III r E,-,i J r Cr nK s d r ♦ !'7 .a . �` rt 1 J s' at . ., '- f �: + 3 r f f ,r:Y .iVril trti ♦ Pv. ^.ln� Y5 `A1Y'�'i [ iet.e i iaehf, y . .x ?L rhS. h /v ar r J r rvR'i�i' »i l`r id fiil Zt v '^+t v r/ `�.4 t tof ;I Ctra 1 i )r C o`:s`FNI4„• 4 ?v” t r1i4v t , r '� �tr r ( y �.j Iin y LLi , R "+ i .b•.'.'. 7. c 15y $ti `� t '. Y S ''r 'mow v �r` a1A t' `r r1 k ; ♦ Ls t "} art+ 4�t� ' >_ it "n «r �' J d r' vtnl; 4R ]�D„ ,.. I'll Pi 1 ;w7i aL a f� n ♦ f t1 t. H i r 1 ,,, 2 y.h e< . T . t ' 1`'l jt K r ✓ i,t D': Cot "6J r .ti.nT'w t n]i 1 Not, ala t r i ♦( t 4 11 T� d7 " f (!d. W 1 i i h eDAL 3 ti e ' , . i }, 4 Jt,* t lerr ♦ �. ]1 t a ' t . r. . 'Tt 4M of W 9 L w� ('t_ >rs" .t Y f it ° }iy + Wv la z rY ✓dxd f <r. f y 9$, b*Ya F �c r t 1 73 L♦ } 1 (j ♦ 1 lot, " ' ' . Ir 3 1 r {{.aq ~f#X .!' . . u. 1 st,It to,ia..a 4 r. "L ' NaJ ♦ Q1 ;�i:C .J, +a~ •.•Gt.:. It t • , . , .... . Cam" r � OA4 _ . . .. t _ CJ _ i r q d, , s a - V I nnn .. .. .. Cp PART II — Environmental Assessment : Timothy and Linda Hinkin 918 East Shore Drive Enlarge a Nonconforming Building 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 : Cl . 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, solid waste, or potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding as a result of the proposed action . The proposal is to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18 -5 - 14 . The building is nonconforming because it extends beyond the property lines, over Cayuga Lake . The second story addition will include two bedrooms and baths, creating a three bedroom house within the existing footprint . C2 . Aesthetic , agriculture , archeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? None Anticipated. No agricultural , archeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources are known to exist on the site . The house sits on a manmade point, sticking out from the rest of the shoreline . The only screening from the lake is one large tree on the western point. This tree will lessen the visual impact of the two-story house in that location, but the addition will be very visible from the lake once that tree is gone . The house to the south is a two-story building that sits back from the lake and the two houses immediately to the north are one-story structures . All three of the houses partially view the rear of the house and will clearly see the addition . While the addition of a second story will further block some view for these houses, the current house already blocks some views of the lake . Further to the north are other residences that are placed right at the water edge . This house and addition is visible from eastern end of Stewart Park . Given the nature of the proposed action, no significant adverse impacts to aesthetic resources or to community or neighborhood character are anticipated . C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species , significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None Anticipated . The building addition will be keeping within the footprint of the existing building . No significant vegetation or wildlife habitats are known to exist on the site . 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 this site as " Suburban Residential ," and it is zoned Residence District R- 15 . C5 . 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 C 1 -05 ? None Anticipated , C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None Anticipated . D . Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated . PART III. — 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 Planner gyros Review Date : November 2 , 2000 PLOT PLAN Point 1 . Dimensions of lot : Approximately 76 ' X 78 ' X 108 ' for home site . Property by which to access home site is irregular and approximately 83 ' X 14 ' X 94 ' X 61 ' . Please see attached survey Point 2 . Distance of structure from : Road — Approximately 150 ' Both side lot lines — negligible due to waterfront Rear of Lot — Approximately 50 ' Please see attached survey Point 3 . North Arrow: Please see attached survey and elevation drawing . Point 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure or additions : 24 ' X 36 ' over the current downstairs bedrooms, living room and kitchen Point 5 . Names of neighbors who bound lot. Frank A. and Sari Z . Signorelli Mailing address : 54 Lyndon Road, Fayetteville, NY 13066 Michael D . Pinnisi Mailing address : 920 East Shore Drive, Ithaca, NY Shirley E. DeValenza Mailing address 938 East Shore Drive (owns property at 922 E . Shore Drive) We are uncertain as to whether or not this property actually "bounds" subject property . Point 6 . Set back of neighbors Signorelli : 50 ' (railroad right of way) Pinnisi : 50 ' (railroad right of way) DeValenza: 50 ' (railroad right of way) Please see attached tax map plat Point 7 . Street name and number (of subject property) : 918 East Shore Drive Signorelli : 916 East Shore Drive Pinnisi : 920 East Shore Drive DeValenza: 922 East Shore Drive Point 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines : Please see attached picture with drawn elevation, separate elevation drawing, and footprint (Attachments B-E) . O L cz m ^L W Scz G E O m L cn CCca ' G O co AD T �✓ �V T U m _O co U E 0 0 E o a� o m ca m A iq &omc,-pr old: All DWLG . 00CUPANC7 MAJOR AREA HGT . R CHARACTER GRADE A PH . DPR . SINGLE MULTI- cl) � ,FAMILY 1 • S 2 B A BLK . R BRK . 57 N . � D� FOUNDATION FAMILY WALLS i/ PIERS CON TIME . i STN . DR BLK . _. BASEMENT AREA sool 1 / 4 1 / 2 3 / 4 F T EXTERIOR WALLS i SIDING ON SHEATHING i. SINGLE SIDING SHINGLES i' tip ' I STUCCO ON FR . BLK . 3 \�y VE B C N F STK ` : - . • . } . . .. I . . ; . _. . L F STONE VENEER i I _ SIMUL . STN . VENEER e } 24 ST . L / F -. . 1 . . ;;`'. .i . . . . . I. PT ' D UNPT ' D BLOCK METAL I �_..: .. . _. + i SHED DORMERS --r t... _ . • � - - TOTAL L / F _.._ . � . . I . . .. . :. . ; l._ 1 8 „ ROOF TYPE I MANSARD HIP ._ .. � . . .� . .- _. '_ 0. ' .1 GAMBREL FLAT APL E } ' _ nnr ROOF MATERIAL T' `••�l' \� ASBESTOS SHINGLES ASPHALT SHINGLES WOOD SHINGLES BUILT- UP COMP . iMETAL L. ROLL I 2. c� i SLATE �_ ...� TILE INSULATION wnnF CLG .. rraL_ a MAIN BUILDING 1 2 3 _ KITCHEN POOR AVERAGE G OD � BATHS ' 1 . 5 2 2 . 5 POOR ERA GOOD 1NT, CONDITION POOR AVERAGE GOOD EXT, CONDITION POOR AVERAGE HOUSE SUITED TO LOT POORER SAME BETTER PORCH ( S ) COMPLIMEN NO OCfS \ 1 . RANCH K . RANCH 3 . SPLIT- LEV. 4 . CAPE COD 5. COLONIAL 6 . CONTEMP. 7, MANSION 8 , OLD STYLE W 9. MODULAR IO. BUNGALOW_ I . MOBILE 12 . 2s MODERN CL - _ } 13 . 14. 15, 16 , OTHER F- BEDROOMS 1 .2 . 3 45 _ TOTAL RMS . 123456789 _ . I Qn Subject Propert 216s _ s He � 4 0� � s ES c W O w 0 He CL U) m Q7 ro F :� t3 % N ■ He U1 °i N W N) CL o' s8Z ►v = = s 1. 9 s (30V s (3C3 1ne ZVZ N DENDE ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 40 RIDGE RD. LANSING, N Y. I4882 PH 607-533- 7719 -- FAX 607-533- 7419 Tim & Linda Hinkin Structural Feasibility 210 Willard Way Second Story Addition Ithaca , NY 14850 918 E . Shore Dr . Town of Ithaca , NY 14850 Proi : 0026 30 - Oct - 00 Structural Condition Assessment : At the request of the prospective Owner ( above ref. ) a site visit was made on 27 - Oct- 00 to observe the existing general structural conditions for the above referenced single story wood framed residential building . It is the client' s intent to add a second story wood framed addition over the main 24 feet wide portion of the building . The following is a brief summary of the issues discovered and discussed at this meeting . Engineering Considerations : 1 . As with most of the pre - modern code , older lake front cottages the building frame is not a professional design and will show questionable framing during the proposed alterations , it does non - the less show capacity for the proposed addition . 2 . The wall framing is covered by finishes , but appears to be conventional 2x4 - stud wall framing. This framing shows theoretical capacity for the proposed addition . 3 . The headers and posts for the glass window wall on the west ( lake) side will have to be reviewed for capacity . The client suggests that the new ceiling height will be M ncreased to standard height. This should provide additional space for headers if required . 4 . Access to the roof framing was limited to a visual look through a ceiling scuttle . The framing is not a professionally engineered system . It looks to be a 2x6 @ 24" rafter systems , with 1 " flooring boards and such as web members , as the original builders may have been trying to imitate a modern roof truss . The displacement evident further suggests the system is not capable of maintaining its own shape and configuration under normal roof loads . The proposed addition would result in removing this questionable framing and therefore correcting the problem . Therefore no further investigation or analysis of the existing framing is planned at this time . 5 . A second story addition will cause snow pocketing on adjacent lower roofs . They will require further investigation and reinforcing if required . 6 . The existing concrete foundation appears to be in good condition , typical signs of cracks , settling , overturning or "out of plumb " conditions were not observed at this visit. The dimensions and general configuration is adequate . The depth of the lakeside footing is unknown . It is underwater , and I would suspect its bottom is not below frost. It would require a small ( probably hand shovel ) excavation next to the footing to verify this . The behavior of the foundation suggests it has not been adversely effected by frost . 7 . The building framing above the foundation cantilevers out over the foundation wall at the S / W corner. This will present engineering issues for consideration in the design phase of the new addition . A new post and footing located at the corner of the building ( in the water) is a solution . Also a cantilevered beam placed in the south wall at the new second floor could eliminate the post and footing . 8 . Beyond the scope if this structural review but equally important to the Owners goals will be their communications with the Towns of Ithaca Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning . Building set backs , ( 36 - ft . ) height restrictions , property line and lot space requirements , etc . should be reviewed and perhaps made a condition of the purchase . 9 . As suggested above and contingent to the observations made this meeting . The second story addition will work from a structural view . It will in fact correct a number of the substandard issues observed above and still to found during the design and construction phase . Additionally , the asymmetrical joining of the building ( super structure) to foundation below will add challenge to the final design . A professional set of construction drawings will be essential for the success of this project. If I can be of further assistance , clarify or answer any questions please contact me . win \ reports \918 a shore dr . doc Greg Deride , PE TYPE v x m — m � ;. . , p Z _ ° . _ , V o o ao X co X O r- 0 fA 2 Cl ; ( i . .. . . . . �. 7 .. . - n O Z O O D r�� D C v D D C Z r -1 co K II w f� x -M -1 Z Z ro �- A Z z x O C7 ---._ . ._ ; m O D r I !� Z _ . � _ . . Iy m Z m u � ; m r G7 . . _ - . o 2 z O O D O 2 0 0 0 0 rr f ' 70 z n a A to D m m m i*i n 4 m o o n m m m Ut . = v v 01 m m CD -� o o o Z m 0 D cfA -4 T y N N Z y • y c O V m > > O J. c C z m e p o 0 m z p r o L z > 0 > m '� a > A D N ` c r p m O x U>i m N N TI Z ; = K O Q r 0 0 r m a ° '� u y m -a n 0 0 N 0 m _ m 0 C _ C K N a ; n z u u m r O 1 z a` = o z A J0. m m z Z � r r o m p r ? _ ; O .� p m < a m = = Q Z r O n D m y r -4 ; '^ _ - > '� 0 m a m m m m A i K > m r m ; I r m r r x S y A m O 0 NN ? m ° z m m iO � z mmo ' s r tR m Z D > > ° N = > x '� T T r m r A D b 1 r, r a N N ffft I N N Z n > n N D n f �I r lA m z > K Z z T a z 'I K a m .y u r a > O1 D m o r = m r f z K o n r o > 0 r r ' a Z D a 0 n N a0• _ a a� w A A m > S r > r ° A T O O K O S ° m r r Z a a p m > p A a a a u u n m m m c 0 m N V ? C -4 = N N A tY u A N 1 — D O A ° > n > n > N m 01 N L A y N K N > n m m z T ) z N m S N T m m Q E N n z D u 0 O D K f r C 0 C m O m n ; m m m o • • • • • a s a 0 -� O c O C m Z r 0 -• _ • 3 7 N O p E r ? r n O r O O m n ; n K m ro r m K a ; D s f o n o cmi f r x ' r c ; m i T A • C Z s • m D A • O Z ' K > r K O • T T •1 m .),� < -• T C y' 9 > '" y = n K K m m K p r a z a Z m n K m Z y r 2 - a > > u m ro ► a > r m T fi N z m a a m E 0 < as o n "`' o r m m C z m ; a n x n > a c a a '• o L u L ' a c a ^ n v _ < < N r r ; (' m < m < D y O x z ro K a K m Z < V, O 0 0 0 m O J O O > > T O m 0 0 O a I m 0 D r n m° m C a m E m K > E T m N 1 0 < r m G a < < V' r ; p N C• r 9 N n X L = N z C� CI II " T T O L'1 K r r T > n > i i i n D W N T REFER TO ! II[T CM AREA a l C D y D ) . ?• K o a . y n > C C C z K p FOR STRUCTURAL DATA Z ` O n P K ; y i r a a n y m ,a N " " '' n a BRZWY PORCH AWN ! 1 0 >' p ro z n c n a E m •a a • o D a n y 0 A a T�M �� m u m N r N r O a D z z O m C7 ro u 0 0 z > r K 0 y m a < K O N 2 r 0 m T > > O< n m m m m a u u a o = o o N m > f o a r r o m m < '" z n r 2 T x r o r z ax w 3 y A a x z p m n m > r z o N r N z m n m > m C m m v Y X u > K m > '•� N C •' m - N f . .e .. _ _ - _ .L_�e� •LwJ{n..a•(n^a. YSp 1tYf1' b� .. ?Crie::..i . . . . . .. - _ - _ ` y •��_I►l�':.'L: '.S.'+as::.':.ifi�'►41$iR. �:a':.. _ .. . � .-_ . LIBLR 721. ma 208 Who. 1 1'7'J3 /►� mg t ; THIS IXDMrTUU# made the�day of A) � , ainat«q hunched and ninety f r . � A f ' BZTWZ= 0 p � 70 Citicorp Mortgage Inc . , 15851 Clayton Road, St . Louie, Missouri Z 0; H M party of the first part , and � M '•/ to mi Lee D . Haefele and Sharon M. Haefele , 55 La Rue Road, spencer , ew Yorke , party of the second part , WITNE68ETH , that the party of the first part , in consideration of Ten Dollars and other valuable consideration paid by the party of the second part , does hereby grant and release unto the party of the second part , the heirs or successors and &&signs of the party of the ! ' second part forever , ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate In the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of Now York , more particularly described in accordance with the survey referred to herein and attached herewith as follwsi Beginning in the west line of the Lehigh Valley I Railroad Right of Nay at its intersection with the mouth face of a concrete wall along the premises known as 918 E , Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca in the vicinity of Mile Post No . 3091 thence North 32 degrees 23 minutes Nest along said concrete wall a distance of 78 feet from the Lehigh Valley Railroad right -of-way to a pointl thence North 58 degrees 58 minutes East ? a distance of 76 . 5 feet to a point in the west line of the Lehigh Valley Railroad right -of - r wayl thence South along the Lehigh Valley right -of-way a distance of 108 feet more or less and having a distance along a chord of South 12 degrees 41 minutes west 108 foot to the point or place of beginning . TOGETHER with all right , title and interest of the grantors in and to that portion* of the Lehigh Valley Railroad right of way as shown on the aforesaid map whether acquired by adverse use , occupancy , prescription , easement , grant or lease ( including any and all renewals of any existing leases ) . TOGETHER with all right , title and intereat of the grantors in and to that portion r Of Cayuga Lake adjacent to the parcel as described above and also including any and all J other walls or overhangs and walkways , and ' lands thereunder . 1n And TOGETHER with all other rights of the Cayuga,! 9 grantors 1n Ca a Lalu . � There is also conveyed to the parties of the second part , their heirs and assigns a w right of way to and from the above diked triangular parcel of land over an existing drivoway ; J of the premises located easterly from the above triangular parcel of land , reserved by Flora L' J . Sprigg at all in their conveyance to Ray S . and Clella Robinson recorded in Libor 230 � - of Deeds at page 388 , said right of way extending weetorly over the existing driveway across z the small brook and thence across the LeHigh Valley Railroad Line , for entrance and exit to and from the conveyed triangular parcel of land , which right of way was reserved by conveyance of Howell Girard , his heirs and assigns and which reservation in recorded in the S Tompkins County Clerk ' s office in Libor 11 of Ithaca Deeds at page 482 . 1-� ALSO ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND situate in the Town of Ithaca , County of - Tompkins and State of New York bounded and described as follows : Beginning at a + northwesterly corner of the premises described in a deed to Howard W . Sanders and Vivian L . Sanders from Bryon R . Davie and Elizabeth M . Davis dated July 10 , 1953 , and recorded in the Tompkins county Clerk ' * office in Libor 361 of Deeds at page It said point being also T in the easterly line of the Lehigh Valley Railroad right of wayl thence easterly 20 feet o along a fence to a point ; thence northeasterly 99 feet along the northwesterly side of a 07 F= concrete canal to a point in the centerline of the Lake Road ; thence southerly along the " 1+• „ o centerline of said Road 74 feet , more or lees ; thence westerly 82 feet passing through as Z center of an elm tree to a q � pipe , said pipe being located 15 feat southerly from the .l J N northerly line of the premises herein conveyed ; thence westerly 24 feet 4 inches , more or � °G M lees , to the easterly line of said railroad right of wayl thence northerly 15 feet along OL said railroad right of way to the point of beginning . Consolidated Rail Corporation is now the owner and Lessor of the right of way referred l to above as the Lehigh Valley Railroad right of way by acquisition of Lehigh Valley Railroad Company by Consolidated Rail Corporation as of April 1 , 1976 . Said premises also being described as follows : ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND , situate in the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State Of New York , more particularly described as followa : BEGINNING in the west line of the right -of -way formerly of the Lehigh Valley Railroad . ( now Conrail ) at the intersection of said westerly right -of -way with the southerly face of a concrete wall located along the southerly boundary of the herein described promises , which t . intersection lies southwesterly of Milo Post No . 3091 thence North 32 degrees 23 minutes West along the southerly face of said concrete a distance of 78 . 0 feet to & poLntl thence along a concrete wall located beneath a concrete walkway North 58 degrees 58 minutes Gast a distance of 76 . 5 feet to a point in the aforementioned westerly right-of -way lino former ly of the Lehigh Valley Railroad ; thence south along &aid weetorly right-of -way line a distance of 108 feet , more or lose , to a point located at the terminus of a chord running South 12 degrees 41 minutes west a distance of 108 feet from the last identified point , to the point or place of beginning . TOGETHER WITH a right -of-way to and from the above-described triangular parcel over an existing driveway of the premises located easterly from the above triangular parcel of land , i i �I i T i r ,h It LIM 721 PAGE 209 ;Il;I i reserved b Flora J . 9 ri Y P 99 � ot . al . , in their conveyance to Ray 9 . and C1e1L Robinson , recorded in Libor 230 of Deeds at Page 388 , @aid right -of -way extending westerly over the existing driveway across the small brook and thence across the ( formerly ) Lehigh Valley II Railroad line ( now Conrail ) for entrance and exit to and from the above triangular parcel of land , which right-of-way was reserved by conveyance of Howell Girard , his heir• and i. j '' assigns , and which reservation is recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Libor 11 of Ithaca Deeds at Page 482 , ALSO, ALL THAT TRACT OR PARCEL Of LAND , situate In the Town of Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of New York , bounded and described as .follows , BEGINNING at a northwesterly corner of the premises described in a deed to Howard W . Sanders and Vivian L . Sanders from Bryon R . Davis and Elizabeth M . Davis dated July 10 , 1953 , and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Libor 361 of Deeds at Page 1 , said point jyy being also in the easterly line of the right -of -way formerly of Lehigh Valley Railroad ( now Conrail ) , which point is marked by a pipe found in a stone wally thence along said stone wall ( with concrete cap ) South 71 degrees 49 minutes East a distance of 21 . 6 feet to a Pointe thence North 58 degrees 00 minutes East a distance of 99 . 8 feet , in part along the northerly wall of a concrete channel , to a point in the centerline of New York State Route 34 ( also known as East Shore Drive , also known as Lake Road ) , thence South 2 degrees 50 minutes West a distance of 80 . 0 feet along said centerline to a point ; thence North 80 degrees 02 minutes West a distance of 81 . 9 feet to • 78 degrees 02 minutes West a distance of 24 . 75 feet marked by a piper thence North I point in the aforementioned easterly right -of -way line formerly of Lehigh Valley Railroad , thence North 14 degrees 10 minutes East , along said easterly right-of -way line , a distance of 15 feet to the point or ; Place of beginning , ! Both of the above described parcels are depicted on ' S that certain survey map entitled , I . urvey Map Showing Premises of Mary L . James at No . 918 East Shore Drive , East and West of Former Lehigh Valley Railroad on East Shore of Cayuga Lake " , dated July 15 , 1976 and amended March 15 , 1989 and March S . 1994 , P red by T . G . Miller , P . C . , Engineers and Surveyorelo bt c.ct0� Corj" kAta1jj hLAj,,,T,} 1„ 1 1 ; Being all the same land and premises conveyed to Citicorp Mortgage Inc , herein by the Referee ' s Dead of John Alden Stevens dated 5 / 27 / 93 and recorded in t, he Tompkins County Clerk ' s office in Liber 703 of Deeds at Page 23 , i This transfer does not constitute all or substantially all of the assets of the corporation . I , TOGETHER with all right , title and interest , if any , of the party of the [ ire [ pert in and ` to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof , TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the party of . the first part I ; in and to said premise • , TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the ,party of the second part , the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of tie second part forever . AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the first pac� hae 'not dbne or � •�� suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered In any' way why ��v�r , except ' ��lil as aforesaid . AND the party of the first part , in compliance with Section 13 of 'thA Li �Tti' La°v ;'' pbvenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for thl '�igonveyance and 'wlll jk hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be ippl"ied first for the JJII9 Purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same firstjq, the payment iI of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the of this indenture so requires . se total of the same for any other purpose . The word party " shall be construed as if it read parties ' whenever the sense F, IM WITNESS WHEREOF, the party of the first part has duly executed this deed first above written , the day and year t �, f Ik IN PRESENCE OF , CIX.411ORP MACE , Imo', f ,I BYZ`1? it ` TITLE , SCCT i A. F1 L:':CH, A2;0`I". VICE ?� „I f I. .� STATE OF MISSOURI ) t COUNTY OF ST , LOUIS Ilj se . , SCOTT A. FRENCH, ASST. VICE PRE& On the 1 day of /� r , 1994 , before me personally came to me known , who , being by`�e—dully sworn , did depose and say that he resides et Clayton Road ; that he is the in and which executed the foregoing instrument ; that he knows thehsealrofrsaidninstrument ii 1 / such corporate sear that It was so affixed by order of the board of directors of said corporation , and that he signed his name thereto by hike order . �-- NOTARY PUBLIC to A A0 ft' V s UN�At MFSi �- UNQAA WEST II �, LJI I a.; : On' Pb'C-NotorySey NotvYPublc•NolaYSed tl : < . p j.. . a STATE Coi i.tt,;;OUfi • K GF A4COU,a !TCNAP-ESCOUYN ' t. •. .Lra� x : ,:�r,'i MryComr,:::'on6�,,esAUGU. 19" . ' t. l�s7 ill F ) o Ujr : Urepkiet Count' ",,,, ,.,,,,• 7 •y on The plot *. ►y .. . .^. , C 1 { . QM., in fiber . . . kll. . ,r .• •�.11.,tir�7,7.. 4 '' I . r pope •CJfS� d. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a axe�.l' �-rt(A ....... . . . ... ... .. . C1er1t Ij Property Description Residential Status: Active SWIS: 503089 Tax Map #: 18.-5-14 918 EAST SHORE DR Zoning Code: Site: 1 Neighborhood: 30040 RANCH School District : Ithaca 210 1 Family Deed Book: 721 Page: 208 Owner: HAEFELE, LEE D&SHARON M LEE D&SHARON M HAEFELE 55 LARUE RD SPENCER NY 14883 7/31/2000 File Photo Improvements: Structure Structure: GARAGE, 1 STY ATT. Grade:AVERAGE Number of Baths: 2 Condition: NORMAL Number of Bedrooms: 2 Size1: 312 Size2: ? Year: 1935 Number of Kitchens: 1 Number of Fireplaces: 0 Overall Condition: NORMAL Overall Grade: AVERAGE Porch Type: PORCH,OPEN Porch Area: 192 Year Built: 1955 Basement Type: CRAWL Last Sale: Base Garage Capacity: 0 No Sale Att Garage Capacity: 0 Area Land: Living Area: 1,328 Land Type:WATERFRONT First Story Area: 1,328 Size: 80 x 100 Second Story Area: Total Acreage: .11 Additional Story Area: Half Story Area- Three-Quarter Story Area: Finished Basement: Utilities Assessment: Land : 73,800 Sewer Type: COMM/PUBLIC Total 150,000 Water Supply: COMM/PUBLIC Taxes: Utilities: GAS / ELECTRIC Heat Type: HOT WTR/STM Fuel Type: OIL Central Air: 11 / 08 / 00 14 : 01 C^i607 257 1612 Kionix , Inc . 10001 / 004 MICHAEL D . PINNISI 9 2 0 E A S T S H O R E D R I V E ITI-IACA � NEW YORK 14850 RECORD OF FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO : Zoning Board of Appeals Telephone: (607) 273 - 1787 Facsimile : (607) 273 - 5854 FROM: Michael D . Pinnisi DATE : November 8, 2000 RE: 918 East Shore Drive — Request to Enlarge Nonconforming Building : Opposition to Appeal by Adjoining Landowner PAGES : Five (5 ) (including this cover sheet) 11 / 08 / 00 14 : 12 0607 257 1612 Kionix , Inc . 4001 / 002 MICHAEL D . PINNISI 9 2 0 EAST S H O R E D R I V E I T H A C A , NEW YORK 1 4 8 5 0 November 8 , 2000 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Re : 918 East Shore Drive : Appeal to Enlarge a Nonconforming Building To the Board : This letter is submitted in opposition to the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin requesting authorization to enlarge a non-conforming building located at 918 East Shore Drive. As explained below, I offer this opposition because the proposed project will negatively affect my adjoining property by diminishment of its light and views, and because the developers are unwilling to mitigate those effects or the consequent economic effects of their proposed project. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard . Background I am the owner of 920 East Shore Drive, which adjoins the building at issue. 920 East Shore drive has been my residence since August 1998 . My house is directly across the railroad tracks from the proposed two-story structure. It is one of only three properties that will be negatively affected by the proposed change. My ownership of the adjoining property was known to the Appellants at the time they filed this appeal . The Appellants, however, chose not to advise me of their intentions for the property. Rather,. I first learned of the application by an October 30, 2000 letter I received from Mr. Frost of the Building and Zoning Department, and a notice that was posted that same day to a telephone pole on the 918 East Shore Drive property. I called Appellant Timothy Hinkin the same day I received the letter to learn more about the application. It became apparent rapidly during our conversation that the proposed construction would impact my property negatively and significantly. I explained this to Mr. Hinkin, and explored alternatives that would reduce my concerns. I write to this Board because no mutually-acceptable alternative could be found. Reasons to Deny the Appeal I object to the application because it will diminish the light and views that are available to my property. The 918 East Shore Drive property is directly between my own and the lake, and it already blocks a substantial portion of my view of the lake and its 11 / 08 / 00 14 : 13 %Y607 257 1612 Kionix , Inc . IM002 / 002 . 2 — November 8, 2000 south and southwest shores. Currently, I can look over the roof of the other building, which is below the grade of my own house, to see Stewart Park, West Hill, a large tree that is on the property, and the famous Ithaca sunsets. By doubling the height of the building, the proposed structure will more than double its visual impact upon my property. Mr. Hinkin argued that my view already is blocked by a tree, so the further obstruction he proposes will not be significant, in his opinion. It is plain from Attachment C to the Appellants' own submission, however, that the tree merely screens a portion of the area that the proposed addition will block completely. Also, that photograph minimizes the visual effect of the addition because it was taken from a location below grade, farther away from the structure than my home, and at an angle aimed directly at the house. My house, located closer, above and to the north of the point of that photo, looks over the house and around the tree to Stewart Park, a view that will be largely obliterated by the proposed structure. In any event, I would greatly prefer to see the tree rather than the backside of a two-story house . And finally, the tree obviously is without leaves for half the year, enhancing the view with the silhouette of its branches. Please forgive me if I sound petty to be so worried about my view, but a nice view from the property is perhaps its only appreciable virtue. My house is a small, one" bedroom cottage of very modest quality and appointments. It is bounded on the north by a decrepit vacant cottage that is slowly rotting into the earth, on the east by East Shore Drive with its heavy and constant traffic, on the south by an unattractive multi-unit rental property, and on the west by the subject property. It has no lake frontage or other lake access . By far and away its most positive feature is its view. That view is fragile, obtained in the house only from a small den that faces west and northwest, and from a bedroom/den that faces west . Both rooms have a clear view of the subject property, which is directly opposite the bedroom/den, and the proposed addition will impede both views . The view from the back yard already is dominated by the subject property. I expect that the proposed expansion will loom over my yard, and put it into shade for much of the afternoon. I believe that diminishment of view is a very appropriate consideration for this application. I understand that the property is nonconforming is because it extends over the lake bed on pylons and land fill. This location places the non-conforming building into the line of sight of other properties that face the lake by jutting inappropriately over the water. Such a nonconforming use is especially damaging to adjoining properties, which have much more of their view taken away by such an intrusion because of the simple geometry of lines of sight. Certainly, many of the owners of the properties crowded along the east shore would love to extend their houses out over the water to capture a wonderful, unobstructed and wide-angle view of the water, but they cannot because such an extension would devalue all surrounding properties, among other reasons . The Appellants' proposed addition would cause such damage to my property and that of my neighbors . Consequently, this appeal proposes to increase the harms that flow from the building being non-conforming in the first place . 11 / 08 / 00 14 : 03 U607 257 1612 Kionix , Inc . tA 003 / 004 - 3 - November 8, 2000 For all of these reasons, I believe that the appeal should be denied in order to avoid exacerbation of the present harms caused by the nonconforming building, and to thereby preserve the light and views for the surrounding properties . Cost-Shifting Alternatives to Denial of the Appeal I regret having to oppose the appeal, as I imagine the Appellants are excited about their project and the present owners are interested in selling to them. Consequently, I have given thought to some reasonable alternatives to denial of the appeal that might better satisfy all competing concerns . These involve either compensation for the diminished value that the project would cause, or alternatively, the acquisition of my property by the Appellants . Economic factors such as this are very appropriate for consideration here, as the Appellants are developers of this project, not homeowners . The Appellants intend to buy the property if and only if this application is approved . Consequently, they will suffer no harm if the application is denied, other than loss of the opportunity, and will gain if the application is granted . Conversely, I will suffer a loss of value if the application is granted, and will gain nothing if it is denied. As the old saying goes, I have nothing to gain and everything to lose with regard to this application. Also, the Appellants have a history of buying, renovating and selling luxury properties as an avocation or hobby. They current have such a property for sale on Willard Way, their current residence, which is listed for sale at an offering price of $435, 000. 1 assume that this proposed project at 918 East Shore Drive is part of the Appellants ' pattern, a property to be improved, lived in for a while, and then sold for profit . In that light, I thought it appropriate that the Appellants should be required to avoid the diminishment of value they would cause my property, as a small part of the cost of their larger development project. This could be accomplished by simple compensation for loss of value, which has not been offered . Perhaps a better alternative would be for the Appellants to simply buy my property. Indeed, that apparently was the Appellants ' own idea at one time . My realtor advised that the Appellants gained access to the inside of my home by representing themselves as a party interested in purchasing both 918 and 920 East Shore Drive in a single transaction. I imagine they were genuine about that stated intent . Otherwise; their conduct would have been flatly dishonest, using a false pretense to gain access to the inside of my home to assist in their planning for the 918 East Shore Drive property. Taking the Appellants at their word, they entertained the possibility of buying my property before I even learned of their plans . The cost of acquiring my property would be very low in comparison to the cost of this project. I bought the property in 1998 for about $ 51 , 000, and invested about $ 10, 000 in its restoration and improvement . I have had the property on the market for about two months. I originally tried to sell at $75 ,000 and got no offers . I have since reduced the price twice, down to a present ask of about $ 59, 000 . Although a sale at that price will 11 / 08 / 00 14 : 04 V607 257 1612 Kionix , Inc . IA004 / 004 _ g _ November 8, 2000 mean a substantial loss, especially after payment of the realtor ' s commission, it has attracted no offers. Given the low cost of my property, it could be acquired for less than $ 12,000 down and rented out like the property next door, likely for a significant profit. When I spoke with Mr. Hinkin, I suggested this as an alternative to resolve our dispute about his application. Unfortunately he declined, explaining in part and substance that the cost of my property might be too high to manage as part of his larger project under certain potential circumstances . I am concerned that, if the application is granted and the Appellants do not buy my property, I will never receive a fair price for the property. The view from the house has been touted as its major selling feature. My realtor has advised that, because of Appellants ' public application, I must now disclose to potential buyers that the present blockage of the view may be substantially increased in the immediate future due to this proposed project . As a result, I already have suffered a loss due solely to the pendency of this appeal. In addition, because the proposed addition will further diminish the single best quality of a property that already is difficult to sell, I believe that a grant of the application will render my property unsalable at any reasonable price . The noise and mess of construction at the neighboring site while I continue to attempt to sell will only add to the problem. I believe these factors in combination will be devastating to my chances for sale of the property. I believe that it is appropriate to shift the cost of the diminished value of my property to the developer as part of the project . Otherwise, I will be subsidizing that project with my uncompensated loss by diminishment of value, with no enjoyment of the project or participation in any financial gain. As such, a grant of the application would constitute a taking from my property without compensation. If the developers are not willing to bear the consequences of the impact of their project on their neighbors, then I submit that the application for the project should be denied . Conclusions For these reasons, I request that the Appellants be required to compensate me for the loss that will be caused by their project as a condition to approval of their appeal . Alternatively, I request that the appeal be denied in its entirety. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, U i Michael D . Pinnisi xc : Appellants Timothy and Linda Mnkin TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION 1 , Dam 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 hearincs to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoninp, Board of Appeals in Town Hall , 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , New York on Wednesday, November 8, 2000 , commencinp, at 7 : 00 P . M ., as per attached . Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sicn Board — 215 North Tiopa Street. Date of posting: October 31 , 2000 Date of publication: November 3, 2000 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning De rtment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS . : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3rd day of November 2000. Notary Public DEBORAH KELL Notary Public, State of New York No. 01KE6025073 Qualified In Schuyler County I Commission Expires May 17. 20 r APPEAL of G D Blanpied rr�Appellant •'Margaret;; C �Hobbre LAgent, requestingg ad' v-ar r a n VIP,f ro m s:, Uh-err requrremerifz 'of 'arficle ;IV z Section 1 b, of I I tho Tovin�o#j �IfhBca Zonm`giOrdrnance, to' Ibe permitted =fo rhauitdin' d', �p'arcel.of E "If. l3t:acres IcIrea wi a lo'twidth of'31`t' (feet" t the sfreet.• .Ime`>ando 3,1t, feet atthe maximum=; �fyon�t, yard 'setback line leafed at town•:of Ithaca;-Tax Po `cel$No 563 25 neict;to`' r 1586, S�oterville tdence Distrrctft APPEAL of DawdlAxenfeld # Appellant Georgtai f lem ,': Agent requesting a,:varF ` once from .Ar"lid , r VIII;`Sec ition.41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning rOidrnance , to .be !permitted to conduct a retail bus'ine`ss atbl8'�Eliiiroj Road, Town ;of . Ithpcak f6x i IParcel �No''":33 3 2 7,'=h hf (Industnal It DIs .. t tSard ihrct-does notlpermrt'a land ; kuse>!pF retail usin esses:?AI s ral WS approval under 'artF, ce '-XIIecho`"n,54iof It said ? Ordinance mrght`also bets quested srncethe pro e' ` P-- rN= was' originally' developed'; a_nd usedt for Freta iV' businesses %; I pAPPEAL of Sfan and Maly- Bann° Bowman;' Apppelldnts�; tSusbn Cosen ti his tyAgenf`„re questing a4vanance hom'the requ�ments ofYAnc�le fSecfion 11 ;Paragra h':A6 and'Sechon` 12` of thepTownr. tof_Itlioca Zoningg Ordrrignce;. to-be permitted, to�mainta'in' "artist studios in an accessory;; i building with ya tbuilding height of 20+ •feet ( 15 fool theiggfit hmitationl located-yat j203`rPme 7re`e oad, Town..I Is -oflthaca Tax 'Parcel N9 - r57 1=J , r Residence, .Dishi¢f' (R 15'i; Sard,Or"ilmance ;per ', (mrts=artists to maintain" pro ftssio'nal office's;only wrtfim , IV the burldmgs tfiat'they re3ide ' tin" dnd not 'i'n" accesso'r {APPEAL° of jTimothy , and 1 �Lrndd�Hmkm :oppellants .;te qnesting I t h om ithe =Zoning`-�$oard of :Ap-`'t peals? under ArtiderXA Sec'; lion 54 of the Town of ItfidPC Zoning Ordinance toen',? �largge� a nonconformity" Iybuilding with the addrhon'_o� a`n 884 square`foot second:, list ory°additi on,qt 918 East Shore, Dnve Town of Ithaca'; Par`cel rNo'.� 18514' ResrdenceDistricf,R15 Sar bmlding >is noncarformrggl Is ast extendsr beyond proFr arty, lines; wthrpart of they adlaeent property being Ca 1* Said Zorimg Board of app t pealsl° will , ot said, ti me' OOp.m and 'said place, { TOWN OF RHACA, f ` of auchllmatte� or:ob a hons1 aiI' ,'ZONING BOARD :z It-- -t OF, APPEALS , : ; f thereto: Persons'may appear{ NOTICE >OF P,UBL'1C by agentors m ; person; J HEARINGS ' d Indrvrdduals wdfi visual orj �WednesdayJ,November heanngr rmpagments 'or: ,8,' 2000; TOOPM . T; other `speaal needs a"s', Byy direction oEahe Chairmen; °PproPnate �wrll• be; to 0 e, Zonin Boardrof<a vrdedx,wrthsassistance Pas' ' S9 NOTICE; IS HEREBY necessary uporequest; GIVEN that Public Hearings Persons desuingt'assrstance: wdl 'be held;liy, the Zonin must make such tia zrequest Boardr} of AppealsY of -tfie `not less`fhon As fi'ours pnoi; - - -- - - f Ithaca;onu Wednes to the' time of the r public% day4Novembe%8, 2000'mThearing , t` .1 Town;Hall 215 _NorthiL a x ; : : Andrew S Frost: Director of Bwldm 4SheetJTAurora Street En' gl phones}5(rorkmgg� tot side ` _ "'� 'a_rid Zomnggl �Ifhaco , N Y= ,;CCMAMEN r r t '273 1783t. �fNG 'AT 7 OOR'M ; oh` tfte Dated Ocrober 30 ' 2000 V.4 � followmg maite'rs v.fF November' 3 20005 .