The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA Minutes 2007-12-17 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, NY 14850 MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2007 7:00 PM PRESENT Kirk Sigel, Chairman; Ron Krantz, Board Member; Dick Matthews, Board Member; David Mountin, Board Member; Eric Levine Board Member; Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Christine Balestra, Planner. EXCUSED Harry Ellsworth, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member. OTHERS James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane Richard Thaler Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Rd Christopher and Celeste Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Rd Debra Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Rd Susan Perri, 601 N Tioga St Harold and Florence Bierman, 109 Kay St Call to Order Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Welcome to the December meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board Appeals. Tonight we have 7 appeals, which will be taken in the following order: the adjourned appeal of Sheri Johnson Henry, James Henry agent; the appeal of Nathaniel Greenspun; the appeal of Harold Bierman; then the final four appeals are all being represented by the Town of Ithaca itself. So the first appeal this evening is: ADJOURNED APPEAL of Sheri Johnson Henry and James R. Henry, Owners/Appellants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to create a lot by subdivision, located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1- 66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR). The parcel has insufficient lot widths at the street and at the required front yard setback for parcels in the MDR Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Henry? Mr. Henry — Hi. Again. Chairperson Sigel — Hello. And if you could again please begin with your name and address. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane Mr. Henry — James Henry. My business address is 201 East Cortland Street, PO Box 95, Groton, New York. My residence address is 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane, Ithaca, NY. Chairperson Sigel — Okay and is there anything you would like to state at the outset here to supplement what you have submitted? Mr. Henry — Not much. I mean we're back here. This board referred back to the Planning Board regarding the issue of whether the fact that 2 of the 3 parcels in this subdivision that was apparently done without approval in the 1960s were consolidated for tax purposes for approximately 5 years in the 1980s. When it went back to the Planning Board for that issue, the Planning Department and I don't know whether it was the Town Attorney as well, but the Planning Department believed that it should be a 3 lot subdivision that was being considered because there were 3 lots that were done in the 1960s that was 1 parcel divided into 3 lots. So it's now a 3-lot subdivision. The Board, the Planning Board on December 4 again approved the subdivision, this time the 3 lots, all 3 lots that were originally involved with conditions. One of the conditions being the same condition to come back to the ZBA and get the 2 variances at the street line and at the 50 foot back line as a condition of the subdivision approval. You've got all the stuff we submitted before and I guess that's about it. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. You provided us with a nicely detailed list of events here to the best of your knowledge what happened over the years, which I appreciate. Any questions? Mr. Mountin — I need to finish reading this. Can we take some time to read the letter? Chairperson Sigel — Did you get a copy of the letter that we received today from Mr. Hutchins? Mr. Henry — No. I have not seen it. Ms. Brock— Do you have an extra copy of Mr. Hutchins's letter? Ms. Balestra — Yes. I do. I guess we received this...I wasn't in the office today, but I guess we received this late in the afternoon sometime. Chairperson Sigel — I was emailed it. Ms. Brock—Well...around 1 o'clock. No...around 11 o'clock. Mr. Henry — I don't think we actually need it for this. Ms. Balestra — Okay. Let me look. 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So we'll take a moment to let board members and you read through this. [See attachment#1 — Letter from Bernard and Jinyong Hutchins to Zoning Board of Appeals dated December 17, 2007] Mr. Krantz— Are the Hutchins here tonight? Chairperson Sigel — I believe so, yeah. Ms. Brock— Yes, they are. Chairperson Sigel — So, as you know, this was before us a couple of meetings ago and I don't, you know, the situation has not changed significantly. I mean the Planning Board essentially reaffirmed in a slightly different form this is a 3-lot subdivision versus a 2-lot subdivision, but no lot lines were changed by the Planning Board and so we have before us essentially the same request for the same deficiencies to grant variances for deficient width at the street and deficient width at the required setback. So do any board members have any questions for the applicant at this point? If we don't have a lot to discuss at the outset here, we could move to the public hearing and listen to what neighbors have to say. Okay. We'll open the public hearing at this time (7:10 p.m.) Mr. Thaler— Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairperson Sigel — Yes? If you'd like you can sit... Mr. Thaler—Well, I don't think I need one. Chairperson Sigel —Well, we do record it, though. So it's easier to get you on tape if you're near a microphone. Richard Thaler My name is Richard Thaler and I've been asked by the Beyenbach's to act as their voice at this meeting. I'm not advocating one way or the other. I just want to read a letter, which I received from them before they went to Germany. It was delivered on December 12th 2007. Mr. Thaler read the letter into the record. [See attachment#2. Letter dated December 12, 2007 from Klaus Beyenbach to Richard Thaler.] Mr. Thaler—And I brought the original letter to give to you as an exhibit. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Bernard Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Rd Ah, yes. My name is Bernie Hutchins, 1016 Hanshaw Road. I believe you read the letter. Chairperson Sigel - Yes. Mr. Hutchins — The only clarification I wanted to make on that is with regard to this mystery person, George Pfann, probably, maybe you know who he is. But I could not find him listed so I went to the source of all the information, the Internet, and Googled it and got a Wikipedia, much to my surprise. He was a football player, at least his father was, I believe, at Cornell. But his...whatever his role was in this transaction, whether he was an attorney for Cowan's is not clear. He might have been an attorney for the bank, but what I said there was correct. He was the Notary Public who notarized the signatures for the Henry's. So I tended to regard that he was working for them and not for Cowan's at that point, at least when he punched his notary stamp. All right. So if there are...as long as the letter has been read, unless somebody has a question about it, that's all I have. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Does anyone want to ask Mr. Hutchins any questions? I thought it was pretty clear. Thank you. Sir? Please. Christopher Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Rd My name is Christopher Ptak and I live at 1018 Hanshaw Road. I have a letter that I wrote. I only have 5 copies, but is it okay if I read it? Chairperson Sigel — Sure. Mr. Ptak read his letter to the board. [See attachment#3. Letter from Christopher and Celeste Ptak dated December 17, 2007.] Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Mr. Mountin — I have a question. What's the...according to the survey map that I am looking at here dated 9/26/07. What's your current arrangement or situation with...it looks like the driveway is already...how do you use...how's...the current use of the driveway right now it's not... Mr. Ptak— It's right on the boundary. Mr. Mountin — It's on the boundary so how have you...an agreement...is there a verbal agreement that you would have this right-of-way access to this? Mr. Ptak— It's in our deed. 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin — It's in your deed. There is a right-of-way easement in your deed. Chairperson Sigel — That easement exists. Yeah. Ms. Brock— I've seen it. Chairperson Sigel — It's between all 3 involved lots. Right? Ms. Brock— Yes. Mr. Ptak— Maybe even more and Sienna. Chairperson Sigel — Lot A, Lot C, and Mr. Ptak. Ms. Brock—And the Hutchins. Mr. Henry — No. No. Not Lot A. It's Lot C, Hutchins, and Ptak. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, okay. Oh, right because you have the flag pole there. Mr. Henry — Yeah. The 20...the flag pole and then it's half of the 50 foot right-of-way, which is shared by... Mr. Mountin — So it's in the current easement. Would that...if the subdivision was...well the subdivision has already been approved, so the variances... Ms. Brock—Well, it's approved conditioned on receiving the necessary variances. Mr. Mountin — Right, but the easement already has...a right-of-way easement is already between...(not audible)... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah that predates all of this. Ms. Brock— It's in all of the deeds. Chairperson Sigel —Any other questions? Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak? Ma'am? Debra Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Rd I'm Debra Cowan. I live at 1022 Hanshaw Road in Ithaca and I'm really getting confused. I don't know if this is the venue to do this, but I don't know where else to get an understanding of what is going on. I expected maybe that there would be a little more conversation in the beginning from your point of view as there was last time. When we went back to the Planning Board, I still have questions about how that impacts this decision here or what actually happened there. I guess all I am trying to say is that it seems that things got a little more confused and you're trying to make a decision 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final based on you threw it back to them and they kind of made it a 3 property subdivision. Some of us were listed as applicants who were not applicants. I was never asked. I was just listed as an applicant with Mr. Henry as agent. He did explain to the Planning Board that he was not my agent or that of Klaus Beyenbach, but that is still there. Even that night nobody asked me or has explained to me what exactly that would mean. This also says that this would be dependent on all the owners of Parcels A, B, and C to agree to bearings and distances, I guess for that property lines and I don't know when or where that is supposed to happen. So those are... Chairperson Sigel —Well, I think that was a condition of the Planning Board's subdivision approval. Similar to, for instance, this board granting the variances is a condition of the subdivision approval. So if we did approve these variances tonight that would meet one of the Planning Board's criteria. Ms. Cowan — I see. Chairperson Sigel —Another one of them is the agreement that the meats and bounds are correct for the 3 lots involved in the subdivision. Ms. Cowan — Okay. So you would pass certain...if you passed it tonight then it...it seems like a contingency on a contingency, you know, and that's where I am getting a little confused as to when it stops bouncing back and forth, but if you... Chairperson Sigel —Well, there was only...I mean we did one thing, which was we referred it back to the Planning Board because we felt that they were not aware of all of the information. Ms. Cowan — Right. Chairperson Sigel — So the last time they met, I believe that they were aware of all the information... Ms. Cowan — Yeah. I was there. Chairperson Sigel - ...related to this case and so now things are proceeding as they normally do, at least in the Town of Ithaca with this type of thing, which is for a subdivision approval, the Planning Board approves it first and then if there are any variances necessary then the approval is contingent upon the granting of those and then it comes to the Zoning Board. Ms. Cowan — Okay. Chairperson Sigel —And there could still be other conditions of the subdivision approval that are net met when we meet and that really doesn't affect this board. 6 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Ms. Cowan — Okay. So the whole aspect of being applicants and ... that does not matter to this board. I mean it is something that is the Planning Board's business. Chairperson Sigel — That's a contingency of the subdivision approval, yeah. I mean the subdivision approval could, in theory, never succeed. All the conditions might never be...even though this board might grant the variances. Ms. Cowan — I see. Ms. Brock—And I don't think the Planning Board was aware that you weren't consenting to be an applicant. I remember that Mr. Beyenbach said as first he was not consenting and then there was a lot of discussion with the Planning Board about that and he eventually said yes, he did consent. And, ah, I don't remember now what all the discussion was about. You...(not audible)...whether the Planning Board just assumed that you had consented. Ms. Cowan —Well Mr. Henry did state really clearly, so I didn't repeat it, that he didn't represent any of us and he was the applicant and, oh, maybe it was your wife that who as the applicant and you were the agent for her. And no one really clarified or confirmed, but certainly the surprise to me was getting, seeing a notice and seeing my name on it as it was to Mr. Beyenbach as well. So that was a point of confusion. Chairperson Sigel —Well, that, I mean I think that is potentially a problem. I mean the way I think of this in my mind is that, um, the subdivision in the early 60s to the best of the Town's knowledge was not legally done and so those lots as far as the Town is concerned are not subdivided. It is one large lot with 2 houses on it and 3 owners, which the owners own subsections of that one lot, but they own the whole lot jointly. That's the way I think of it. And so it seems to make sense to me that all of the current owners of that lot need to agree to apply for subdivision. Ms. Cowan —Well, I would...personally, you know, I'm over my head here and I don't know what the implications or ramifications would be for me and I've been in that position before of not having legal advice and, you know, I don't want to make that mistake again. So it's not something that I would attempt to figure out myself. So... Ms. Brock— I can tell you, um, what are the implications if the subdivision does or doesn't go through. If it doesn't go through, you may have trouble selling your house because the next buyer may want proof that in fact the lots are properly subdivided and if you can't provide that you have...also if you wanted to make any improvements to your house that require a building permit, you wouldn't be able to get that for the same reason. So I think there are a lot of implications in not getting the approval to you. For tonight...that really was a Planning Board issue because for tonight the variances apply only to Lot C, which is the lot owned by Mrs. Henry. So for what this board needs to consider, you do have an applicant, Mrs. Henry, represented by her agent, Mr. Henry and you are looking just at the variance request and the variances apply only to that one lot. 7 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — I think that it...I mean I still believe that the Planning Board was aware of all of the information we are aware of and if the application to the Planning Board was defective in some way, then obviously they're subdivision approval could be nullified in some way, but that wouldn't...I think we could still vote on this matter tonight and let the Planning Board subdivision approval run its course, whether the other 2 owners want to contest whether that was done properly I don't think has a bearing on what we do tonight. If anyone feels differently, please speak up because I'm not 100 percent committed to that stance. Mr. Mountin — I guess I would ask more questions before... Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Questions of...? Mr. Mountin — I guess I'm a little confused, too... Chairperson Sigel — Of Ms. Cowan or...? Mr. Mountin — Mr. Hutchins's letter regarding Ms. Cowan and I'm a little confused to...I guess I just want to clear this in my mind first. This letter here, I don't know when this was, in opposition to the variances that you have a gag order on being in opposition to the... Ms. Cowan —Well that, ah, I guess is an exaggeration for affect. I don't know if I would term it that, but in the last go round before the Zoning Board I came with quite a number of my neighbors to speak against the proposed zoning variances and Mr. Henry at that time stated that I had agreed in a contract not to oppose any variance that he might seek in the future, which really sort of surprised and shocked me and it turned out it was something that was written into the purchase and sale agreement, which myself, being naive, I guess, about things like this, I hadn't considered purchase and sale. I just felt like that was a real estate document on the way to the sale talking about the price and I didn't think of it as a legal and binding contract forever, nor did I actually remember having done this until Mr. Henry showed us the copy, which said...I believe Bernie has the wording in there. And what had basically happened at the time is, you know, we had some concern about the back lot as well and we had been told by the realtor that it was unbuildable. In talking to the Henry's talked about getting a right of first refusal, would they come to us first and I wanted that written into the document, but at the time Mr. Henry said it was too complicated to write that into a document, which again, looking back was naive for me to accept from a lawyer. But he did write in a statement that I was not to bring up any objections to any future plans he might have for a variance and that we did sign with his verbal agreement that he would make a first offer to us. So that's the story of what happened at that time. At that particular time and whenever 2000—last time we were here at the Zoning Board and again, my thought of first refusal is I had heard...whoops. I took apart your table there in my nervousness. I'll just chew on my nail instead. The...at that point when Mr. Flat applied for the variance, I had not been offered...I had no knowledge that it was happening before Mr. 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Flat was involved and again, in my mind, first refusal was when Mr. Henry had planned to sell it on whatever opportunities he would check with us first. And I guess a prior number of years before he had thought about it and talked to us about it and we could not afford it at that point and so that to him and maybe legally because I don't know legally was the first offer. And then in the subsequent 2, 3 years later when he contacted Mr. Flat, I didn't come into it any more. That wasn't my understanding. I thought in my mind each time he might have decided to move on it he would check with us. So he didn't check with us that time or this time. So obviously we did not have the same understanding there. I hope that's clear. Mr. Mountin — Yeah, it is clear. I think it's clear. I just want to reparaphrase what you said. So at this point, are you supporting or opposing this variance? Ms. Cowan — I'm opposing the variance. I don't know if there are any ramifications doing that legally given this contract. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I mean, as far as what is written in your purchase and sale agreement that's not something I think that this board would or could in any way enforce. That's, you know, if Mr. Henry wanted to sue you for breech of that term in your contract he could. That would be completely outside of this...this forum. We could not prevent anyone from speaking who wanted to. Ms. Cowan —Well, suppose I then spoke in a sense that I am imparting information that I think you should have without declaring myself as I just did, opposed or not. I mean for me I don't even know if such a thing is possible that you can prevent someone from voicing their opinion in front of a Zoning Board, which affects your property. I believe you are all here to help protect our property as citizens and then you properly need to hear from all of us in order to do that. I do have my understanding from a few years ago for variances that it has to meet a number of conditions. Whether the requested area variance is substantial, which certainly it is. I don't think I have to spell it out because you know the numbers, the amount of road frontage and the amount of the setback. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance and I believe again that this is so. I mean basically this house is in the back yards, as Mr. Ptak stated, of a number of homes, mine included. It's more officially in my back yard area than anyone else's. In terms of...I think it is a detriment to our property just because most people do not have houses in their back yards. Generally if there is a situation where there's a house behind a house there is frontage on a road of some kind. Flag lots are unusual in the City. The last time we were here you mentioned that there have been flag lots in more rural areas, but it's uncommon in an area of this density to have this kind of freight train kind of setting where there's, you know, a house behind a house. The driveway is...where the right-of-way...the driveway is not paved. It's pretty rutted and overgrown. I assume that might change if someone builds, but again, I've had a concern, my husband has had a concern about fire access. The house would be built potentially 200 feet or more behind or a good deal more. I don't know how that works for fire. I assume there has to be some kind of compliance, but 9 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final rescue vehicles were a concern then and now. I think it will affect property values, definitely. I think it will be more difficult if we ever want to sell our house to have another residence of unknown size and dimension and potentially more than a single family residence in essentially our back yard and those of our neighbors. That also covers whether it will have an impact on the physical or environmental conditions. And the last, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. I think that is what you were trying to find out by reviewing the documents and sending it back to the Planning Board. I can't say, you know, because that part of things I find very puzzling. You know, the whole history and how things went back and forth in terms of who created and consolidated and reconsolidated, but I do note that in Mr. Henry's affidavit that was presented to the Planning Board that stated 11/7/07 in 2 distinct places he admits that...knowing of a potential problem with a subdivision. My recollect...and I'm quoting, "my recollection is that one person indicated that there probably was no problem, but another thought that probably a subdivision application should be done." And which she did not pursue at the time because he was running on deadlines and his life was in chaotic because of the situation of his wife being pregnant. In another place he says, "we intended at a later point to investigate and figure out what if anything needed to be done regarding subdivision." And that says to me, at least, that he was aware that there was some kind of problem...potential problem. So, I guess...I know I have been taking up some time, but one of my major concerns here is if you do decided tonight to grant these variances, I...well, 2 things. One is that the last time the Zoning Board reviewed this, the then Town Attorney suggested that the board put in a limitation to the variance that said the house, and I'm quoting here from the minutes, would be at least 75 feet away from all of the adjoining parcel property lines and I guess I would ask if it goes...if you decide that you want to grant the variance that you consider including that limitation again. And my last concern, I don't know if you can do anything about, but I guess I would echo Mr. Ptak in saying that one of our major concerns and what brought many of our neighbors out last time, we didn't really ask for the surrounding neighbors to come this time, was the thought of having a multi-family house back there. I realize that this area is zoned for multi-family housing, but I'm wondering if this does pass in terms of your accepting, approving the variances, if there is any possibility that you could put a restriction for a single-family house. Just because again we have a very narrow access to the back. One of the big concerns last time was with more...if there was more than one family the number of cars going up and down the very narrow access way in between 2 homes. Chairperson Sigel — That is the type of restriction that we could impose. Ms. Brock—Which is? Chairperson Sigel — Limiting the house to a single-family house. Ms. Brock—Well, the zone allows a 2-family dwelling. Chairperson Sigel — If we were able to relate it to an impact. 10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin — The zoning is in a multiple density. Chairperson Sigel — It allows 2 family. Ms. Brock— It allows 2 family, but not multiple residence, which would be apartments. Ms. Cowan —Well, I guess I'm saying to you I'm sor...(tape flipped)...as clear as it should be. I was...to me they mean the same thing. Obviously they don't, but a 2- family, which is what was proposed last time, really caused a lot of unsettled mess in the neighborhood and a lot of people were very unhappy at the idea that this would alter the character and nature of the street, which is mostly relatively large lots with single houses. Mr. Beyenbach does have a small cottage in the back of his house, but it is occupied by one person and they park in a little area right next to the road and walk up and down the driveway. So a lot of difference in terms of traffic and impact for the neighborhood. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Cowan — Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and your consideration. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Would anyone else wish to speak during the public hearing? Okay, if not, we'll close the public hearing (7:44 p.m.). Mr. Henry, if you would like to... Mr. Henry — Respond to some of the onslaught...um, yes. It's hard to know where to begin on some of that stuff. The...ah...Deb Cowan mentioned the original contract on theirs. As some of you may know, George Pfann is a very experienced real estate attorney. He represented Cowan's in that purchase. The purchase contract as part of the contract to purchase Lot A, 1022 Hanshaw, the Cowan's agreed that they would not oppose a street frontage variance for a residence to be built on Lot C. That was part of the negotiated contract. They had an attorney. The attorney was not a bank attorney. They bought for cash. George Pfann represented them. The contract contained an attorney approval clause. George Pfann reviewed the contract during the attorney approval clause you have in your packet; George Pfann's letter, which is during the attorney approval clause if he had any problem on their behalf to that provision about it he could have...he could have objected during that time. If you look at the contract...if you look at the date of the contract and the attorney approval clause that is in there, it gives so many days, which I forgot whether it's 3 or 5, whatever. But George's letter to me saying that he was representing the Cowan's and that he understood that we were agreeing to allow them to move their stuff into the garage before closing as an accommodation and that he was ready to proceed with that. So when Deb Cowan comes and says well we didn't understand what we were doing, I mean, they had a very competent real estate attorney representing them in the transaction. And as she said, I don't actually remember about a first right of refusal, but we did offer...we asked the Cowan's if they wanted to buy that lot after they purchased and before the 2003 thing and they did not. They declined at that time. Does anybody have any questions about 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final that? I mean I'd just like to get that out of the way. I mean I'm being cast as some kind of an evil... Ms. Brock— Jim? You mentioned George Pfann's letter. I just found it. It was in the submission to the ZBA when you considered this matter in October. I don't think it was duplicated again in the packet you got for tonight's meeting, but it was in your October packet. Actually I have a copy right here. I just found it. Mr. Henry — Yeah. I'm glad you mentioned it... Ms. Brock— It's dated 1991 addressed to James Henry, signed by George Pfann saying, "Dear Jim: This is to advise that I represent Kevin and Debra Cowan who are purchasing property known as 1022 Hanshaw Road from you and your wife." Then there is some correspondence about the closing and things like that. So if you were looking in your packet tonight you're not going to see that, but it is in your packet from the October meeting. Mr. Henry — I'm glad you mentioned that. I was assuming that you had in front of you the original information, which has, you know, talks about the benefit to us and that there is not a real detriment to the neighborhood. This is a residential neighborhood. This is...the proposal is for getting the variances to get the subdivision to have the 3 lots legal and for us to sell Lot C to someone who wants to build a residence on this property, which is the character of the neighborhood. This lot...my understanding is the minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet. Ms. Balestra — That's correct. Mr. Henry — This lot is almost 5 times larger than the minimum lot size. This is one of the largest lots in that area. You have the church lot and you have the golf course. And then other than that there are very few lots that are this size. Bernie Hutchins is one. The neighbors, the tight-knit group of neighbors does not want to have another residences put in there. They like having this vacant lot where the deer go across and the blackberry bushes grow and we pay the taxes on and carry the ownership. But the objections that are being made tonight are the same objections to any house being built on a lot in a neighborhood. They are the same objections that could have been made if there was a forum when Bernie Hutchins built his house. He bought a lot. The Bruckner lot included what is now Ptak's and Hutchins and Bruckner subdivided that. Sold the house to Hartman who sold to Ptak and the lot was sold to the Hutchins and the Hutchins built their residence there. The same argument could be made at that time. It's another...you know, the neighborhood is full. Other lot owners might see a house there or there might be construction on that. I understand that apparently the neighbors do not want another house in the neighborhood, but there certainly is room because the lot is so large. And those arguments are ones that we don't want one more person or one more lot in here. The right-of-way has been mentioned, as Susan mentioned. I mean there is a 50 foot wide right-of-way servicing Ptak, Lot C, and Hutchins. There's currently the driveway that services Ptak and Lot C on that and so 12 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final there is plenty of access as far as emergency vehicles. I mean if you can't get something in a 50 foot wide right-of-way, I mean that is the street width. Mr. Mountin —Who currently now maintains that driveway? Does Mr. Ptak plow it and shovel that driveway? Mr. Henry — ...(not audible)...they...I mean nobody really maintains it now. It's always been done informally in the past. At the time the Hartman's were actually selling to Pkat's Mrs. Hartman called and said can we put some gravel down for the, you know, and we said fine, you know. It's just been an informal thing over the years. Mr. Mountin — So it would be informal if the variances or the subdivision actually was created? Would it still be...would there be say, for example...a driveway was granted here to access back to Parcel C, what kind of an arrangement would Mr. Ptak have to have with... Mr. Henry — That is actually up to them. The contract... Mr. Mountin — So the new owner would have to negotiate that with Mr. Ptak? Mr. Henry —Well, the contract that we actually have on the sale on that, the buyers are requesting that an agreement be negotiated for splitting the cost of that, but that is up to Ptak's whether they want to agree to that or not and we haven't...if the approvals are done, then I'll ask the buyer's attorney to propose and say you know what do you want in that agreement and I'll take it to Ptak's and see if they want to sign it and if they don't then it would remain as an informal thing. If they wanted to formalize that to set down how it's done they could. Mr. Levine — Mr. Henry, when you purchased Lot C, the seller kind of at the 11th hour reduced the price in half. He gave seller financing. Did that raise any flag, red flag with you that maybe you were assuming a risk that this was not a buildable lot? Mr. Henry — Um, that's how that apparently came about. We said is there an issue, a subdivision issue and so they offered to do that and of course it was great to get the lot, but we couldn't afford it until they did that and so we were aware that there would have be variances. The subdivision thing was all unclear, but if we wanted to build on that...but of course we thought we might actually...we kept that lot for many years with the idea that my wife's sister would move from Minneapolis and build on it. And, um, she eventually...actually her husband didn't agree to move so at that point it never came to fruition. Chairperson Sigel — So it was clear to you that you needed a variance...variances for that lot, but not as clear about the subdivision? Mr. Henry — Right. 13 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel – Okay. Any other questions? Discussion? Ms. Brock– I asked Dan a question about the capacity of the sewer line because that was raised so I will let him address that. Mr. Walker– Yeah, we did have problems with that sewer because it was not maintained for, probably for the life of it until the mid-90s when we went in a re-lined it, rebuild the manholes and took all the roots out of the sewer. Because up until that point the roots were blocking the flow. So today that sewer has plenty of capacity for at least one more house connection at that location. There is no limitation on that sewer at this point. Mr. Mountin – Is there any right-of-way restriction? Mr. Walker–We have an easement over that sewer line. Mr. Mountin – How many feet is that? Mr. Walker– That's a 20 foot wide easement. Mr. Mountin – 20 foot? Mr. Walker– 20 foot. 10 foot on either side of the sewer line and I don't know if we are having to mow that now or not, but generally we have been maintaining those sewer lines and going in and inspecting the sewers at least on an annual basis. In areas where it is not mowed by the homeowner we do go in and mow the sewer lines. I'm not sure of the maintenance on that right now. I think most of the homeowners are taking care of that, but we make sure that no wooded vegetation grows up over the sewer. Mr. Mountin – So the question that I have is if you have a 20 foot right-of-way on that sewer line and there is a request to consider 75 feet from the building lot lines. How far is...? Mr. Henry – That would force the house to be over the sewer line. The 70-1 don't...I mean maybe the 75 foot was raised in 2003. 1 don't know. Mr. Mountin – I'm just...I'm only using that because it was brought up tonight. I'm just trying to get a size of what's the distance from that sewer line to the Cowan or Beyenbach property lines. Actually it's closer to the Cowan. Chairperson Sigel – It's closer to the back line. Mr. Henry – Yeah. It's closer to the back line, but the 75 foot thing, I mean the setbacks that are in the zoning ordinance are entirely adequate for specifying where... 14 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin —And I understand that it's 30 feet. But again my que...what's the difference from that sewer line to the back lot line? 200 feet? 300 feet? Mr. Walker— It's 150 feet. If you look at the location of that...approximate location of the sewer that comes from 1022, at that point it's 150 feet. Just shy of 150 feet. So 75 feet would put the house... Chairperson Sigel — 150 feet from Lot A's back line, right? Ms. Brock— Dan, what does 150 feet refer to? Mr. Walker— It's the distance from the sanitary sewer that runs from Parcel A to the connection that's about 148 feet. Ms. Brock— Okay, but the question was...how far is it from the location of the sewer line that runs roughly east to west across the property to the back lot line of the house that is on Sienna Drive. Mr. Walker—Well that 150 feet is the shortest distance...at that sewer manhole. Ms. Brock— No we are looking at... Mr. Walker— Oh, from the back lot line? Ms. Brock— Yes. The back lot lines along Sienna Drive and the back lot line... Mr. Walker— From that sewer manhole it is about 60 feet. So if you were 75 feet from that back sewer line, you would be just outside the sewer easement. So if you drew a line parallel to that sewer line 10 feet to the south that would be where you could put a house. And then 75 feet from Beyenbach's property is, if you see the decimal point right above the "e", if you drew a line along that and then... Ms. Balestra — It's basically where the writing is. Mr. Walker— You could put a house where most of that, yeah. That block of writing. You would have a space that was roughly 40 by 50 that you could put a house on. Mr. Mountin —And still meet all setbacks... Mr. Walker—A 75 foot setback would allow you to put a 40 by 50 foot house in there. Maybe, you know, that's real rough. Mr. Mountin — Thank you. I was just looking for a reference. Mr. Walker— That's a 2,000 square foot footprint, which is a pretty good sized footprint. But the bigger limitation on that is I remember the property just about 20 feet away from 15 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final the sewer there's kind of a steep bank. The sewer is kind of down on the edge of the flood plain and then there is a fairly steep bank. It's been a while since I walked back there. Mr. Henry - ...you would want to build the house on the bank so that you walking... Mr. Walker— Right. You could have a nice walk-out basement right into the sewer. There are...it's possible to build a house on that site with those setbacks. Mr. Mountin — Okay. That's what I was wondering. Thank you. Mr. Walker— Just to clarify the...on that zoning. You are allowed to have a single-family home or a two-family home, but the second unit has to be 50 percent of the area. So basically it's an accessory apartment in the building. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Mr. Walker— It's not a duplex because I believe that is what came before this board several years ago as a request. Ms. Brock — That is correct. The only exception is where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area it may exceed 50 percent. Mr. Walker— But there would be some problems with that because if you did, you would have a nice walk-out basement on one side, but on 2 sides or 3 sides you would have no access to it basically. Ms. Brock —And if you wanted to condition your approval on the dwelling being limited to a one-family dwelling you would need to tie that to the impacts that the lot deficiencies pose. The fact that there isn't sufficient frontage and there isn't sufficient setback. You would need to make some findings to justify that type of imposition. Chairperson Sigel — Not simply that it was a mitigation of the impact of an additional house. Ms. Brock —Well if you can find that there are significant impacts in the neighborhood character, to nearby properties, then you can do that, too. Chairperson Sigel —Any further questions or comments? Mr. Mountin — Comment. Well I have a little bit of a problem that there is no formalized driveway use if the variance was granted and the subdivision was granted. It simply is to be left up to the new owners to maybe negotiate that with Ptak's if they are willing. It kind of makes me a little unsettled that it is not a formalized process to begin with because it could be problems. 16 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Ms. Brock— Yeah and often the Planning Board does have...where there is going to be a shared driveway they often condition their approval on submission of a proposed shared driveway agreement to the Town for approval. They didn't do it here and I'm trying to remember why. I think it may be that there was some discussion that because Lot C owns in...(not audible) 25 feet that they could actually put a driveway entirely on their own property parallel to the existing gravel drive. So that there wouldn't be any need to actually share it. It would still be within the right-of-way so the Ptak's and the Hutchins's would still have rights to have access through that area as well, but they actually could put a driveway entirely on their property and to my knowledge 25 feet would still be sufficient for emergency vehicle access, but I'll let Dan speak to that. Mr. Walker— Yes. 25 feet is plenty of width and that's, I believe the building code only requires 15 feet of access for a property. The old building code anyhow did. The new building code requires access from the lot directly to the road, but 25 feet is more than enough access. Now is it...some fire departments are less comfortable, you know, they'd rather have a 60 foot wide street up to every house, but that's not really practical either. Cayuga Heights provides fire service in that area and they're pretty versatile about getting places they need to get. Mr. Mountin — So in that regard would the Cayuga Heights Fire Department need to drive to the back of that property through that strip to have access to that house or would they just service that house in case of a fire from the street? Mr. Walker— They would probably do both. I'm sure if there was a major house fire they would put an engine back there within 50...40 or 50 feet of the house. They wouldn't be taking their ladder truck in there probably. Mr. Mountin — I know with Dan Tier he is pretty specific as to widths for his vehicles. He's come to me with issues with size of vehicles. Mr. Walker— That's more of a desire rather than a regulation. I mean if the Ithaca Fire Department had their wishes your house would have a 60 foot wide cul-de-sac in your driveway so that they could turn around. They don't like to backup 500 feet if they don't have to. Mr. Mountin —And he stressed to make that space big so I can get my vehicles in here if you want me to save your house. Mr. Walker—Well, they can get in. Ithaca is unique in that respect. They do like to have the ultimate in access, but you can drive a fire engine in...it's not so much the width. If you've got a 10 or 12 foot wide driveway that you are driving your truck and your car in and out they can get in and out of that as long as you don't have a hairpin turn in there. It's more the base of that driveway that's more critical. On a day like this when the ground is practically frozen but soft underneath they would have more trouble with the weight of their vehicle. 17 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin —Well I would think have seen this site that that driveway would need some improvement to it. It certainly would take out a lot of tree, tree limbs that are low tree limbs to get anything beyond the end of their driveway. Mr. Walker—Well, I'm sure...because it is a hedgerow right now it will change the nature of the lot if you build a driveway, but most people will have at least a 10 foot wide driveway in. There are a number of houses in that area already that have 10 foot driveways that are fairly long. The next 2 houses down from that there's a house that sits way back in, it's up on a bank and it doesn't have much more of a driveway than what they would have there. And I know that because we use that driveway to access our flow monitoring station in back. And we have taken some bigger equipment in there at times. Is it something that you want to do everyday? No, but can you get in? The big problem is how long does it take you to back out? Mr. Mountin — My thought is how likely is it for people to have two driveways, you know, in that little strip there. It's actually almost a little beauty strip now, but how practical is it for 2 driveways to be put in there. Mr. Walker—Well, each property...right now the existing driveway basically looks like from the survey map it straddles the property and it looks like it is an 8 or 10 foot wide driveway. I believe it's gravel. There's...the Planning Board...and it's always nice when neighbors can share a driveway because it is only one curb cut out onto the highway. It's more environmentally desirable to have less pavement, but that means there has to be cooperation between the neighbors to do that and sometimes that doesn't work. Mr. Mountin — That's my concern. Mr. Walker— There is nothing precluding each house having its own 20 foot wide driveway on this site right now. Chairperson Sigel — Right. I don't...I mean we could attempt to have a condition like that but it seems like it is a more appropriate condition for the Planning Board to have imposed if they wanted that. My inclination would be to defer to their decision on that. I mean I think there is clearly an incentive to have a shared driveway for the 2 parties to agree to a shared driveway. Mr. Mountin — You know I just don't want to see it to be a problem for the future owners of this lot and the Ptak's and the Cowan's that something isn't, wasn't more formalized because it could come back into more disagreement and more arguments or something between the new buyer of this property and to me it's just...formalize the situation. Mr. Henry — That is why the buyer's attorney has requested that, but if you made that a condition, you are allowing the neighbor to have a veto over the subdivision. Chairperson Sigel — It is clearly in people's interest to share. I mean you should end up paying less having to maintain less to have a shared driveway. I don't know that there 18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final is much more that we could do practically. I mean if one party or the other absolutely refused to the agreement, you know, if we were otherwise going to approve, I don't think we could deny the approval because one party refused to agree to a shared driveway. Mr. Mountin — So we can't make it contingent on a formalized agreement? That... Chairperson Sigel —Well that would...I mean that would be essentially saying the variance is denied if it doesn't...if the agreement isn't made. I mean I personally am not...I don't think that is appropriate. Mr. Mountin — Okay. You have much more experience at this than I do. Chairperson Sigel — I mean I agree...it has been done and I agree that it would be better, but I don't think we could require it. I think in the past we've had applications where the applicants were coming in already ready to produce a shared agreement so it was suggested that that would be a condition of approval that would be desirable and they had agreed to do it and were prepared to do it. Mr. Matthews — I have been very uncharacteristically silent. Chairperson Sigel — That's true. Mr. Matthews — I'm almost overwhelmed with what appears to be a variance approval that might be extremely disruptive to the community. There are so many twists and turns involved to compromise or satisfy everyone that I am extremely reluctant to grant an approval for any of these variances. A variance shouldn't disturb a community too much. This seems to be a very disturbing variance request. I don't know if I would want to be a part of approving that disturbance. Chairperson Sigel —Well, I mean we are required to base our decision on the criteria and while I think that input from neighbors and other members of the community are important, you know, one of the criteria is not do all of the neighbors think it is a good idea. Now if the reasons raised by anyone, a neighbor or anyone else or by your self if you believe that any of those issues are related to the criteria then certainly that is a justification to vote against it. If you believe that the balance between the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community is tipped in favor or I should say is tipped against the applicant then of course you are obligated to vote against it. Mr. Matthews — Okay. Mr. Krantz—Assuming there is validity in many of the arguments against it...we've heard a bunch of people coming up here, a lot of letters being written, and a lot of points being made. We can't really just dismiss all of that. 19 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — No. Certainly not. For me, you know I, rather than think of the benefit to the applicant you can look at it the other way and look at the detriment to the applicant if the variance is absolutely denied. And that is denying the applicant the ability to build anything on their lot and so the benefit to the applicant of that is, I believe, is quite substantial and so you balance that substantial benefit against the detriment to the community. And for me, to be honest, it's a...it's certainly not as clear as a lot of the cases that we see, but I do think that the benefit to the applicant can outweigh the detriment to the community with...possibly with some conditions imposed to mitigate the detriment to the community. Mr. Matthews — You are saying the benefits to the applicant outweigh the benefits to the community? Is that what you are saying? Chairperson Sigel — I think so. I think we could impose some conditions to mitigate the impact, you know, of allowing a house to be built here with access with such minimal frontage and such minimal access to the road. We could have a condition that it be single-family, for instance. We could have condition that there be certain setbacks, maybe not quite 75 feet, but maybe something a little smaller than that. I think you could pretty easily fit a house within...I mean the sewer line itself essentially imposes a setback requirement from the rear lot line, which is greater than 75 feet or at least approximately 75 feet. Mr. Henry — Yeah. You wouldn't want to build back...you wouldn't build back by the sewer line. Chairperson Sigel —And I think imposing some reasonable setback. I don't know if it is clear with this type of lot what...is the front yard setback measured from the street? From the line at the street? Which would then make it essentially meaningless. That would allow the applicant without any further condition to build right up to that south lot line. Mr. Henry — Yeah. That would be a real reasonable thing to say the setbacks have to run from the...rather than the street back, the house setbacks run from the line between 1022 and... Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Mr. Mountin — I'm all in favor of you, Kirk, of trying to craft something like this that you are working on right now. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I just wanted to check...what is the front yard required setback for this? Ms. Brock— Front yard depths shall not be less than 25 feet or need it be greater than 50 feet. 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — Okay and that's with the average depths of the front yards with buildings on lots immediately adjacent, however... not less...I mean greater than 50; Rear yard not less than 30; side yards not less than 15. Ms. Cowan — Mr. Sigel, may I say something? Chairperson Sigel — Umm...I would be happy to open the public hearing for additional comments in a few minutes. Okay? Thank you. Mr. Levine — Are we bound by those restrictions if it's for...as a condition for granting a variance? Chairperson Sigel — I'm sorry. Say that again. Mr. Levine — The 50 to 100...what were the distances you said? Ms. Balestra — 25 to 50. Mr. Levine — Are we restricted by that for a variance? Ms. Brock— No. That's just what they have to do anyway. Mr. Levine — No, but in crafting a restriction... Chairperson Sigel — Oh, you mean could we not make it larger than that? Mr. Levine — No. I'm saying are there any restrictions at all? Chairperson Sigel —Well, depending upon how you would interpret, you know, what is the front lot line of this property, which if you said it was at the street, then...then they use up the 50 quite easily before they even get back to the major portion. Mr. Levine — That I understand. Chairperson Sigel — So one interpretation could be if we didn't restrict it specifically that you could build right up to that south lot line. Mr. Levine — I understand, I just wanted to know that...we were talking about 75 feet before. There's nothing saying you can't do 75 feet. Chairperson Sigel —As a condition? Mr. Levine — Right. Chairperson Sigel — No. 21 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Levine — I was just clarifying. Chairperson Sigel - If it were related to the impact, you know, if it is related to lessening the impact of the variance then we could...we have fairly wide latitude there, I think. Mr. Walker— If I was interpreting this from a Code Enforcement Officer's standpoint, I would say that this front yard is 25 feet wide at the street. It sort of goes back and then at the 200 foot line it continues across that boundary line. So I would...if...I suppose if the house was facing...would be facing the street line so I would say that it would have to be at least 25 feet from the boundary between A and C...is how I would interpret it if it was a legal lot. Chairperson Sigel — But that was still the front yard line. Mr. Walker— That was still the front yard because it faces the road. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Walker—And they've had quite a bit of discussion in COC and everything about the yard descriptions, but that's how I would have to interpret that if I was looking at it from scratch. But that 75 foot setback requirement from the lot line seems to be reasonable, too, in this case. As a comment from a staff member. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. I was going to suggest 60 feet, which is more even than that normal front yard setback, more than the normal rear yard setback and considerably more than the side yard setback. And I think 60 feet from every lot line still gives a...you know still gives a pretty substantial area for building. I mean you've got the sewer line on the east side as well that essentially affects as a required setback on that side. Mr. Walker— That I would recommend at least a 10 foot wide setback, but that would be a private easement between A and C basically. Ms. Brock— That is already in the deed. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Brock—When the Cowan's were sold their parcel. There is actually not a specific width specified, though. It is just a right for them to maintain and repair that line. Mr. Walker— That would be good to be spelled out. I would hope that the buyer and seller would have that worked out and the adjoining neighbor there, so that they know what the distance is. Mr. Mountin — So Dan, is there also a restriction on that sewer line? That sanitary sewer line that goes from Cowan's from house... 22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Walker— That's what we are talking about. Mr. Mountin —We are talking about that line. Mr. Walker— I would recommend at least 10 foot on either side of that because you need to be able to get equipment in there if something happens. Mr. Mountin —And then 10 feet on either side of the main sewer line? Mr. Walker— Right. Our easement is 10 feet on either side. The Town's easement on that property is 10 feet on either side of that. Chairperson Sigel — The main sewer line is a formal easement. Apparently the private sewer line is not a formal. Ms. Brock—Well, there is. There is a formal. Chairperson Sigel — But there's no width. Ms. Brock— There's no width specified. Mr. Henry — It just says they can have it and lays out the location and that they can dig up and maintain, but it doesn't say what the width of the work space is. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. If there are no other questions, I would be happy to re-open the public hearing for any additional brief comments (8:22 p.m.). Ms. Cowan? Ms. Cowan — Do I need to state my name again? Chairperson Sigel — Yes please. Ms. Cowan — Debra Cowan. Address as well? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Ms. Cowan — 1022 Hanshaw Road in Ithaca. I just wanted to make a comment on what you were just talking about. The last time we came before the Zoning Board they talked about the 75 feet from the property line. I guess particularly in my house...I don't know how obvious it is here, but it is a very shallow back yard and there is no really, there are few scattered trees and bushes in the back. So if that house behind us was situated so that the front or back part of the house was facing us, we would be looking right in and vice versa. At the time, Mr. Flatt had gone back to the parcel and he was actually going to try to turn the house sidewards so that the side of the house would be facing our house and the garage would be on the opposite end toward the south end of the lot. I can understand if maybe you don't want to put all those kinds of restrictions in, but the 23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final 75 feet from my back property line seems to me reasonable in the sense that, you know, I'm the only property here that actually has a house near the line. The other...the Beyenbach's and the Ptak's and Bernie's houses...they're not all in that situation where it's right behind them. So that's what I wanted to request. At the time Mr. Barney had talked about it and they said that they didn't think there was any problem impinging in the sewer line. I guess... Mr. Mountin — Ms. Cowan? May I ask you, when you bought your lot in 1991 or bought your lot and house in 1991, did you think at that time that you would never see a house built in that lot behind you? Ms. Cowan —Absolutely. That's what we were told. Mr. Mountin — You were told you would never see a house built back there? Ms. Cowan —Well...yeah...we were told that it was unbuildable and I know that Henry's did think about building for a relative when they owned their house. Mr. Mountin — Okay. So you knew that the time. Ms. Cowan — I did want to correct one statement of fact about George Pfann. George Pfann did not represent us when we signed the purchase and sale agreement. It was signed over a weekend. We had no lawyers. We were visiting at a B&B. We knew no one. The lawyer was recommended to us by the real estate agent and I think it was a holiday weekend so we didn't get to see him until Tuesday. So all the wording in the agreement was done without representation. Mr. Pfann came and did the closing for us and that's...was the status. I mean I don't want to belabor that point, but I was not trying to portray Mr. Henry as evil. I was asked a question by you concerning the history and I tried to tell you the history as accurately as I could. And just one more short comment on Mr. Henry's comments that this is like any other residential home. Well obviously we wouldn't be here if it was. This is here because he is asking for considerable variances...zoning variances for frontage and setback and this is a flag lot and that makes it very different even though it is a large lot, it makes it different than a house such as Mr. Hutchins's house or anybody else's house that has the adequate frontage on the street. Those lots are in compliance and his lot is not. Mr. Mountin — So in your mind how is it unbuildable? Ms. Cowan — Pardon me? Mr. Mountin — You said before that you thought the lot was unbuildable? It's a flat lot? Ms. Cowan — It's not a flat lot. Chairperson Sigel — Flag lot. 24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin and Ms. Cowan — Flag lot. Mr. Mountin — So how's it not buildable in your opinion? The site? Ms. Cowan — I was told that...I was told that...that it wasn't in compliance with zoning because of the road frontage and that...ah...that...I was actually told that attempts had been made before and turned down and I didn't realize until the last Zoning Board that no attempt had ever been made. It was something that was represented to us by the broker and it was an untruth. Mr. Mountin — Okay. (tape changed) Chairperson Sigel — Mr. Hutchins? Mr. Hutchins —Yes. Bernie Hutchins. 1016 Hanshaw Road. My situation, my lot is very comparable to this in that behind me, behind where my house is there is an acre and a half, just the same as there is about an acre and a half here. It is unbuildable. We knew that when we bought it. It is unbuildable because of the slope. Then there is the Town sewer. Then there is the swampland. Then there is a brook. So there is no place to put that house there. So I think it's possible to have a lot that is an acre and a half that is unbuildable. Now, perhaps if somebody had made an illegal subdivision when they did my lot, maybe I would be in here arguing maybe you should give me that, too, but I'm not. I don't expect that. They did mine right. The problem here is that you've got something like 300 feet of frontage and you're trying to put 3 houses with 100 feet of frontage on them. It can't be done because those lots originally had a farm house...or the original house that nobody thought to put them way over to the side. They put them somewhere closer to the middle. But if that's the case that 1.5 acres is thought to be something that somebody should be able to take advantage of, I don't have that option. And the reason I don't have that option is because somebody did something right. Now, Mr. Henry thinks he has the option of doing that because somebody did something wrong. And I think there is something fundamentally unfair about that. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Ma'am. Celeste Ptak, 1018 Hanshaw Rd Hi. My name is Celeste Ptak. I live at 1018 Hanshaw Road and I just wanted to make a comment about the shared driveway and that the driveway ends at...going to our garage. Beyond that there are...there is going to be a substantial environmental impact of the trees having to be cleared or, you know, many of the bottom branches chopped down because that lot has been empty for so long and there are a lot of growth, and you know, it's a nice, you know, green area for the deer to hang out right now. But I just wanted to make a comment that there is going to be an environmental impact by building back there. 25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin —And Ms. Ptak, I've been to that site. Are all...there's...it's spruce trees, I believe. Big spruce trees on either side of that driveway. Are...is...are half of those spruce tree line on your property lines? Or are both of those spruce line trees on this lot? Ms. Ptak— Half of them are on our property, but to be able to build a driveway back there, they're going to have to probably... Mr. Mountin — Chop your trees. Ms. Ptak - ...our trees. Mr. Mountin —Would you give them consent to do that? Ms. Ptak— I would prefer not to. Mr. Mountin —And that's your decision. Ms. Ptak— Right, but to get trucks back there to get, you know, fire truck, building construction vehicles, they would have to be trimmed back substantially. And that would also... Mr. Mountin —Without touching your trees at all, though. Ms. Ptak— They would have to touch our trees. Mr. Mountin — Not if you didn't want them to. Ms. Ptak—Well, then I don't know how they would get back there without having to...the trees on the other side. Chairperson Sigel —Well, there is the easement. Mr. Mountin — So we're back to that. If they agree to the new owners chopping trees down their land so they can get their driveway wide enough to get a vehicle through. If you look at the lot and there is a tree line and the spruces are hanging over this driveway, you can't drive anything through there right now if you wanted to, but if you cleared limbs or clear trees you can get a vehicle down there. What I'm hearing is she's got one tree line they own; the other tree line is on this lot C. Ms. Ptak— I'm not sure if the other tree line is on lot C or if it's on the Cowan's property. I'm not really very clear on who owns that other line of trees. Chairperson Sigel — Maybe Susan can comment more on what rights are granted by such an easement as far as removal... 26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Ms. Brock—Well, it's what's stated in the deeds, which unfortunately are not as detailed as we like to see them. The deed from the Yuris's to Sheri Henry describes...so when she purchased the property and this would be her purchase of Parcel C...is that there is a 25 foot right-of-way, 20 feet wide...a right-of-way 20 feet wide... Chairperson Sigel — 25 feet. Ms. Brock— Yeah. Right. 25 feet wide off the east side of the adjacent lands and also this parcel, the flag lot, is subject to a right-of-way 25 feet wide along the west line of that property. So giving the adjacent property 25 feet on theirs. As I said, 2 25 foot strips together constituting a part of a 700 foot by 50 foot right-of-way for usual street purposes and usual public utilities for the benefit of the above described premises. It doesn't go into real specifics about... Chairperson Sigel — Usual street activity would probably imply, though, the ability to remove trees that are in the way of...of the driveway. Male voice — Just like a highway department moves branches or NYSEG removes branches. Ms. Ptak— Removing branches would decrease the privacy of our backyard and we are, you know, we're having a baby in a couple of months and we would like to have a private area to be able to play with our child in the back yard and by trimming back the trees we'd have to plant something else to have privacy in our backyard. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Okay, does anyone else wish to make any final comments? Um, if not, I'll close the public hearing again (8:33 p.m.). Any further comments? Questions? Okay. I will attempt to craft a motion, maybe with Susan's help. Okay. In regard to the appeal of Sheri Henry, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to create a lot by subdivision, located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone, I move that this board grant the variance request with the following conditions: That the parcel width at the street line be no less than 26 feet; and that the parcel width at the required 50 foot setback also be no less than 26 feet; that any house built on the lot be a minimum of 60 feet from all and any lot lines; that there be no building, whatsoever, of any house or structure within an area 20 feet wide centered upon the sewer line running from Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-66.1 through the applicant's property to the main sewer line owned and maintained by the Town; finally, that the house, any house built on this property be restricted to a single-family house. And that the following findings are made as part of this motion: that this board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically that this board finds that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is building of a house on a lot cannot be achieved by any other means feasible; that if these variances were not granted, the lot would not be a legally conforming lot and no house would be permitted to be built on it; further that this board finds that while some change in the 27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final neighborhood character and the character to nearby properties will occur, that that change will not be substantial enough to outweigh the benefit to the applicant; that the request is substantial, being a 26 foot width where 60 feet is required and again a 26 foot width where 100 feet is required, but that the deficiencies on this portion of the lot are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the lot is substantially larger than the minimum lot size required for this zone; that the request will not had adverse physical or environmental affects upon the land; and that this board finds that it is unclear whether the alleged difficulty was self-created or not, but that there is not definitive evidence that it was self-created, therefore in summary that this board does find that the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Susan? Ms. Brock— In the finding on the undesirable change in neighborhood character and nearby properties, you stated that it was not a substantial change or I forgot what the adjective was that you used. Chairperson Sigel — I think I said that there was some change, but not substantial change. Ms. Brock— But not substantial...add to that finding that that change would not be substantial given the mitigations that are required by this board through the conditions that the board is imposing. Chairperson Sigel — That those impacts are mitigated by the various conditions. Ms. Brock— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Any other suggestions? Ms. Brock— Um...do you have any explanation of why the request does not have adverse physical or environmental affects? Chairperson Sigel — Um...because it is a large lot in a residential area that complies in every other way except for the setbacks at the street. That the lot is otherwise well- suited to building a house. It is relatively level. Public service is available for various utilities. Ms. Brock— So add those to that finding as well. Chairperson Sigel —Add those reasons? Okay. Ms. Brock—And did you want to consider a condition about the positioning of the house and any other structures? Mrs. Cowan had talked about possibility orienting any house on the property a certain way. Did you want to consider that? 28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — I personally didn't want to get into that level of detail. I think that the 60 feet is a meaningful setback and that it is appropriate to leave them some freedom within that. Any other suggestions? Ms. Brock— Nope. I think that was it. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Second on the motion? Mr. Levine —Am I voting on this? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Both alternates are voting. Ms. Brock— For the record we should state that both David Mountain and Eric Levine, who are alternate members, are voting tonight because it is a 5 member board and 2 of the regular members are absent so they will both be voting. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Mr. Levine — Second. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Seconded by Eric. All in favor? Chairperson Sigel, Mr. Levine and Mr. Mountin —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All opposed? [Mr. Krantz and Mr. Matthews raised hand in opposition.] Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Motion passes 3 to 2. Thank Mr. Henry. Thank you everyone for coming. We appreciate your input very much. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-057: Area Variance, Sheri Johnson Henry, 1020 Hanshaw Rd, Tax Parcel No. 71.4-66.2 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Levine. Resolved, that this board grant the appeal of Sheri Henry, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(8) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to create a lot by subdivision, located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-66.2, Medium Density Residential Zone, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the parcel width at the street line be no less than 26 feet, and 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final 2. That the parcel width at the required 50 foot setback also be no less than 26 feet, 3. That any house built on the lot be a minimum of 60 feet from all and any lot lines,- 4. ines,4. That there be no building, whatsoever, of any house or structure within an area 20 feet wide centered upon the sewer line running from Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-66.1 through the applicant's property to the main sewer line owned and maintained by the Town,- 5. own,5. That any house built on this property be restricted to a single-family house. Findings: That this board does find that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically. 1. That this board finds that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve, which is building of a house on a lot cannot be achieved by any other means feasible,- 2. easible,2. That is these variances were not granted, the lot would not be a legally conforming lot and no house would be permitted to be built on it, further 3. That this board finds that while some change in the neighborhood character and the character to nearby properties will occur. That that change will not be substantial enough to outweigh the benefit to the applicant. That those impacts are mitigated by the various conditions,- 4. onditions,4. That the request is substantial, being a 26 foot width where 60 feet is required and again a 26 foot width where 100 feet is required, but that the deficiencies on this portion of the lot are somewhat mitigated by the fact that the lot is substantially larger than the minimum lot size required for this zone,- 5. one,5. That the request will not had adverse physical or environmental affects upon the land because it is a large lot in a residential area that complies in every other way except for the setbacks at the street. That the lot is otherwise well- suited to building a house. It is relatively level. Public service is available for various utilities, and 6. That this board finds that it is unclear whether the alleged difficulty was self- created or not, but that there is not definitive evidence that it was self-created, 30 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final 7. Therefore in summary that this board does find that the benefit to the applicant is outweighed by the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: Krantz, Matthews. Motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you Mr. Henry. Thank you everyone for coming. We appreciate your input very much. The next appeal this evening is that of: Nathaniel Greenspun, Tom Greenspun, and Barbara Gizewski, Owners/Appellants, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI, Section 270-34(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to create two lots by subdivision, located on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32-2-3.22, Agricultural Zone. The parcels received Subdivision approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on November 27, 2007. Both lots have insufficient lot widths at the maximum required front yard setbacks for parcels in the Agricultural Zone. Chairperson Sigel — Hi. Susan Perri, 601 N Tioga St My name is Susan Perri. I'm...Nathaniel is my husband. I am a co-owner of the property. We live at 601 North Tioga Street, down here in town. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. You said that you are Mr. Greenspun's wife? Ms. Perri — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Perri — I'm not referenced in this agenda, but I'm in the memo. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Perri —And I'm not sure what other documents you all have...maybe a copy of the resolution from the Planning Board. Ms. Balestra — Should be the last document you have in your packet. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Yes, we do. 31 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Ms. Perri — Is there anything additional I can tell you other than what is here? Chairperson Sigel — Is there anything you want to add? If not, we'll just proceed and ask you any questions that we have. Ms. Perri — Okay. I'm not sure if it's clear here that we have the road frontage because we do have the road frontage; we just don't have the required 100 feet at the setback. It opens up at about 500 feet and maintains at least 100 feet width on each new parcel for the duration of the property. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Ms. Perri — So each new parcel has 76'/2, approximately, of road frontage. It just doesn't open up all the way till 500 feet deep. Chairperson Sigel — So this is for...these are variances for both lots. Ms. Balestra — Yes. Ms. Perri — Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And...I'm sorry... Mr. Matthews —Which is the property that we are looking at? The blue or the yellow? Chairperson Sigel — Both I think. Ms. Perri — It's the yellow. Oh, it's the yellow, I believe. I'm not sure what you have. Ms. Balestra — Parcel A is outlined in yellow and Parcel B is outlined in blue. And both parcels need variances at the required front yard setback. Mr. Matthews — That being measured from where? From Bostwick Road back? Chairperson Sigel — Yes. Ms. Balestra — Yeah. Mr. Mountin — There's 75 feet across... Ms. Balestra — I outlined the parcels just so that it would make them clearer because it wasn't quite clear to me. Ms. Perri — Yeah, it's hard to tell. Ms. Balestra — Parcel B, especially, is an unusually shaped parcel. 32 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. How did that... Ms. Perri — Parcel A is going to be the house site and basically it is an open field and then it starts to slope. So it's giving us all of the flat portion. Chairperson Sigel — Okay, but...just out of curiosity, do you know how Parcel A got this... Ms. Balestra — Parcel B. Chairperson Sigel- I'm sorry, Parcel B got this strange cut-out. Ms. Perri — Yes. My brother-in-law's property is immediately to the left of ours and he asked that we not box him in because he is a co-owner of Parcel B, he owns that with his mom and so he wanted it to be contiguous with his existing property so he asked that we not wrap around him in any way. Ms. Balestra — Oh, I think... Ms. Perri — Other than that I'm not sure. We told the surveyor what we needed and this is the picture that we came up with that everyone could agree on. Ms. Balestra —Are you referring to this (pointing to survey map)? Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Ms. Perri — Oh, the weird... Chairperson Sigel — There is sort of a strange cut-out there. Ms. Perri — That's not ours. There is a house there. That is somebody else's lot. I don't know what happened with that. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, you don't know how it was created in that shape. Ms. Perri — They basically just own the land under the house and that driveway. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And there's a very narrow strip, yeah...that looks like it maybe makes it to the road. Ms. Perri — Yeah, but that is completely unrelated. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. And there's a house on that? Ms. Perri — Yeah. That's that open part. It's basically just the land that the house is on. 33 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin — There's a driveway here and there's a house back here (referring to survey map). Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So Parcel B essentially has a house in the middle of it. Ms. Balestra — No. It's a different tax parcel. Chairperson Sigel —Well, different...someone else's house. Ms. Perri — Right. Chairperson Sigel — Someone else's house in the middle of it. Okay. Ms. Perri — Parcel B will continue to be owned by my mother-in-law and my brother-in- law collectively, but they each have houses already on separate lots over here. I can point them out to you if it helps. I don't think these are named on here. The property immediately to the left of ours, it says Greenspun and then in parenthesis R.O. That's my brother-in-law's. Then my mother-in-law's is directly above his. So they have their homes on those parcels. The rest of this is just to be held in common and it won't be further developed. So that's kind of why it is such an odd shape. No one is really ever going to need to get back there. Some of it is in Ag. use. Some of it is for hunting. Mr. Mountin — So...you are talking about Parcel A. Ms. Perri — Yes, well they both need the required variances so they are both legal lots, but Parcel A is the one we will own, my husband and I. Mr. Mountin —And you are going to put a house on Parcel A? Ms. Perri —A. Yes. Mr. Mountin —What about a house on Parcel B? Ms. Perri — No. Chairperson Sigel — No plans now. Ms. Perri — No. We won't retain ownership of Parcel B. That will be my brother-in-law's and my mother-in-law's and they already have their houses on separate lots right next door. Mr. Mountin — I see. That is a really odd lot to try to even get a driveway...unless you have a shared driveway or something like that. Ms. Perri — Yeah. 34 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — So you are not doing any kind of an easement to say...try to give Parcel B more direct access? Ms. Perri — No. We are talking about doing an easement on the back end of both properties because there is a unique natural area back there, a conservation easement. Potentially...we have been in conversation with the NY Agricultural Land Trust about doing potentially some agricultural easements as well to retain the natural character and traditional agricultural use of the property. Mr. Mountin — Is there some agricultural use on A or B right now? Ms. Perri —A has been hayed in the past and that will continue in the foreseeable future. B, I think, corn has been rotated on that at different points and that will continue because as far as I know that helps pay for the taxes. Mr. Mountin — It's always good to see Ag...in Ag land. In an Ag zone land it's always good to see agriculture. Ms. Perri — Yes. That is very much our intention for the future. Mr. Krantz—Actually on Bostwick Road there are a number of houses that have these long narrow driveways and then they sit sort of back in the boonies and it's not unusual in that area at all. Chairperson Sigel —Well, these are obviously very large lots. Mr. Krantz— Yeah. And these are 20 and 40 acres, roughly. Mr. Matthews — So the side yards over the adjacent properties that are being affected here is...her brother, Parcel B and the Gretchen Herman on the left side. Is that correct? Ms. Perri — Yes. Mr. Matthews —And these are the people that are being affected by any variance we might grant? Ms. Balestra —Well currently, but properties will eventually change hands. Mr. Matthews - Yes. Ms. Balestra — You can't assume that they will own the property forever. Ms. Perri —Well, this property was handed down by my grandfather-in-law. It's where he raised his family and now, you know, my husband and his brother grew up on the 35 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final property as well. And now we want to move there with our kids. My brother-in-law and his kids live there as well. So our reasoning for doing the easements is so that we kind of protect that family heritage after we are gone, whether or not our kids or their kids continue to live there...if it is sold, it could not further be broken down. We don't want to see it turned into a suburban subdivision at some point in the future. So limiting the development rights in perpetuity is what we are working on presently. Mr. Matthews – If we were to grant a variance on this, could we get a stipulation that nothing can be build here except their roadway into the property? Chairperson Sigel – You mean on the narrow portion? Mr. Matthews – Yeah. On the narrow portion. That is Bostwick Road. Chairperson Sigel –Well, I think practically speaking you couldn't. Ms. Balestra – You couldn't build anything... Chairperson Sigel – You couldn't build anything in the narrow portion because you wouldn't meet the setbacks. Mr. Matthews – Oh, people would try. It's just to protect both sides—the owners. Chairperson Sigel – Yeah, I mean... Mr. Krantz– Nothing would fit in there. Ms. Perri – I think there was some talk of that at the Planning Board. Chairperson Sigel – That would be in the front yard. I mean there are...you know, accessory buildings are not allowed in the front yard. So, I mean, a house certainly would not fit there and so that would be in front of the house so I don't think anything would be permitted without another variance. Mr. Matthews – So basically nothing is being adversely affected here? Chairperson Sigel – The impact would appear to be minimal given the size of the...(not audible). Okay. We'll open the public hearing with regard to this appeal (8:53 p.m.). No one wishes to speak; we'll close the public hearing (8:53 p.m.). Chris or Dan, any comments from Planning Staff or ...okay. Now the applicants' stated that the widths were approximately the same? I guess the 73 and the 79.2 have our...are close to the same. How did you determine those? Ms. Perri – Those are the final numbers that I had from the surveyor...about the width at setback. 36 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel —At the 100 feet. Ms. Perri — Isn't 60 feet the setback line? Ms. Balestra — Yes. 60 feet. Ms. Perri — That's the measurement at the 60 feet. Chairperson Sigel — Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Right. It's required to be 100 foot wide and Parcel A is approximately 73 and B approximately 79.2. Ms. Balestra — Correct. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. All right. I will move to grant the appeal of Nathaniel Greenspun, Tom Greenspun and Barabara Gizewski, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI, Section 270-34 (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to create two lots by subdivision, located on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-3.22, Agricultural Zone with the following conditions: That the...for Parcel A that the width at the required...at the 60 foot setback be no less than 70 feet; that for Parcel B the width at the required setback be no less than 75 feet. And with the findings that the...that this board finds that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically that the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to be able to build homes on these two lots cannot be met by any others means besides the variance; that there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that these are very large properties; and that the homes in that area are not very dense; that the request is not substantial given that it is approximately 25 and 30 feet reduction from the 100 foot required minimum and also given the large size of the properties; that there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects in that the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that this lot has existed in the family for a long time and is now found to be deficient in an attempt to build a house on it. Ms. Brock— I would suggest amending the first finding about the benefit. You mentioned that the applicant seeks to build a house on each lot and I believe she stated that they wish to build a house on Lot A only. So I would just amend that to say...use the same wording, but just take out the reference to building a house on each lot and say building a house on Parcel A. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Thank you. Ms. Brock— This doesn't preclude a house on Parcel B, but she did say that at the present time there was no current intention to do that. Chairperson Sigel — That's true. Thank you. Okay. Second? Mr. Krantz— Second. 37 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? All —Aye. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-058 Area Variance Nathaniel Greenspun, Tom Greenspun and Barbara Gizewski Bostwick Rd Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-3.22 December 17, 2007 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. Resolved, grant the appeal of Nathaniel Greenspun, Tom Greenspun and Barbara Gizewski, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article VI, Section 270-34 (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to create two lots by subdivision, located on Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 32.-2-3.22, Agricultural Zone with the following- Conditions- 1. ollowing:Conditions:1. That for Parcel A the width at the required 60 foot setback be no less than 70 feet, 2. That for Parcel B the width at the required setback be no less than 75 feet. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically. 1. That the benefit the applicant wishes to achieve, which is to be able to build a house on Parcel A, cannot be met by any others means besides the variance,- 2. ariance,2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that these are very large properties, and 3. That the homes in that area are not very dense,- 4. ense,4. That the request is not substantial given that it is approximately 25 and 30 feet reduction from the 100 foot required minimum and also given the large size of the properties, 38 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final 5. That there will be no adverse physical or environmental affects in that the alleged difficulty is not self-created given that this lot has existed in the family for a long time and is now found to be deficient in an attempt to build a house on it. Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Ms. Perri — Thank you. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. The next appeal this even is that of: Harold Bierman Jr., Owner/Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a building addition located at 109 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71-1-46, Medium Density Residential (MDR) Zone. The proposed addition will encroach into the minimum 25-foot front yard setback required for buildings in the MDR Zone Chairperson Sigel — Good evening. Mr. Bierman — Good evening. Chairperson Sigel — If you could, please, begin with your name and address. Harold Bierman, 109 Kay Street, Ithaca NY Harold Bierman, 109 Kay Street, Ithaca, NY, and to my left is Florence, my wife. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So it appears that the garage has been started. Mr. Bierman — Yes. The confusion here was that we came to the Town Office and we probably misunderstood what we were told or we were told wrong, but we were told if there were 12 feet from us to the road, we were okay. We took out a tape measure. We measured it and we were well over 12 feet. Unfortunately we didn't know that the front yard requirement was 25 feet and therefore there was some question in terms of whether we were building legally or not. We did...we assumed that the builder had gotten a building permit, but he hadn't so we had violated that inadvertently. Being law abiding citizens we didn't do it on purpose, but it was done. 39 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final The other confounding issue, and Mr. Williams pointed this out to us because we didn't know it, we build the house approximately 55 years ago and I left the area for a summer job in order to pay for the house. While I was gone, the builder turned the house and put us in violation of the 25 foot front yard requirement unbeknownst to my wife and myself. So in any event, when we decided that we needed a second car garage for two reasons. One, I'm too old to shovel the snow effectively. My wife is even worse than I am in terms of achieving that objective. And so 2 years ago we decided we needed a second car garage. Unfortunately the builder had problems getting started so last winter we had hoped to be done by November, but we didn't get started. And shoveling the car out last winter convinced us without a question that we needed this addition and we had a terrible time shoveling out a couple of times. But in any event, so we were in violation with trying to rectify that and unfortunately the variance we require is that the garage as we planned and as we have started is less than 25 feet from the front yard. It's at least 12 feet all around, but it is in violation of the 25. So the variance that we want is permission to encroach on the front yard 25 feet requirement. We've checked in terms of whether or not we are obstructing vision on the curve. We are corner house and there is a requirement, obviously, that cars be able to see around the curve and it's our judgment that visibility is not impaired. The appearance of our house has improved by changing a rectangular sort of barracks type of construction into one with a jut-out, which makes it more attractive. I think in general the addition has merit. Can we live without a second car garage? No. We've reached the point where we either get a second car garage or we are going to have to go some where's else. It just isn't feasible for us to fight the Ithaca winters any more. And I apologize to my wife for waiting this long. Why did we live in a house for 55 years without building a garage for her car? I apologize. I should have done that a long time ago. But a...first place we were too poor and then the second place too thoughtless. [laughter] Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Well, thank you for your candor. [laughter] Mr. Bierman —Well it was a mistake. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. So I was just looking at the regulation here and the normal reduction in setback requirements for a garage does not apply because this is on the street in both directions. Ms. Balestra — The same street. Chairperson Sigel — The same street...although some where it said something about spur or something. Mrs. Bierman — The road has an "L" shape to is. 40 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Bierman —And it's an dead end 'U'. Both ends. Straight ahead is a dead end. To the right is a dead end. So it isn't as if the road is ever going to have a lot of traffic. Chairperson Sigel — Right. Right. So then...in this case of a corner lot then the 25 foot front yard setback applies to both sides. Is that...? Ms. Balestra — The way that staff determined this was that this was not a corner lot. It's actually...a corner lot would suggest that it would be Kay Street and then another street. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Ms. Balestra — But both Steve and Jonathan looked at this map and said...and looked at this street and said this is just Kay Street; it doesn't turn into another street so it's not really a corner lot. It's just sort of on a curve. Chairperson Sigel — It's just a bend. So then you're saying their property really only has 3 boundaries sort of. Well they have...both of those are front yards. Mr. Walker—And it has 2 side yards. It has no back yard. [laughter] Mr. Matthews — The front yard is 20 feet? The front yard is 20 feet? Ms. Balestra — 25 feet. Chairperson Sigel — 25 required setback. Ms. Brock - ...for a minimum. Mr. Matthews — Sir, you have had the garage there how many years? 55 years? Mrs. Bierman — That's the house. Mr. Matthews — Oh. Mr. Bierman — The house 55 years; one car garage. Mr. Matthews — So you went into the 25 feet, but lately. Mrs. Bierman — Yes, we did. Chairperson Sigel —Well, the...yeah...the setback to the straight portion of the road there, as indicated, is a little over 21 feet. But then the distance to the corner is rather...and the...it looks like the road right-of-way is defined at the curve as a radius on a point. 41 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mrs. Bierman — Right. And they did that. The surveyor did that and that was just slightly over 12 feet at the narrowest part. And we have the survey...oh, you have the survey. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. We have a copy of that. Okay. Anyone have any questions? Mr. Krantz— Seems reasonable. Mr. Mountin — I just have one question for my own information. Who's the contractor building this? [laughter] Mrs. Bierman — Carl Morse. Don't use him. [laughter] Mr. Bierman — He's a nice guy, but for some reason he really screw...we had him on a different job. And we had a wet basement and he came in and helped us and we were really enthusiastic about what he did on that job; very unenthusiastic of what he's done at this job. It's been pretty bad. On the other hand, we would recommend a couple of his workmen. Mr. Mountin —Well, I always question the integrity of a builder if they don't realize that they need permits. Mrs. Bierman — I'm sorry? Mr. Mountin — I always question the integrity of a contractor when they don't realize to get building permits for projects that they build. Mrs. Bierman —Well, he is very questionable because I asked him if we had a permit and he said yes. Mr. Bierman —As I say, fortunately his workers are very good. Mr. Mountin — It's turning out okay for you? Mr. Bierman — (not audible) Mr. Mountin — So the work is going okay for you now at this point? Mrs. Bierman — It's not going because we had to stop. 42 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Mountin — But Morse's people are going to continue to do this job for you? Mrs. Bierman — I hope so because we've already given him a...(not audible)...money that we'd like the have...(not audible). I think we are a couple of old people who were sort of taken...(not audible)... Mr. Bierman —Well, not taken in a...he wasn't robbing us. I'm sure he's honest; it's just that he's slightly screwed up. Mr. Mountin — Oops. I forgot to get a building permit. Mr. Bierman — Yeah...ah...that is unforgivable. Mrs. Bierman — But as Mr. Williams said, it was our responsibility; not his to get it actually. Chairperson Sigel — Yeah. Ultimately that is true. Okay. Well. If there are no further questions we'll open the public hearing (9:07 p.m.). There being no one present besides the applicant we will close the public hearing (9:07 p.m.). Okay, if there is no further questions or comments, I will move to grant the appeal of Harold Bierman, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270- 71(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a building addition located at 109 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel o. 71.-1-46, Medium Density Residential Zone with the conditions that the proposed garage addition be no closer...let's see...no closer to the northern property line than 21 feet, no closer to the western property line than 21 feet, no closer to the northwestern portion of the property line than 11-1/2 feet. Do you think that adequately describes the...? Ms. Brock— Yes. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. With the further condition that no further construction, I'm sorry, no further building be permitted other than the garage within those setbacks...within those reduced setbacks. And with the following findings: that the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically that the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve would be difficult to achieve in any other means given that that is where their driveway is located and the garage needs to be located adjacent to the driveway; that there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood given that it is a modest addition to the home and that the setbacks in most directions are close to the required setback; that the requested variance is not substantial for the same reasons; that the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects given that it is already a developed lot and this is a small addition to it; and while the alleged difficult is self- created given that the applicant chose to build here, nevertheless, the benefit of the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Second? 43 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Krantz raises hand. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — That was unanimous I think. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Bierman — Thank you very much. Mr. Mountin — Have a safe trip home. Mr. Bierman — You guys all deserve medals. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-059: Area Variance, Harold Bierman, Jr., 109 Kay St, Tax Parcel No. 71.4-46 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. Resolved, that this board grant the appeal of Harold Bierman, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Section 270-71(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a building addition located at 109 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71.-1-46, Medium Density Residential Zone. Conditions: 1. That the proposed garage addition be no closer to the northern property line than 21 feet, no closer to the western property line than 21 feet, and no closer to the northwestern portion of the property line than 11% feet, 2. no further building be permitted other than the garage within those reduced setbacks. Findings: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Specifically. 1. That the benefit that the applicant wishes to achieve would be difficult to achieve with any other means given that that is where their driveway is located and the garage needs to be located adjacent to the driveway, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood given that it is a modest addition to the home and that the setbacks in most directions are close to the required setback, 44 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final 3. That the requested variance is not substantial for the same reasons,- 4. easons,4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental effects given that it is already a developed lot and this is a small addition to it, and 5. While the alleged difficult is self-created given that the applicant chose to build here, nevertheless, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Ms. Balestra — Do I need to sit at the table? Chairperson Sigel — I'd like you to sit in the audience. Ms. Balestra — Really? Chairperson Sigel — No...and then come up when you're called. Ms. Balestra — I could after each one. [laughing] Chairperson Sigel — Okay next we have 4 nearly identical appeals. Those of Chen Jian and Zhinong Chen, that of Robert and PhyllisAnne DiPaola, the appeal of Karel V. and Cynthia Lynn Sedlacek, and that of Michele Bailey, Owner/Applicant. All requesting variances to have insufficient...is it just width at the street? Ms. Balestra — It is also width at the required front yard setback. Chairperson Sigel —And at the required front yard setback, located at 12 Fairway Drive, 14 Fairway Drive, 15 Fairway Drive, and 17 Fairway Drive. Tax Parcel Numbers 66.-3- 3.521, 522, 523, and 524. Town of Ithaca agent for all those appeals. Okay, Town of Ithaca. Ms. Balestra — Do you want me to summarize what we are proposing? Chairperson Sigel - Ah, yes, please. 45 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Ms. Balestra — The Planning Board approved the Forest Home Highland Subdivision in 1985 and in that approval they relied on a waiver in the subdivision regulations that basically said that they could allow or modify certain requirements in the subdivision regulations. But what they waived were lot widths at the front yard setback requirement for 4 lots at the end of the cul-de-sac and at the road...so, right at this cul-de-sac. And that is not in the prevue of the Planning Board; that is something that the Zoning Board has the authority to do. And this came up when one of the properties, I believe it is lot number 14, applied for a building permit and the Code Enforcement staff cannot give building permits for lots that are in violation. So the Town discovered the error. We noticed that it was all 4 of these lots in the cul-de-sac that had received these waivers and now we come before you on behalf of the owners of these 4 properties to rectify the situation that the Planning Board had inadvertently created. Chairperson Sigel — Thank you. Ms. Balestra — You're welcome. Chairperson Sigel — Did you state your name and address? [laughing] Mr. Krantz—Well, if there ever was a cut and dry situation I guess this one is it. It's been in effect since 1985 and it's insignificant. Chairperson Sigel —We can set a time spent per application record on this one, maybe. Ms. Balestra — I would like to say personally that I was...Christine Balestra, I am Christine Balestra. I was 14 years old at the time of the subdivision approval. I was not employed by the Town. [laughter] Chairperson Sigel — If there is no further discussion we will open the public hearing (9:15 p.m.). There being no one present we will close the public hearing (9:15 p.m.). I will move to grant the appeals of those a forenamed people. Should I name them all? Ms. Brock— Sure. Cannot hurt. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Of Chen Jian and Zhihong Chen. The appeal of Robert and PhyllisAnne DiPaoloa. The appeal of Karel V. and Cynthia Lynn Sedlacek, and Michele Bailey. All requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain homes on parcels with insufficient lot widths at the street and at the maximum required side yard setback lines... Ms. Brock— Front yards. 46 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Chairperson Sigel — Sorry. Thank you. Front yard setback line located at 12 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.521, 14 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.522, 15 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.523, and 17 Fairway Drive at -3.524, all Medium Density Residential Zone with the following conditions on all four variances that the required...that the width at the street be no less than 45 feet and that the width at the 60 foot required setback be no less than 75 feet and with the findings made identical to the findings for the area variance criteria sheet completed by Town Staff. Ms. Balestra — I'm sorry... Chairperson Sigel — I was making the findings that you wrote. And for the reasons stated on that sheet the benefit to the applicants does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Okay. Second? Mr. Krantz— Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? Board —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-060: Area Variances, Chen Jian and Zhihon_g Chen, Robert and PhyllisAnne DiPaoloa, Karel V. and Cynthia Lynn Sedlacek, Michele Bailey, 12, 14, 15, 17 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel Nos. 66.-3-3.521, -3.522, -3.523, -3.524 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Krantz. Resolved, that this board grant the appeal of Chen Jian and Zhihong Chen, the appeal of Robert and PhyllisAnne DiPaoloa, the appeal of Karel V. and Cynthia Lynn Sedlacek, and the appeal of Michele Bailey, all requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Article IX, Sections 270-73(B) and (C) of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to maintain homes on parcels with insufficient lot widths at the street and at the maximum required front yard setback lines located at 12 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.521, 14 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.522, 15 Fairway Drive, Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.523, and 17 Fairway Drive Tax Parcel No. 66.-3-3.524, all Medium Density Residential Zone with the following-- Condition ollowing:Condition on all four variances: 1. That the required width at the street be no less than 45 feet and that the width at the 60 foot required setback be no less than 75 feet. Findings: 47 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final 1. The findings made identical to the findings for the area variance criteria sheet completed by Town Staff, and 2. For the reasons stated on that sheet the benefit to the applicants does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. 48 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel —And let's see. There are a couple of other things on our agenda. Agenda Item: Set Meeting Dates for January and February of 2008 Chairperson Sigel — The meeting dates...I think staff were recommending that we just set the January and February dates. I think because the Town Board has not set their dates yet. Ms. Balestra — Correct. Chairperson Sigel — So we don't know when the room will be free for the rest of the year. Mr. Krantz— Don't we usually meet on the third Monday? Ms. Brock— Yes. Chairperson Sigel —We do but... Ms. Balestra — Both January and February are holiday weekends. Ms. Brock—Well, January is Martin Luther King's Day on that Monday. And then President's Day is that same Monday in February. Chairperson Sigel — Usually January and February do get pushed either early or late. It is possible that other months could also...a conflict could be created with the Town Board. Mr. Krantz— I'm going to be gone both of those dates then. Ms. Balestra — You are? Chairperson Sigel — So I will move that the dates listed, January 28th, 2008 and February 25th, 2008 be our meeting dates for those two months. Second? Mr. Mountin — Second. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? 49 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final All —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — Okay. Passed unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-061: Town of Ithaca Zonin_g Board of Appeals, Schedule of January and February Meetings for 2008 Motion made by Chairperson Sigel, Seconded by Mr. Mountin. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca adopts the following schedule of meetings for the Zoning Board for January and February of 2008. The remainder of the 2008 meeting schedule will be determined at a later date. A PORTION OF THE 2008 SCHEDULE IS AS FOLLOWS: January 28, 2008 February 25, 2008 Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: None. Motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Agenda Item: Recommendation of Chair for 2008 Chairperson Sigel —And we've been asked to make a recommendation to the Town Board as to who our Chair will be for 2008. Mr. Krantz— You have done a wonderful job and we would like to keep you, I'm sure. Will you stay? Chairperson Sigel — I would be happy to continue. Mr. Mountin — I second that motion. Make a motion to keep Kirk as our Chairman, I'll second it. Mr. Krantz— Okay. Chairperson Sigel —All in favor? 50 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 17, 2007 Final Mr. Krantz, Mr. Matthews, Mr. Mountin, Mr. Levine —Aye. Chairperson Sigel — I'll abstain. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2007-062: 2008 Zonin_g Board Chair Recommendation To Town Board MOTION made by Mr. Krantz, Seconded by Mr. Mountin. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the Town Board that Kirk Sigel, be appointed as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the year 2008. Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Krantz, Matthews, Levine, Mountin. NAYS: None. ASTAIN: Sigel. Motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel — I think that covers it. Any other official business? Ms. Balestra — That's it. Chairperson Sigel — That's it? Okay. We are adjourned. Chairperson Sigel adjourned the December 17, 2007 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at 9:20 p.m. Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk 51