Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1979-10-10OP) I I ® TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 10, 1979 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday, October 10, 1979, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairman Peter K. Francese, Jack D. Hewett, Edward W. King, Edward N. Austen, Joan G. Reuning, Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E. (Town Engineer/Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) . ALSO PRESENT: William J. Mobbs, Karl Butler, David Nowicki, Helen Barnett, Catherine T. Kellogg, Edward Kellogg, Robert M. Kellogg Sr., Robert M. Kellogg Jr., Ruth A. Miller, Jane E. Hardy, Ernest E. Hardy, Ethildio Boyer, George Wells, Thomas M. Shea, Emmett N. Bergman, Larry Fischer, William Cook, Attorney Laura H. Holmberg, Marsha C. Wait, Tom Farrell, Robert B. DeKay, Robert Lynch (WTKO Radio), Carol Eisenberg (Ithaca Journal). Chairman Francese declared the meeting duly opened at 7:37 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and ® Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and The Ithaca Journal on October 2, 1979 and October 5, 1979, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon Chemung Contracting Corp., upon Attorneys Laura Holmberg and Armand Adams, and upon the Appellants on October 5, 1979. ADJOURNED APPEAL OF KARL BUTLER IN RE GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND RESTORATION OF LANDS AT 270 ENFIELD FALLS ROAD, PARCEL NO. 6-33-1-24.2. (ADJOURNED FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1979.) Chairman Francese declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:38 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. Butler was present, as were Messrs. Fischer and Cook of the Chemung Contracting Corporation. Chairman Francese explained the reasons for the adjourned meeting. Chairman Francese asked if the Appellant had anything to say. Mr. William J. Mobbs, 272 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and stated that his barn is shown on the map which indicates the location of the gravel bank. Mr. Mobbs stated that, as he has reviewed this situation, commenting that they were here before in 1975, the fact that this continues to rise as a problem is that there is a valuable resource there of grade bank run gravel and, thus, ® renewed efforts to obtain material, adding that before it was the State, this time it is the City, and further adding that this will continue to come up. Mr. Mobbs stated that, personally, he did not like to be subjected to the tug and pull of the neighborhood and he I Zoning Board of Appeals -2- October 10, 1979 would like to have it resolved. Mr. Mobbs stated that it is a ® valuable resource -- valuable to someone -- and it would be good to have this worked out and put to bed finally. Mr. Mobbs stated that the actual edge of the gravel bank is on his property line and he is interested to see that what is done there does not detrimentally affect his property, commenting that it said in the newspaper that his property value will go down by this work, and adding that, if it goes down, his immediate response would be "relief" because of his taxes but, in the long run, it is probably not to his benefit which should be determined. Mr. Mobbs stated that, as far as truck traffic, if he had his choice, he would just as soon not have the trucks, adding that it is a State highway -- Route 327 -- that was renovated for millions of dollars and it does have trucks on it. Mr. Mobbs, noting that he had reviewed the mining plan that the contractor has drawn up, stated that he was presently confused. Mr. Mobbs stated that it is incomplete, finished contours are not indicated, and he was not able to determine what the final reclaimed project would look like. Mr. Mobbs noted that it did not interfere with his property lines and offered that he would not be opposed to seeing the work accomplished. Mr. Mobbs, commenting that he understood from the newspaper, and the contractor, that it is anticipated that the excavation will be about 30,000 cubic yards, stated that, from his experience, there is not that kind of quantity available in the bank, and, for this reason, he would like to see, if permission is granted, something to indicate that whatever gravel is there be obtained, and if it is not, no further work to obtain the 30,000. Mr. Mobbs stated that, additionally, if allowed, he would hope that there would be some way that the approval could be given so that this would not rise again in the future. Mr. Mobbs stated that he thought it would be put to rest logically because it would be exhausted of good material and there could be something to prevent further excavation of material, adding, however, if it is disapproved, he still feels, as an engineer, that there is a valuable resource there left for future use by the Town of Ithaca, for example, because it is valuable and he feels it should be taken out and the area restored. Mr. Karl Butler, 1583 East Shore Drive, spoke from the floor and stated that his whole interest is that he bought this property, not because of the gravel bank, but because he could give the major part of the property to the Church for which it is being used, adding that this happened to be there, and further adding that it is an eyesore. Mr. Butler, commenting that he sold some land to Mr. Mobbs, stated that this is a resource, if it could be used, and we agree -- contractor and owner -- then smoothed off as best possible, reseeded, and reforested. Mr. Butler stated that he has a great deal of experience in this, world-wide, adding that it is going to be almost impossible to be able to afford to do this without taking out some of the resources there, and further adding that he would like to use some of the material that is there. Mr. Butler stated that these people came to him, he did not go to them, every once in a while they come to ® him. Chairman Francese asked Mr. Fischer if he wished to speak, with Mr. Fischer responding, no. Zoning Board of Appeals .3 - Mr. Thomas M. Shea, 210 Enfield and stated that he would like to adding that, also, Mr. Fischer had going to go up there with 80-100 playing there. Mr. Shea stated that October 10, 1979 Falls Road, spoke from the floor see the whole thing cleared up, said, last time, that they were trucks a day with all the kids people have been killed there. Mrs. Jane E. and stated that Hardy, no one 215 in Enfield Falls Road, the neighborhood presently spoke from the floor considers the area an eyesore, Hardy stated that stops have been adding there moved that it is not are children on and the Junior an attractive nuisance. the road, noting that the High bus stops and kids Mrs. bus are waiting right on the highway. Mrs. Catherine T. Kellogg, 287 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and stated that she is' on the west side of the gravel pit, adding that she did go down there and she has a copy of the map. Mrs. Kellogg stated that if any gravel is going to be taken out, it will make a deeper hole in the center. Mrs. Kellogg stated that there are some errors on the Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and mentioned question #20, "Check if the site of the proposed action is within or next to the following Districts or Areas:", which has no check marks. After discussion, it was agreed that no check marks is appropriate. Mrs. Kellogg stated that "no" to questions #32, "Will any streams be modified by the proposed action? If so, designate on the site plan which streams will be modified. (Note: "Dam" or "Disturbance" permit from DEC is required for modifications.)" is questionable. Mrs. Kellogg stated that on question #34, "Do any of the following types of vegetation exist on the site of the proposed action?", five out of the seven should be "yes", rather than all "no". Mr. Ernest E. Hardy, 215 Enfield Falls Road, spoke from the floor and stated that there is a 9.6% slope from the pit down to the truck entrance, which is the same as twice the slope of Newfield hill. Mr. Hardy, commenting that he would mention, also, the value of the assessment, stated that it is the assessor's opinion that the value would go down, reducing the tax base for the pit itself and any housing also. Mr. Hardy pointed out that the Petitions still hold some 68 signatures. Mr. Hardy stated that Mr. Butler says the site will be smoothed to the best possible situation, but only rye grass and levelling was mentioned. Mr. Butler, commenting that he would rebutt that, stated that it was made clear to him that it would be smoothed off and it will be, adding that the whole idea is to smooth down the banks, which would be done and -would greatly improve the area. Mr. Butler commented on all the talk about trees, and shrubs and assessed value, and spoke of matters which are against the Constitution. Mr. Edward Kellogg, 4 Gray Road, spoke from the floor and noted that Mr. Butler had stated that they are going to slope off the bank and reseed it, but, according to the map, they are not touching the bank at all. Chairman Francese explained the limit of the excavtion in the flat area. Mr. Fabbroni offered that insofar as the other Zoning Board of Appeals -4- October 10, 1979 is proposal which was brought up, about reforestation. there is in no way in the proposal Mrs. Catherine Kellogg, commenting that she understood that this is only in terms of Mr. Butler's and not Mrs. McMillan's land, stated that the eyesore is on Mrs. McMillan's land and they are not involved with that. Chairman Francese closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. for Board discussion wherein it was discovered that Mr. Fischer has a New York State Mining Permit in the Town of Enfield. Chairman Francese reopened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Hardy offered that he can go down Bostwick Road, adding that it is a straight road, the distance is shorter, and all right-hand turns in the gravel site except one and they will not have to involve this with .the Bostwick Road. Mr. Fabbroni commented that he would like to see a condition that the gravel be taken out by the method Mr. Hardy described and wondered if that would be sufficient for Mr. Fischer. Mr. Fischer, responding that they talked about that, stated that, no, he did not think it would be because of the condition of Calkins Road, Route 79, and Route 13A, known as "the Octopus", adding that it is a right hand turn but there is a congestion factor. Mr. Hardy stated that he objected to that. Chairman Francese closed the public hearing. Chairman Francese ® stated that there needs to be set forth Findings of Fact with regard to traffic, with regard to the gravel pit, with regard to aesthetics in the area, with regard to the amount of gravel, commenting that it is a resource, and then a resolution and vote. Chairman Francese stated that there needs to be a set of conditions, if this were to be approved, and one of the major conditions would be that Mr. Fischer be allowed to extract gravel from this pit provided that the area be reforested as well as regrassed, and another being that all gravel extracted from this pit be removed from these premises by a route other than Route 327, with such route being up to them, in other words, prohibit Route 327 from the gravel pit to Route 13. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the following as Findings of Fact in the matter of the Karl Butler Appeal: 1. The highway between the gravel pit and Route 13 is extremely steep, testimony having been given as to its 9.6% slope, and a number of curves are evident, thus, it is extremely dangerous for trucks loaded with gravel to go down that road. In addition to that, the entrance from Route 327 onto Route 13 appears to be quite dangerous upon personal inspection by the members of said Board of Appeals. ® 2. There appears to be an alternative route from this gravel pit to the proposed disposal site running westerly and thence northerly. This alternative route does not appear to be as dangerous as the Zoning Board of Appeals A -5- October 10, 1979 0 road down Route 327, 3. There appear to be methods of restoration of this gravel pit by the contractor which would improve the visual effect from Route 327 provided that the contractor planted some trees and reseeded the proposed extraction area. 4. There does not appear to be any danger according to the contractor's plans that the creek nearby this proposed extraction area would be polluted by further gravel excavation in the work area indicated on the plans submitted. 5. The proposed reclamation plans are deemed insufficient and need more detail and elaboration. 6. It was also indicated that the gravel can be obtained using the same highway in a different town coming down the road and, at least, the burden of the traffic can be controlled this way to some extent. 7. While this is not unique, there are certainly not many other open gravel sites in the vicinity or the Town of Ithaca. 8. The Long Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted, reviewed, and amended. 40 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen, Reuning, Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, grant and hereby does grant to Mr. Karl Butler, Appellant, a permit to extract gravel from his land at 270 Enfield Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-1-24.2, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the gravel to be extracted from this site be removed from the site by travelling west on Route 327. No gravel may be permitted to travel east on Route 327 from the site to Route 13, 2. That a five-foot (5') contour map for newly exposed bank walls and excavated area be provided to the Town Engineer and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the start of excavation. 3. That the excavation that is permitted will not create a floor on ® the pit that is below the level of Route 327 at the entrance to the proposed gravel pit. 4. That the maximum slope allowed on the banks in the excavated area Zoning Board of Appeals -6- October 10, 1979 is will not exceed the maximum slope allowed by the New York State Mined Land Reclamation Law and that at least one terrace be constructed by the contractor on said slope. 5. That the contractor post with the Town Engineer a Letter of Credit equal to $5,000.00, said sum to be used by the Town of Ithaca to reclaim this land if the contractor fails to do so. 6. That the area from which gravel is to be extracted is to be reclaimed. However, reseeding only will not be deemed sufficient, and, a reclamation plan including trees as well as grass, in particular grass on the slopes, shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for his approval before the work begins. 7. That the contractor obtain a New York State Mining Permit for this site. 8. That the contractor shall carry on no activity at this site 'other than extraction of the gravel. Such prohibited activities would include screening, washing, or crushing of gravel. However, the contractor is to mainain a dust -free environment at all times. 9. That the reclamation plan shall include some effort to restore the north bank of the pit beyond the work area. 10. That the .work of excavation and the reclamation shall be done under the supervision of the Town Engineer who shall be allowed on the premises to properly supervise same. 11. That the Town Engineer shall have the power to terminate this permit given reasonable cause. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Karl Butler Appeal duly closed at 8:54 p.m. APPEAL OF YUAN-TSUNG CHEN AND Y. TANNEBAUM, APPELLANTS, LAURA H. HOLMBERG, DENYING AS AGENT, CERTIFICATE FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OF OCCUPANCY FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WITH EQUAL -SIZED DWELLING UNITS AT 1420 HANSHAW ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA PARCEL NO. 6-70-10-12, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 2, ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 76, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. TAX THE AND Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:55 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Attorney Laura H. Holmberg was present as Agent for Yuan-Tsung Chen and Y. 11 Zoning Board of Appeals Tannebaum. -7- October 10, 1979 Attorney Holmberg appeared before the Board and referred to the Appeal Form and its attachment [attached hereto as Exhibit 1]. Attorney Holmberg stated that the subject residence was a single- family dwelling with a carport built in 1960. Attorney Holmberg stated that in 1972 the property was purchased by Mr. Richard Gingras as a two-family home having been converted about five of six years before he purchased it, adding that one neighbor called and indicated that it had been there for 13 years. Attorney Holmberg stated that the problem is that the two units are virtually the same size, although everything else conforms. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that, actually, the house is the same size as the permit for which it was issued, adding that what happened was that the garage, or carport, was taken into it. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is presently a 50/50 split with no cellar. Mr. King asked if this were of ar. Fabbroni responded, no, adding that t coverage of the lot to accomplish the further adding that it is two families that he knew this house and it does from any other. Mr. Fabbroni comment that there are two driveways instep commented that there were no eyesores. the new buyers are residents of the plans for any modification. Mr. King problem, y problem to Mr. Fabbroni. Mr. .here is no additional building change and no more density, and now. Chairman Francese offered not look appreciably different ed that the only difference is id of one. Chairman Francese Attorney Holmberg stated that neighborhood and they have no offered that he did not see any MOTION by Mr. Jack Hewett, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11, paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the two-family dwelling located at 1420 Hanshaw Road, Parcel No. 6-70-10-12, to have each such units be of equal size, and authorizes the issuance of a certificate of compliance for same. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Chen/Tannebaum Appeal duly closed at 9:00 p.m. APPEAL OF THE OF VICTOR AND WINIFRED TURBACK, BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING SIGN APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION PERMIT FOR AN ADDITIONAL 20 SQ. FT. OF ITHACA THE BUILDING SIGNAGE AT TURBACK'S OF ITHACA, N.Y., 919 ELMIRA ROAD, TAX PARCEL NO. 6-35-1-9, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS INSPECTOR UNDER SECTION 6 (1) (b) OF THE TOWN TOWN DENIED OF ITHACA OF BY SIGN ORDINANCE. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- October 10, 1979 ® Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:01 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr. David Nowicki was present representing Mr. Turback, Mr. Nowicki appeared before the Board and referred to the Appeal Form before the Board and the attached sign permit application [attached hereto as Exhibit 2]. Mr. Nowicki stated that they want more local business, commenting that the exterior of Turback's looks too "fancy". Mr. Nowicki stated that they offer only Finger Lakes wines and what they consider premium wines, adding that they do identify strongly with the area. Mr. Nowicki described the restaurant and its atmosphere. Mr. Nowick noted that the proposed wine bottle sign will be seen from both sides of the sign. Mr. King noted that the request is for an expansion of the westerly edge of the existing approved sign. Chairman Francese wondered why the owners did not want the "bottle" sign on the existing lattice work. Mr. Nowicki stated that it will stand out better and will also maintain the look of the original sign. Mr. Nowicki pointed out that the sign is off the road and well back. Mr. Hewett stated that he liked the idea of the "I Love New York" theme. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: ® RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the Victor and Winifred Turback Appeal for increased signage at Turback's, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the following as Findings of Fact: 1. The sign is in an area where there are very few dwelling units, most of the surrounding land being agricultural. 2. There appears to be some benefit to the community since the sign and the restaurant itself will be promoting regional wines. 3. No one appeared in opposition even though the neighbors were notified. 4. The proposal would increase the overall area of the existing sign by 100. 5. The sign is set back considerably from the road and architecturally is in sympathy with the restaurant. 6. At this time the east and west wings of the lattice work sign have no advertising on them. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen, Reuning. ® Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Zoning Board of Appeals -9- October 10, 1979 MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: is RESOLVED, that, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Section 6(1)(b) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to permit Turback's Restaurant to add approximately 20 sq. ft. of signage to their existing sign according to the drawing submitted with their Appeal. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, Austen, Reuning. Nay - King. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Mr. King commented to Mr. Nowicki that the restaurant might still place the bottle within the present limitations of the sign, perhaps by attaching it. Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Victor and Winifred Turback Appeal duly closed at 9:15 p.m. APPEAL OF SANFORD H. AND JOAN G. REUNING AND F. F. BUTLER, APPELLANTS, .FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING SIGN PERMIT FOR 18 Am SQ. FT. SIGN, ITHACA TALENT EDUCATION SCHOOL, AT 929 DANBY ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6-41-1-3, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER SECTION 6 (1) (b) OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SIGN ORDINANCE. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:17 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mrs. Joan Reuning removed herself from her seat at the Board table and appeared before the Board representing the Appellants. Mrs. Reuning described the Appeal and the proposed sign as indicated in the Appeal Form and attachments [attached hereto as Exhibit 3]. Mr. Fabbroni asked Mrs. Reuning if she had any idea how wide the right of way on Danby Road is, that is, where her property starts and where the State property starts. Mrs. Reuning responded that she did not know, adding, however, that the road is four lanes wide there, and further adding that the sign is proposed to be 26 feet back from the curb back on the bank. Mrs. Reuning stated that it will be a wooden sign made of natural wood with no lights, and will be parallel -to the road. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Edward King: RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the Sanford H. and Joan G. Reuning Appeal for an 18 -square -foot sign for the Ithaca Talent ® Education School located at 929 Danby Road, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the following as Findings of Fact: Zoning Board of Appeals -10- October 10, 1979 1. That the proposed location of the sign would comply with the Sign Ordinance and all other applicable ordinances. 2. That the neighborhood contains a number of industrial establishments which have substantially -sized signs of their own. 3. That the sign would be placed parallel to the road rather than perpendicular so that only one side would be visible from the street. 4. That no one came in opposition although neighbors were notified. 5. That the sign is to be made out of wood with the only painted surface being the letters themselves, the remainder of the sign being a natural brown colour. 6. That, although the area is zoned Residence District R-30, there are no other dwellings within several hundred feet of the school building. 7. That the building is a school and used as a school and most schools have a sign. The sign would identify the school as a school, There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: RESOLVED, that, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of Section 6(1)(b) of the Town of Ithaca Sign Ordinance to permit the issuance of a sign permit for the erection of a sign, as applied for, at the Ithaca Talent Education School located at 929 Danby Road. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Reuning/Butler Appeal duly closed at 9:23 p.m. Mrs. Reuning returned to her seat at the Board table. Zoning Board of Appeals -11- October 10, 1979 APPEAL OF PERCY L. WATROS, APPELLANT, FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO SUBDIVIDE DECISION A LOT OF INTO THE TWO PARCELS ONE OF WHICH WOULD HAVE A SIDE YARD OF LESS THAN 15 FEET AND THE OTHER OF WHICH WOULD HAVE SLATERVILLE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE SECTIONS 14 AND 16, AND ARTICLE ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. AN TAX BUILDING XIII, IRREGULAR LOT SIZE, AT 1584 PARCEL NO. 6-56-3-16, ITHACA, INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 67, OF THE TOWN OF Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:24 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Town Engineer Lawrence P. Fabbroni spoke to the Board regarding the matter of the Watros Appeal. Mr. Fabbroni stated that back in 1976 Mr. Watros owned two parcels that were originally numbered 6-56-3-16 and 6-56-3-17 and Mr. Eipper owned a piece of land behind him that had a 31 -foot right of way up to it. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Mr. Watros traded the 31 -foot right of way for a new right of way to the back land which would be a much easier access, so, Mr. Blanpied built a house, so, there was a triangular piece left. Mr. Fabbroni displayed a map [attached hereto as Exhibit 41. Utilizing the map, Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that the existing lot line is along the eastern edge of the existing garage. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Mr. Watros is proposing to move the lot line approximately 22 feet to the west to split the difference between the existing garage and the existing house, which would also make both lots more than 15,000 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that a "hypothetical house" is shown on the map to show that a decent -sized house could be put there, and noted that the "dashed lines" show how the driveways would work out. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he had received a letter, dated October 10, 1979, from Henry W. Theisen, Esq., of the law firm of Adams, Theisen & Ward, commenting that the letter relates to the sewer easement but it also relates to the hearing. Mr. Fabbroni read aloud, as follows: "Re. Percy Watros - 1584 & 1586 Slatery ille Rd. Dear Larry: Percy Watros has agreed to the proposal that the dividing line between 1584 and 1586 Slaterville Rd. be moved about 22 feet to the west, so that the existing garage will be on the 1586 lot and both lots will be of sufficient size to be approved as building lots by the Town. It is understood by Mr. Watros, that the Town will re -survey the property in order to relocate the dividing line, at no cost to him, and he agrees to withdraw his demand for $1,000.00 for the sewer easement that the Town wants. It is also understood, the Town will, at its expense, replace trees, shrubs and other plantings removed in the course of installation of the sewer line. 40 The above was related to me by Mr. Watros by telephone yesterday. He also wanted me to bring to your attention the water leakage in the r 4•e. Zoning Board of Appeals -12- driveway near the garage. This seems to people who dug for the sewer in that they pipeline. As you indicated, please check advise us or Mr. Watros of your findings." October 10, 1979 have been caused by the apparently broke a water with the water people and MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the and hereby does grant Sections 14 and 16, of the subdivision by Mr. parcels such that one o less than 15 feet, and, shaped be deemed to be having 15,000 square frontage on Slaterville Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance from the requirements of Article IV, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to permit Percy L. Watros of lot no. 6-56-3-16 into two f the side yards of an existing house would be that the lot that is created and triangularly - a legal building lot in the Town of Ithaca, it feet in area and approximately 154 feet of Road after such subdivision. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, Hewett, King, Austen, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Percy L. Watros Appeal duly closed at 9:34 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Francese declared the October 10, 1979 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Peter K. Francese, Chairman, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. TOWN OF ITHACA 9 NEW YORK - A P P E A L to the Building Commissioner ' and the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca, New York Having been -denied permission to &LcL/vc Cfz'RiFiCATjF of ©eec,p,1NeY Fat A 7MO F711111 .Y OWC4t/uG tu17N kV()/9k s/4 -7C Ott)Cz ✓NG am /qj'o M MS"INAed Rof-D &XLAMFCagfo-/o./ Ithaca, New York as'shown on the accompanying Application and/or plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of ARr. �✓, r�27• x�✓, Section (s),11__e_r.Z_ 7�— of the Town of IItthaca Zoning Ordinance ® the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal from such denial and, in support of the appeal, affirms -that strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows, Signed =C-& pe'-(! nfi (��,�., t L-/� ���.ti..�l its-►✓ Dated: Ithaca, N. Y. - ;/ ;!!� 197 / 11 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: VARIANCE AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY 1420 Hanshaw,Road, Ithaca, New York The applicant is attorney for the owners of the pro- perty at 1420 Hanshaw Road, Ithaca, New York, who are in the process of selling it. The purchase agreement called for a certificate of compliance with all codes and ordinances. If my clients are denied a certificate of occupancy they obviously cannot receive a certificate of compliance and will be unable to sell the house. I have been informed that in order for them to receive a certificate of occupancy they must make an application for a variance of the zoning ordinance. When my clients purchased this property in February,1977, it was a two family dwelling with two dwelling units of equal size. I have spoken with the former owner, Mr. Richard Gingras, who stated that the property was a two-family dwelling unit with two dwellings of equal size when he bought it in 1972 and that to the best of his knowledge the two dwelling units had existed for several years prior to that. The original builder, Mr. Rocco Lucenti, believes the second unit was added by pur- chasers from him sometime between 1962 and 1964. In as much as this building's violation of the zoning ordinance and the lack of a proper building permit have existed for at least five years and perhaps for as long as twelve years before my clients purchased the property, they would suffer practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships if they are unable to obtain a variance, for they would be unable to sell E their property. Consequently, I respectfully request that a variance to the zoning ordinance be granted to permit two dwelling units of equal size in this building and that upon the granting of the variance a certificate of occupancy be issued. Dated: September 28, 1979 Ithaca, New York - S6Z� CA COP LQ raxMAP >aA2CE c 0 70 10-12 0 l ! 60 3 / STo R y rR,4 M E a I' 1 �ooT I I 1 + VV Or6RHAr�4 EPOP sit I SQ P - f/ANSHA W ROAD �,,,%qbq"#..,,LQCAT/o/v 5UPVt r...•�Fya:a *1. �..� 4 OF N Of R OWi't t#Nn ^r /y��i.tu ;'�, �•�,`c� , , _ /420 HA/VSHAW ROAD r •: •=si: _ _ ,�o�j� a joww of /TNACA. ToMP"h5 Co. .` �T,,.,(• * : /yasM YOR �op.�io ar - - -:s ; : ' '��.,�'t ? D•nc ffis ih il7? �.IJOfyA�D Q L/;! 0e•e•; r;• '�} �. outs y'� i SGwaa /. 30 9379• . No . 28 ( 2 of 2) .. TOWN OF ja ACA NEW YORK A P P E A L to -the. Building Commissioner and the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca,�New York Having been denied permission %e. Ithaca, New York at M sm.the accompanying Application and/or plans or other as shown on . supporting for the stated reason that the issuance PPing documents,_ ould be in violation of of such permit w $ection(s)Slr4ni of the Town of Ithaca Ordinance the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal -from such denial and, in support of the appeal, ai'firms that strict den CULTIES =-- observance of -the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIF�'1 and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows:- . We at TURBACKfS are having difficulty with our image as to " " and Sm or oo expensive -looking * We want to add the proposed message to` our sigh to emphasize our ties to the nearb a e rowersrestaurant, wineries, an ere yen ance our reputation as a family catering to local trade* This relationship with other businesses in the area is con; with the familiar "I LOVE NY" cam,4 we all depend on to and maintain.local saendin in then I h^ i Dated: Ithaca, N. Signe stimulate ft TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK APPEAR• to the. - Building Commissionr and the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Ithaca,s New York on to FeEC A S o.F /j8 SQ. FT. erm ss been denied p / Having j CDU Ci9'T! oN S�'tfoo�.. c �+ rinlG. o F toe 1'� ° i✓ Ithaca New York Joan �� %�oPG at �9 ' pplication and/or plans or other as shown on the accompanying•A d cuments for the stated reason_ that the issuance supporting o ' of such permit would be in violation of Section(s) G6 b) of the Tolgn of Ithaca Ordinance the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this appeal: such from denial and, in support of -the appeal, atrict affirms that s se' PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES observance of the Ordinance would impo��-- and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows Signed Dated: Ithaca, N. Y- - 97 — 1. I Y Z W W 4 t J I � � v\ 3 Z 4z4 OZ> DQ u CSC a�dN17- r SIGN A P P L IC AT I ON AND PERMIT Fee: $5.00:`�Application Aft P 1.00 per sq.fto area of each sign Applicant: 6.SA�vr.,mo Address: //Z Lti. �ciTTE2M Property OtVrner: 6. eEUAI/NG Address: 9 g 04AIRSe Location of.Signe UN/ IC4 4 GGS Rio Scale Drawing or Attached Drawing or Bl uepTi-nt. P Date: Sign Permit { ) Approved by: (�) Denied under Sec.: Action: gate of Appeal: Date of Hearing* r $25.00 Deposit for• of Application: Date: Permit Number. Date: Zoning District: � Signature: . 9 27 Phone Number* 272-7�y4 272- 6006 Phone Number: jh'P% 3 • v_G No or P19 i o /o/z/7 i Planning Gd. Action. Town Bd. Action: 2nd Planning Bd. Action. 2nd Town Bd. Action: Date: Da to : Dote: Da to Ito •� .� o� ., �0�\ 49 Ro 3 .63 �3,O I Y� Rr 35 • i i. `der i \—a vi (� V Re oa � Rr 31.vo` r� r 100.03 --132. S"6' 54Z°37't S 42001' F� S 420 1)7 Pe ac k. WkA ros ph4-'a 1 S IoAty vi lit. R�• 10/0/7"1