HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1980-01-14 l
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 14 , 1980
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular
session on Monday , January 14 , 1980 , in Town Hall , 126 East
Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Peter K . Francese , Edward W . King , Edward N .
Austen , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M .
Fuller ( Secretary ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Richard J . Morrison , Esq . , Mary E . Tilley , Town
Councilman George C . Kugler , Eberhard W . Irmler ,
Paul P . W . Cheng , Tilley Cheng , Richard Anderson ,
Margie Rumsey , Michelle VanBuren ( WTKO News ) .
Chairman Francese declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 40
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 January 4 , 1980 and January 9 , 1980 ,
respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service
by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the
properties in question , upon the Finger Lakes State Parks
Commission , upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca , and upon each
of the Appellants , as party to the action , on January 7 , 1980 .
APPEAL OF J M B DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , APPELLANT , FROM THE
DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE FOR HOME PLACED ON LOT WITH SIDE YARD LESS THAN 15
FEET , AT 118 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , PARCEL N0 , 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 113 ,
ITHACA , N . Y . CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION
76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 41 p . m . and read aloud from
the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above .
Attorney Richard J . Morrison and Mrs . Mary E . Tilley were
present . Chairman Francese noted the Appeal Form as signed and
submitted by Mary E . Tilley , JMB Development Corp . , Mary Tilley ,
Secretary -Treasurer , dated December 28 , 1979 , with attachments .
Said Appeal reads as follows : " . . . Having been denied permission
to maintain an existing residence and to obtain therefor the
issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance at 118 Eastern
Heights Drive . . . The residence in question was built pursuant to
Town of Ithaca Building Permit No . 1552 . A copy of this Permit
is annexed as Exhibit A . Annexed as Exhibit B is a copy of the
plot plan which was annexed to the Permit . Said Exhibit B shows
the residence , ' House , ' in question . ( Additional pages added . ) "
Additional pages - -
• Zoning Board of Appeals 2 January 14 , 1980
" At the time of issuance of said permit to Eastern Heights , Inc . ,
® the developer , the location of the building as contemplated in
the application was in compliance with the set back requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance . It should be noted that on Exhibit B
just southerly of the southerly boundary , there is noted an
' intermittent stream . '
Annexed as Exhibit C is a stamped copy of a survey map dated
August 16 , 1979 showing the location of the house as actually
constructed . Apparently , sometime before the construction of the
house , the ' intermittent stream ' was channeled into a 4 ' diameter
storm drain , the course of which was 30 ' to 40 ' to the north of
the original channel . As a result the channel intersected the
property in question as shown on Exhibit C .
As far as the undersigned can determine the house , in order to
accommodate the new course of the stream , was constructed in a
location not approved in the aforesaid building permit , and only
11 ' from the northerly boundary of the subject property , rather
than 15 ' as required by the ordinance .
The house in question was constrcted by Eastern Heights , Inc .
The property was then conveyed to David and Ann Farina by deed
dated October 13 , 1972 . It was conveyed by the Farinas to JMB
Development Corporation , the appellant , by deed dated June 16 ,
1978 . JMB Development Corporation has entered into a contract to
sell the house and lot . The sale is ready to close , except that
the Town of Ithaca will not issue a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance because of the aforesaid 4 ' deficiency in the
0 northerly side yard .
Both the Farinas and the JMB Development Corporation took the
property without knowledge of the 4 ' deficiency . It was not
discovered until after the appellant had contracted to sell the
property to the present buyer .
And , of course , neither the Farinas nor the JMB Development
Corporation had any part in locating the house in an unapproved
location .
Apparently Eastern Heights , Inc . located the house on the lot at
the only location it could without interfering with the new
course of the stream . Whether the unapproved relocation was
intentional or inadvertent is unknown to the appellant .
What we are left with is an unfortunate situation . The
appellant , a bona fide purchaser for value , is now in possession
of the house , but the house cannot be sold because of the 4 '
deficiency .
The appellant , with the express intention of holding the house
only long enough to resell , purchased the house from the Farinas
after they were unable to find any other buyer . The Buyer which
the appellant has found will occupy the house as a residence . It
is respectfully submitted that , on balance , the benefit that will
accrue to the community by the continued occupation of this house
as a residence will far outweigh any detriment that may result in
the granting of a variance for this 4 ' deficiency . "
. Attachments - -
Exhibit A - Application for Building Permit , signed by Leo
Zoning Board of Appeals 3 January 14 , 1980
Ah Parente , showing Permit Number 1552 issued 8 / 8 / 72 .
so Exhibit B - Plot Plan as part of Building Permit Application .
Exhibit C - Location Survey of Lands of David D . & Ann L . Farina ,
at 118 Eastern Heights Drive , prepared by Howard R .
Schlieder , and dated August 16 , 1979 .
Exhibit - Warranty Deed , Farina to JMB Development Corporation ,
dated June 16 , 1978 .
Attorney Morrison entered the following letter to the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , dated January 11 , 1980 , into
the record .
" Re : Appeal of J M B Development Corporation
Gentlemen :
I am writing this letter as a Memorandum of Law with respect to
the above appeal . The appellant , J M B Development Corporation ,
is appealing from the decision of the building inspector denying
a certificate of compliance for a house located at 118 Eastern
Heights Drive . The denial was based upon the fact that the house
is located only 11 feet from the westerly lot line . The
appellant is requesting a variance so that the house may be sold
to a prospective purchaser . For a statement of the history of
this property , I refer you to our application for appeal .
Over the past twenty years , New York courts have consistently
held that an appellant need meet a lesser criterion in qualifying
for a variance involving area deviation than for a variance
ivnolving the use of land . Use variances may be granted only
upon a showing of ' unnecessary hardship , ' whereas area variances
may be granted upon a showing that a literal application of the
zoning regulations would result in ' practical difficulties . '
Bronxville v . Francis , 1 AD2d 236 , 150 NYS2d 906 , aff ' d 1 NY2d
839 , 153 NYS2d 220 . See also Conley v . Brookhaven Zoning Board
of Appeals , 40 NY2d 309 , 386 NYS2d 681 .
In Hoffman v . Harris , 17 NY2d 138 , 269 NYS2d 119 , the court
reasons as follows :
There is a good reason for the distinction between use and
area variances and the requirement of a higher standard of
proof for the former . When the variance is one of area
only , there is no change in the character of the zoned
district and the neighborhood considerations are not as
strong . . . In such a case , it seems fair that only practical
difficulties without unique oor special hardship need be
proved to obtain a variance .
In the instant case , a question of side yard requirements is
raised . Again , New York Law holds that the ' practical
difficulty ' standard applies . In the case of Balsam v . Jagger ,
231 NYS2d 450 , dealing with a variance of rear and side yard
requirements , the court indicates that ' the relief in question
could be granted on proof of practical difficulty alone . '
As shown by the appellant ' s application for appeal , J M B
Development Corporation has acted in good faith in purchasing the
property and had no responsibility for the construction of the
home in violation of the zoning ordinance . In short , the
appellant ' s difficulty results from the original contractor ' s
Zoning Board of Appeals 4 January 14 , 1980
failure to comply with the ordinance despite the terms of a
building permit , a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A to our
application for appeal . It would appear , from an examination of
the location survey annexed as Exhibit C to our application for
appeal , that it would be impossible for this house to have been
constructed in any other position on this lot due to the location
of a 4 foot diameter storm drain . Nevertheless , the contractor
failed to request a variance at the time of construction , a
failure of which the appellant had no knowledge .
Under New York law , an individual who acts in good faith can
obtain relief from a zoning ordinance where his difficulty
results from his contractor ' s failure to comply with it . Badish
V . O ' Regan , 212 NYS2d 632 . Here , the failure to comply is
attributable not to the appellant ' s contractor , but to the
contractor of the appellant ' s predecessor in title . Neither the
appellant nor , it is believed , the predecessor in title had any
knowledge of the failure to comply . In no way , then , has the
party seeking relief at this time created its own hardship .
The granting of a variance herein would have no effect on the
population density , would produce no change in the character of
the neighborhood and would pose no substantial detriment to
adjoining properties . Inability to obtain a variance will result
in a great practical difficulty to appellant : the house cannot
be moved or altered so as to be in compliance without substantial
cost . If that effort is not possible , the property will remain
unmarketable . It is submitted that this harsh result is that
which the case law of New York State seeks to avoid .
Very truly yours ,
( sgd . ) Richard J . Morrison "
Mrs . Tilley appeared before the Board and noted that the
house was built by Eastern Heights , Inc . in 1972 . Attorney
Morrison spoke about the submissions which the Board had received
and about the stream . He pointed out that the house was not
built where it was approved because of the stream which , then ,
was running right in the middle of the house location . Mr .
Morrison stated that no other permit was ever granted ; the house
was purchased by Farina in 1972 . Mr . Morrison stated that the
property was sold under an unrecorded land contract to Mary
Tilley and then by Deed in the summer of 1978 . Mr . Morrison
stated that there was no reason for Mrs . Tilley to believe the
property was any way else but the way it should be . He stated
that then in 1979 the property was surveyed by Howard Schlieder
at which time it was determined that the westerly side yard was
11 ' .
Chairman Francese stated that this survey was apparently the
first survey ever done . Mr . Morrison stated that that was
correct .
Chairman Francese asked if there were anyone present who
® wished to speak to this matter .
Zoning Board of Appeals 5 January 14 , 1980
Mr . Paul Cheng , 116 Eastern Heights Drive , spoke from the
floor and asked if there were any further construction planned .
Mr . Morrison stated that there was not . Mrs . Cheng asked if
every house does not need a certificate of compliance . Chairman
Francese stated that the Town does not require that a certificate
of compliance be requested and explained about mortgages and some
banks requiring such certificates , adding , however , that it is a
relatively rare occurrence where a house is sold and there is no
certificate of compliance requested .
Chairman Francese asked again if JMB Development had any
intention of expanding this house . Mrs . Tilley responded , no ,
adding that the house has been sold to a couple who have lived in
the house since August . Chairman Francese asked if this were a
one - family home . Mr . Morrison responded that it is a one - family
home . Chairman Francese asked if there were any apartments , to
which Mr . Cartee responded that there are no apartments .
Mrs . Cheng asked if , should this certificate of compliance
be issued , does this certificate allow them to rent or make
apartments . Chairman Francese stated that it does not , adding
that the certificate of compliance applies only to this house as
it exists .
Mr . King asked how close the Cheng ' s house is to this house
on the northwest of this property . Mr . Morrison submitted a
picture showing the Cheng house and the JMB house . Mr . King
estimated that the Cheng house was about 30 ' from the property
line . Chairman Francese estimated that it was about 40 ' between
the two houses .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Peter Francese :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca adopt and hereby does adopt the following Findings of Fact
in the matter of the Appeal of J M B Development Corporation from
the decision of the Building Inspector denying Certificate of
Compliance for home placed on lot with side yard less than 15
feet , at 118 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No .
6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 113 :
1 . This property is located in an R- 15 Residence District
which requires a 15 - foot minimum side lot line .
2 . The easterly side yard of this property would appear to
be about 25 feet and the westerly side yard is only 11 feet wide .
3 . There appears to be about a 40 - foot separation between
this house and the Cheng house to the west .
4 . It appears that the 4 - foot storm drain running through
the easterly side of the subject property made it just about
impossible to place this house on the lot as originally plotted
when the building permit was granted .
Zoning Board of Appeals 6 January 14 , 1980
5 . There does not appear to be any immediate harm to any
neighbor through allowing the 11 - foot side yard as a variance in
this case .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Peter Francese :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca , based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact , grant and
hereby does grant a variance from the requirements of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to allow an eleven - foot ( 11 ' ) westerly
side yard at 118 Eastern Heights Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 113 .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Speaking to Mr . Cheng , Chairman Francese asked if Mr . Cheng
had any reason to object to this certificate of compliance being
issued . Mr . Cheng responded that he did not , as long as there is
no change in the house .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the J M B
Development Corporation Appeal duly closed at 7 : 54 p . m .
APPEAL OF MITCHELL AND LINDA LAVINE , APPELLANTS , FROM THE
DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO OCCUPY A
TWO - FAMILY DWELLING WITH A FAMILY PLUS ROOMER IN ONE UNIT
( UPSTAIRS ) AND THREE UNRELATED GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE SECOND
UNIT ( DOWNSTAIRS ) , AT 124 EASTERN HEIGHTS DRIVE , PARCEL NO ,
6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 109 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , OF THE TOWN
OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
At 7 : 55 p . m . , the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter
was duly opened by the Chair , such Public Hearing having been
scheduled for 7 : 45 p . m . Neither Mr . nor Mrs . Lavine were
present , nor an agent on their behalf .
Am MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
Zoning Board of Appeals 7 January 14 , 1980
RESOLVED , that the matter of the Appeal of Mitchell and
Linda Lavine be and hereby is adjourned sine die .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the matter
of the Lavine Appeal duly adjourned at 7 : 59 p . m .
APPEAL OF EBERHARD W . AND MONICA M . IRMLER , APPELLANTS , FROM THE
DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR
OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING BY FOUR UNRELATED PERSONS , AT
217 SNYDER HILL ROAD , PARCEL NO , 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 65 , ITHACA , N . Y .
PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV ,
SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , SUB - SECTION 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m , and read aloud from
the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above .
Mr . Irmler was present . Chairman Francese referenced the Appeal
Form as signed and submitted by Eberhard W . Irmler under date of
December 4 , 1979 , the Appeal reading as follows : " . . . Unnecessary
hardship would be imposed by limiting lower apartment occupancy
to two individuals , rather than the present occupancy of three .
The facts of the situation are as follow . ( 1 ) The house is of
two family construction and has not been sub - divided or altered
in any way since it was built . ( 2 ) The upper unit is owner
occupied ( i . e . , a total of three ' related persons ' ) . ( 3 ) The
lower unit , of which a sketch is attached , is occupied by three
unrelated persons , in violation of the above cited regulation .
9[Disallowing occupancy of the lower unit by three individuals
would impose serious financial difficulty on the property owners .
This hardship is viewed as unnecessary for the following reasons .
( 1 ) As may be seen in the sketch , the lower unit contains three
bedrooms . It comfortably accommodates three , as , indeed , it was
designed to do . ( 2 ) Article IV , section 11 , 2a , parts ( 1 ) and
( 2 ) are contradictory in the sense that the total number of
unrelated people allowed to occupy a two - family house by part ( 1 )
may be prohibited by part ( 2 ) . ( Eg . , part ( 1 ) permits occupancy
by a family and a boarder in each unit . Since a family may
consist of a single person , according to Article I . this section
permits two unrelated persons in one unit , plus a family and a
third unrelated person in the other unit . Part ( 2 ) of the same
section prohibits this . ) While the location of this third
unrelated person differs in the present case , the total number of
unrelated persons in the dwelling is the same as in the example .
TIn view of the fact that new zoning ordinances are currently
being considered which would place the present situation into the
e
Zoning Board of Appeals 8 January 14 , 1980
' allowable ' category , and in view of the extremely uneven
enforcement of this ordinance in the Snyder Hill Road area , I
request that permission for occupancy be granted and that the fee
for filing this appeal be waived . "
Attachment
1 . Floor plan , " downstairs " apartment , with Statement thereon :
" Surroundings : Snyder Hill Road runs in east -west direction
approximately 25 yds , from front . Distance to lot lines is
not known , however , distance to neighboring houses is
approx . 10 - 15 yds . to east ( 219 S . Hill Rd ) , 35 - 40 yds . to
west ( # 215 ) , and 50 - 60 yds . to rear ( south ) . Upstairs
entrance is front of house . "
Mr . Irmler appeared before the Board and stated that this
house is an up and down duplex , adding that there are three
bedrooms upstairs and three bedrooms downstairs and referencing
his submissions . Mr . Irmler stated that the upstairs is almost
identical to the downstairs , adding that they purchased the house
in the summer of ' 76 - - June . Mr . Irmler stated that at that
time the house was occupied by six unrelated people and they
( Irmlers ) assumed the occupancy was okay because of the six
bedrooms . Mr . Irmler stated that he and his wife and son live
upstairs , adding that there was a lease for the downstairs to
three undergraduate students .
Chairman Francese asked Mr . Irmler when he was notified of
the occupancy violation . Mr . Irmler stated that he received
notification on November 19 , 1979 by letter from Mr . Cartee , Mr .
Cartee stated that when he started to work for the Town in
November of 1979 , there was a list of numerous violations in this
particular area which had been checked several times . Mr . Cartee
stated that the Irmler property is one of probably 12 houses in
that area in violation , adding that there are 8 or 9 pending at
this time . Chairman Francese asked if Mr . Irmler had a lease
with these people , to which Mr . Irmler replied , yes , adding that
there is one lease with three names on it . Mr . Irmler stated
that they have six cars parked at the side of the property ,
adding that he has three cars because his wife has a County
vehicle . Chairman Francese asked Mr . Irmler if he had ever seen
the zoning ordinance pertaining to the matter of occupancy . Mr .
Irmler stated that he had , adding that it was enclosed with the
letter of November 19 , 1979 . Chairman Francese commented on the
12 prospective appellants coming before the Board , adding that
normally the hardship stated is economic , with people saying that
there is not enough money if they can only rent to two persons .
Chairman Francese asked Mr . Irmler if he felt that way . Mr .
Irmler stated that he did , adding that that would be his feeling
also . Chairman Francese wondered if Mr . Irmler understood that
if the Board granted this one , they would have trouble with the
other eleven . Mr . Irmler stated that his neighbor was going to
come and state that he had no objection . Chairman Francese
stated that this Board has had many of these kinds of appeals and
Zoning Board of Appeals 9 January 14 , 1980
they have been denied with the exception of some who have leases
such that it would unfair to throw people out on the street if
they have taken a lease in good faith . Chairman Francese spoke
about the proposed new zoning ordinance with a proposed new
definition of a family and with proposed new occupancy
regulations . Mr . Irmler wondered why there is a " blanket " rule
proposed and why not a rule that takes into account the design of
a house . Chairman Francese explained matters of density and
neighborhood character .
Mr . King asked where the lease for the downstairs apartment
might be . Mr . Irmler stated that he did not submit it .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca adjourn and hereby does adjourn the Public Hearing in the
matter of the Irmler Appeal to the next meeting of said Board in
February and , in the meantime , Mr . Irmler will submit a copy of
the lease for the downstairs apartment at 217 Snyder Hill Road
and a determination will be made by said Board with respect to
such Appeal at that time .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the matter
of the Irmler Appeal duly adjourned at 8 : 14 p . m .
APPEAL OF MARGARET RUMSEY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO HAVE PERSONS NOT
RESIDING AT 110 EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD WORK AT 110 EAST
BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , PARCEL NO . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 , ITHACA , N . Y .
PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE V .
SECTION 19 , PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 15 p . m . and read aloud from
the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above .
Mrs . Rumsey was present . Chairman Francese referenced Mrs .
Rumsey ' s Appeal Form as signed and submitted under date of
December 18 , 1979, and which reads as follows : " . . . Having been
denied permission to have persons not residing at 110 E .
Buttermilk Falls Rd . working there . . . For my son , Edward L .
Rumsey , to work in his father ' s office at 110 E . Buttermilk Falls
Rd . For my son , Hugh E . Rumsey II , to work in my office ( Rumsey
Real Estate ) at 110 E . Buttermilk Falls Rd . , Ithaca , N . Y . "
f.
Zoning Board of Appeals 10 January 14 , 1980
Mrs . Rumsey appeared before the Board and stated that she
wanted approval for her son , Ed , to operate out of his father ' s
office , that is , in his father ' s office , and for her son , Hugh ,
to work out of her office which is a real estate office , both of
which are in another structure which is an additional building on
the lot .
Chairman Francese asked Mr . Cartee to explain this problem .
Mr . Cartee stated the matter is one of a home occupation with a
person who does not reside on the premises , working there .
Chairman Francese asked if there were any neighbors present
who wished to speak . No one spoke . Mrs . Rumsey stated that
there were no neighbors present , but she had been to see them ,
offering the following letter for the record : " We have no
objection to addition to the Quonset . Also no objection to sons
working at 110 E . Buttermilk Falls Rd . ( sgd . ) 1 / 13 / 80 Mr . & Mrs .
William Stewart ; ( sgd . ) 1 / 13 / 80 Mary S . Mursko ; ( sgd . ) 1 / 13 / 80 G .
M . Powers , ( sgd . ) 1 / 13 / 80 J . D . Powers ; ( sgd . ) 1 / 14 / 80 Mr . & Mrs .
Richard G . Wilbur . " Mr . King commented that this is a unique
property tucked behind the railroad embankment and which cannot
be seen and with no other residences to speak of . Mrs . Rumsey
stated that that was correct , except there is one house somewhat
nearby owned by the Stewarts .
Chairman Francese asked if there were anyone appearing on
this matter . No one spoke . Chairman Francese asked Mrs . Rumsey
if she had any plans for anyone else being there other than her
two sons . Mrs . Rumsey replied , no . Mr . King asked Mrs . Rumsey
what kind of work her sons are going to be doing there . Mrs .
Rumsey stated that Ed will be doing sales work , adding that he
has a drawing table ; Hugh , she hoped to have him sell real
estate , adding that he does not do that now . Mrs . Rumsey stated
that she does not have a sign . Mr . Austen asked what else is in
the building to which Mrs . Rumsey replied that their shop is in
there . Mr . King asked if there were any other commercial use of
the building to which Mrs . Rumsey replied , no .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca adopt and hereby does adopt the following Findings of Fact
in the matter of the Appeal of Margaret Rumsey from the decision
of the Building Inspector denying permission to have persons not
residing at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road work at 110 East
Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 :
1 . No one appeared in opposition to the Appeal of Mrs .
Rumsey .
2 . There are only two neighbors of the subject property - -
Buttermilk Falls State Park and the Stewarts .
. Zoning Board of Appeals 11 January 14 , 1980
3 . The subject property is isolated from the road and from
other properties as well , therefore , it is a relatively unique
situation and unlike the typical situation with single family
dwellings next to single family dwellings .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca that the Appeal of Margaret Rumsey from the decision of
the Building Inspector denying permission to have her two sons
work at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 , be and hereby is granted and that her two sons be
allowed to work in the real estate business and sales work from
offices within the building located on said parcel .
There being- no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Rumsey Appeal
duly closed at 8 : 29 p . m .
APPEAL OF MARGARET RUMSEY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE
BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL
STORAGE WAREHOUSE AT 116 EAST BUTTERMILK FALLS ROAD , PARCEL NO ,
6 - 38 - 1 - 3 , ITHACA , N . Y . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING
INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTIONS 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , AND 22 , AND
ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE .
Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the
above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . and read aloud from
the Notice of Public Hearings as published and as noted above .
Chairman Francese read aloud the following letter addressed to
Mrs . Margaret Rumsey at 110 East Buttermilk Falls Road , signed by
Andrew R . Mazzella , Regional Administrator , Finger Lakes State
Park & Recreation Commission , dated January 11 , 1980 : " The
purpose of this letter is to confirm that the Finger Lakes State
Park and Recreation Commission has no objection to your request
for a variance to construct additional storage space at 116 East
Buttermilk Falls Road , Ithaca , New York . "
Zoning Board of Appeals 12 January 14 , 1980
® Mrs . Rumsey displayed the tax map showing the property in
question and also a photograph of the quonset but located on the
property . Mrs . Rumsey mentioned again the letter signed by the
neighbors [ set forth in previous Appeal ] indicating no objection
to the addition to the Quonset . Chairman Francese asked how long
the quonset but had been there . Mrs . Rumsey stated that it has
been there a long time , adding that they have been there for 312
years and it was there before that . Mrs . Rumsey stated that Dick
Anderson - - Anderson Moving and Storage - - is in there and they
need more storage and so the 30 ' x 100 ' addition is proposed to
the existing building , which is 40 ' x 1001 . Mrs . Rumsey
commented that different places were considered for this addition
and displayed a plan showing the existing building , the proposed
addition thereto , the south elevation , the north elevation , and
the east elevation . Mrs . Rumsey stated that the addition is
proposed for the east side , adding that the west side is not
possible and the other side is not possible because of power
lines and commenting that she took the proposal of the Park
people . Chairman Francese asked how close the addition will come
to Sand Bank Road . Mr . Dick Anderson stated that it will come up
to the edge of an abandoned part of Sand Bank Road . Mrs . Rumsey
presented a letter , addressed to her , dated January 14 , 1980 from
William J . Mobbs , Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works ,
reading as follows : " Maintenance of roadway in front of 116 E .
Buttermilk Falls Road - - In response to your request concerning
our interest in maintaining that section of roadway , I must point
® out that this section of highway is not a county highway . To the
best of my knowledge , we have no jurisdiction over that section
of highway or any interest in its maintenance at this point in
time . " Written upon that same letter appeared the following :
" 1 / 14 / 80 - - The Town of Ithaca Highway Dept . has not maintained
this section of roadway to my knowledge in a period of eight ( 8 )
years . ( sgd . ) Robert E . Parkin , Hwy . Supt . " Mrs . Rumsey
described the area next to the lot , noting a stone wall and a
parking lot for the Park . Mr . King stated that he would have
been concerned about Sand Bank Road were it a through road
serving something else other than this property . Chairman
Francese stated that this road obviously goes nowhere and cannot
service other properties and would appear to be , for all intents
and purposes , abandoned .
MOTION by Mr . Peter Francese , seconded by Mr . Edward King :
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca adopt and hereby does adopt the following Findings of Fact
in the matter of the Appeal of Margaret Rumsey from the decision
of the Building Inspector denying permission to construct an
addition to the storage warehouse at 116 East Buttermilk Falls
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 :
1 . This is a unique piece of property in itself , isolated
from public highways and large numbers of other houses .
V Zoning Board of Appeals 13 January 14 , 1980
® 2 . None of the neighbors , in fact , none of the people
living within sight of this proposed addition , have any objection
to this being constructed .
3 . The Board has received into the record a letter from the
Finger Lakes State Park Commission stating that they have no
objection to the construction of this addition .
4 . The road on the easterly side of the proposed addition
appears to be abandoned and the Board has in the record
correspondence to that effect .
5 . It would appear , therefore , that the building meets the
side yard requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
The Building Inspector indicated that the proposed addition would
be in compliance as far as side and front yards are concerned .
6 . This is a legal non - conforming use which is being
proposed for expansion .
7 . The applicant has indicated that there are no plans to
change the sign that is on the building presently .
8 . The present non - conforming use and the addition together
will cover 15 . 25 % of Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 . If , indeed , the
proposal does violate Sections 20 , 21 , and 22 of the Zoning
Ordinance , the unique character of the land with the Railroad
embankment to the rear makes it a harmless violation as far as
preservation of neighborhood amenities are concerned .
9 . On January 10 , 1978 , at Public Hearing , the following .
Resolution was adopted unanimously by this Board of Appeals
[ Members present were Hewett , King , Reuning , Austen ] : " RESOLVED ,
that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca approve
and hereby does approve in principle the expansion of the
warehouse storage facilities on Parcels No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 2 and 6 - 38 - 1 - 3
as described in the Appeal of Edward and Margaret Rumsey , subject
to the appellants presenting to said Board of Appeals specific
plans for the additional warehouse facility delineating location ,
type of structure , size of structure and height of structure , and
FURTHER , that the public hearing in the matter of the Appeal of
Edward and Margaret Rumsey be adjourned until January 23 , 1978 ,
at 8 : 00 p . m . "
10 . On January 23 , 1978 , at Public Hearing , the following
action was taken [ Members present were Hewett , Reuning , King ,
Austen ] : " The Secretary reported that Mrs . Rumsey had stated by
telephone on this day that she and Mr . Rumsey would be unable to
attend this adjourned hearing because their plans were not yet
complete . Upon Motion of Mr . Edward King , duly seconded by Mr .
Jack Hewett , and with all members present voting aye , the Board
adjourned the Appeal of Edward and Margaret Rumsey sine die until
such time as they may come back to the Board with additional
information . "
*" Zoning Board of Appeals 14 January 14 , 1980
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Edward Austen :
RESOLVED , by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of
Ithaca that the Appeal of Margaret Rumsey for permission to
construct , at 116 East Buttermilk Falls Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 38 - 1 - 3 , a 30 ' x 100 ' concrete block addition to the
easterly side of the existing Quonset Hut ( viz . , a non - conforming
use ) , in accordance with the plans submitted , be and hereby is
approved .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a
vote .
Aye - Francese , King , Austen .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
® Chairman Francese declared the matter of the Rumsey Appeal
duly closed at 8 : 50 p . m .
DISCUSSION - IRMLER REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE
After discussion , the Board directed Mr . Cartee to inform
Mr . Irmler that the Board denied Mr . Irmler ' s request for waiver
of the appeal fee .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman Francese declared the January 14 , 1980
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly
adjourned at 8 : 55 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Peter K . Francese , Chairman