Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1982-10-13 11d TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 13 , 1982 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Wednesday , October 13 , 1982 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , . Ithaca , N . Y . , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice - Chairman Edward N . Austen ( Acting as Chairman ) , Edward W . King , Joan G . Reuning , Nelson E . Roth , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) , Lewis D . Cartee ( Building Inspector ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : David Mintz , Sylvia Mintz , J . M . Kerrigan , Esq . , James T . Berg , Margaret M . Berg , David B . Bowlsby , Ann Stanton , Nelson Eddy , Alfred Eddy , Robin Stedinger , Jery R . Stedinger , Peter N . Littman , Esq . , Billie Drake , Mark W . Milder ( WICB - FM News ) , Jessica R . Ettinger ( WTKO News ) . Acting - Chairman Austen declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings , covering all Appeals , in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on October 5 , 1982 and October 8 , 1982 , respectively , together with • the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice of Public Hearings upon all the various neighbors in the area pertaining to each of said Appeals , upon Frank R . Liguori , Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Clerk of the 1 Town of Enfield , upon the Finger Lakes State Parks Commission , 1 and upon the Appellants , as parties to the action . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 22 ;, 1982 ) OF SAINO ZAZZARA , APPELLANT AND AGENT FOR THE SONS OF ITALY , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LODGE AT 691 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 31 - 2 - 21 , ITHACA , N . Y . ( ARTICLE III , SECTION 4 , PAR . 15 . ) Mr . Cartee reported that Mr . Zazzara had called him on October 12 , 1982 and requested an adjournment until the next meeting of the Board because the architect ' s plans were not completed . Acting - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present to speak to this matter . No one was present for this Appeal . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Zazzara Appeal until the next regular meeting of said Board in November 1982 . Zoning Board of Appeals 2 October 13 , 1982 J There being no further discussion , the Acting -Chair called . for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Acting - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Zazzara Appeal duly adjourned . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 22 , 1982 ) OF NORMA M . GRAY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE LESS THAN 25 FT . FROM THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY AT 209 TUDOR ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 168 , ITHACA , N . Y . ( ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 . ) Acting -Chairman Austen declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 40 p . m . Mrs . Robin Stedinger appeared before the Board and presented the following letter and attached petition to the Board , each of which Mr . Austen read aloud : " 13 October 1982 Zoning Appeals Board oil Town of Ithaca Dear Members of the Zoning Appeals Board , There are a few points we wish to comment upon with regard to the request for a variance by Mrs . Gray to build a garage fifteen feet from the front property line at 209 Tudor Road . First , the concern was voiced that the house is managed by an absentee landlord who does not care for the house , the occupants or the neighborhood . In fact , Mr . and Mrs . Gray pay us to manage the property . We are responsible for finding tenants , getting leases signed , collecting rent , repairs , and dealing with contractors and lawyers . We live across the street and down four houses . Mr . and Mrs . Gray ' s intent has always been to have and maintain a quality residence , consistent with the neighborhood . The house was set on a full basement with provision for a second bathroom , which has now been finished , and a family room . The interior of the home has been finished with care ; for example all of the woodwork was stained and varnished by Mrs . Gray herself rather than simply painted . The Grays would now like to build a garage to increase the desirability of the home . Mrs . Gray has dreamed of living in the house herself but that is unlikely to occur in the foreseeable future . We note that one reason the property looked so poorly this summer was that we allowed our neighbor to dump shale and earth , excavated from the construction of their pool , in our backyard . . Mr . Frandsen spoke at the last meeting . One year before the basement was built and the house was moved , the Grays approached / k Zoning Board of Appeals 3 October 13 , 1982 J Mr . Frandsen to see if they could purchase approximately one - half acre of his adjoining land . They were willing to purchase property or enter into some reasonable trade . They found him to be inflexible and the price he set unreasonable . At no time did he offer to buy the Grays ' property from them . Mr . Frandsen owns 33 acres running below Tudor Road ; access to any homes built there would be from an extension of Sharlene as the attached plan shows . Our activities have not land - locked his property any more than it was before . At the last Board meeting Mr . Schwarting represented the Eastern Heights Homeowners Association and opposed the granting of the variance . My husband and I have lived in Eastern Heights for 5 full years and had never before heard of such an organization being active during that time . We talked with our neighbors and their experience was the same as ours as their signatures on the attached petition confirms . In the last three weeks we have spoken to our neighbors about the property , its use , and the placement and need for a garage . Many agree that a garage would be a desirable addition . Eight homeowners in the 200 block of Tudor Road , including the two immediate neighbors , have signed the attached petition indicating that they do not oppose the issuance of the variance . Dr . Jery R . Stedinger ; Mrs . Robin Lee Stedinger 204 Tudor Road ( sgd . ) J.ery R . Stedinger ; Robin L . Stedinger " • Petition : " I do not oppose a variance to permit construction of a garage at 209 Tudor Road , fifteen feet from the front property line . Furthermore , I am unaware of any active homeowners or neighborhood association in Eastern Heights . " ( Signed by 11 neighborhood residents between October 10 and 12 , 1982 . ) Petition : " I am unaware of any active homeowners or neighborhood association in Eastern Heights . Furthermore , I do not oppose a variance to permit construction of a garage at 209 Tudor Road , fifteen feet from the front property line . " ( Signed by 8 neighborhood residents between September 30 and October 13 , 1982 . ) Attachments ( 2 ) : Portion of Eastern Heights Subdivision Map , and , portion of Tax Map showing lots in area . Mrs . Stedinger stated that she would like to emphasize the Petition that was signed by the eight people who were unaware of the existence of the Eastern Heights Association and read aloud the names , as follows : Diane Slaybaugh , 123 Eastern Heights Drive ; Debora K . Schricker , 204 Eastern Heights Drive ; Jane C . Pillow , 111 Sharlene Road ; Terry L . Lauver , 110 Sharlene Road ; Christina Jen , 109 Sharlene Road ; Gordon D . York , 103 JoAnne Drive ; R . J . VanDuren , 104 Joanne Drive ; Andrew Milnor , 106 Skyvue Road . Mrs . Stedinger noted that these persons have been 04, Zoning Board of Appeals 4 October 13 , 1982 residents anywhere from 2 to 10 years . Mrs . Stedinger also noted • that the other petition signed by 11 residents also states that they are unaware of any active homeowners ' association . Mrs . Stedinger referred to the attachments , and described ( 1 ) where Mrs . Gray proposed to buy land from Mr . Frandsen and ( 2 ) showing the adjacent landowners . Mrs . Reuning asked Mrs . Stedinger what activity was under way on the property , noting that she had seen some bulldozing being done . Mrs . Stedinger stated that they decided to put in a lawn this year even if they do not get the requested variance . Mrs . Reuning asked if that changed the necessity for having the garage next to the building . Mrs . Stedinger stated that that was not really changed at all . Mr . King stated that , as he recalled it , the garage as proposed would sit forward of the front of the house . Mrs . Stedinger stated that that was correct . Mr . King asked by how much it would sit forward and Mrs . Stedinger replied , ten feet . Mrs . Stedinger displayed more black and white photographs of the property under discussion and of neighboring properties , 10 pictures in all , and the Board reviewed them . Mr . King commented that the front stakes do not appear to be very far in front of the house and wanted to be sure it was 10 feet . Mrs . Stedinger stated that the 10 feet is correct , adding that that is their position - - it is not very far ; it is 10 feet . Mrs . Stedinger stated that the edge of the pavement is 19 feet from the property line , then the house is 25 feet from the property line ; it is 44 feet from the front of the house to the paved portion of Tudor Road . Acting - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to be heard . Mr . James T . Berg , 212 Tudor Road , spoke from the floor and stated that he lives directly across the street from the subject property . He stated that he wrote out his opinion on what he might term " deficiencies " in the proposal . Mr . Berg stated that he was in favor of building a garage but not in the manner that the Grays propose to build it . Mr . Berg ' s written statement is as follows : " This is the statement of James T . Berg and Margaret M . Berg , owners and residents of 212 Tudor Road , a 1 family residence directly across the roadway from the Appellant ' s property . Although we do not object to the construction of a garage structure on the parcel in question , and believe such properly planned and executed construction would be an asset and of additional value ; we are reluctantly moved to oppose the granting of a variance which would permit construction of the garage structure as presently planned by the Appellant . We note the following detractions , deficiencies and disadvantages to the proposed constructure [ sic ] : i Zoning Board of Appeals 5 October 13 , 1982 1 . The present sub - standard distance of the residence , being • closer to the roadway than the other residences in this section , will magnify the proposed sub - standard position of the garage if it is built more than 10 feet in front of the residence and closer to the roadway . 2 . The construction site as presently graded in preparation for this garage , is 4 to 5 feet higher than the grade of the residence only 12 feet away . Unless there are specific plans to avoid it , the garage will be 4 or 5 feet higher than the house , adding to its obstrusiveness [ sic ] . 3 . There is no compelling practical reason for constructing the garage in this fashion or at this point . 4 . The lot at this point can be easily graded to a lower level , close or the same as that of the residence , and the excess dirt moved toward the rear , a distance of less than 20 feet , providing ample level space to build the garage in line with the front of the house . It is specifically noted that no bed - rock or rock work would be involved in such grading . Neither is the rear of the property so steep as to present grading problems . 5 . As presently graded , in preparation for placing the proposed structure close to the roadway , the drainage ditch on the Town of Ithaca right - of -way , has been completely eliminated . In the absence of this drainage , and a culvert beneath the proposed driveway , a serious winter time hazard may be created . With freezing rains , melting snows , or flooding • rains , we may find water flooding and freezing across Tudor Road . Respectfully submitted . October 13th , 1982 . ( sgd . ) James T . Berg ; ( sgd . ) Margaret M . Berg " Mr . Berg also presented to the Board the following letter from his next door neighbors , Ronald and Ann Ceurvels , 214 Tudor Road : " October 10 , 1982 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board Dear Sirs : We are writing to comment on Norma Gray ' s Appeal for a variance at 209 Tudor Rd . We are not opposed to the construction of a garage but do feel that if it were recessed back even with the front of the house ( conforming with the rest of the neighborhood ) it would fit in better . Sincerely ( sgd . ) Ann Marie Ceurvels ; ( sgd . ) Ronald F . Ceurvels " Mr . Berg also presented to the Board the following letter from Tamara and Valentin Boriakoff , 219 Tudor Road : " To : Town of Ithaca , Zoning Board of Appeals Re : Adjourned Appeal of Norma M . Gray , Appellant 209 Tudor Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 57 - 1 - 8 . 168 1 Zoning Board of Appeals 6 October 13 , 1982 We , the undersigned , Tamara and Valentin Boriakoff , wish to again state our opposition to the Appellant ' s requested variance of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . We reside at 219 Tudor Road , Eastern Heights , Town of Ithaca , a measured distance of 220 feet from the Appellant ' s parcel k / a 209 Tudor Road . We believe the construction of a garage structure which is closer to the roadway , and at an elevation higher than the residence is not compatible with the neighborhood residences , and would be detrimental to property values and unattractive . ( sgd . ) Tamara Boriakoff ; ( sgd . ) V . Boriakoff October 13th , 1982 . Ithaca , N . Y . " Mr . Berg stated that in connection with the petition , he already heard that Mrs . Prewitt , who was here before and opposed it , said she is sorry she signed it - she did not understand it . Mr . King asked Mr . Berg how he thought the garage should be built . Mr . Berg stated that it is in writing in the statement he just presented to the Board . Mr . Berg stated that he would like to comment on photography , noting that he , too , had taken pictures and adding that , unfortunately , they are all very dark . Mr . Berg distributed 9 colored photos of the property under discussion and the neighborhood . Mr . Berg stated that his primary objection to this proposed construction across the street from him is that it will be built on a platform 4 feet above the • level of the ground , therefore , the garage will be 4 or 5 feet higher than adjoining residences and also 10 feet forward . Mr . Berg stated that the only reason for this is , as he sees it , to provide the owner with a level drive into the garage and a short paved driveway . He asked that he be corrected if he were wrong . Mr . Berg stated that what he sees is something that is very obtrusive to the neighborhood , adding that with the garage so close to the roadbed , when the tenants park they will be impacting on the normal roadway since the average car is 21 feet long . Mr . Berg asked if they place the garage where they are requesting , how much space will they have . Mr . Stedinger responded , stating 34 feet . Mr . Cartee commented that there would be 15 feet from the right of way , the right of way being 50 feet . Mr . Berg stated that in the future , perhaps , there would be curbs and gutters installed by the Town in the right of way . Mr . Berg stated , also , this will completely erase the drainage ditch , adding that it is false economy to save on a culvert and put the driveway in there . He stated that there is freezing involved and water diverted by this would be dangerous . Mr . Berg stated that for a couple of hundred dollars they could lower the grade and put a garage up which would be attractive and even with the house , adding that it is a matter of simple grading and noting that there is no bedrock . Mr . Berg noted that the area behind ' the proposed garage slopes about 15 feet . He commented that Mrs . Stedinger spoke about building on fill , adding that it is done all the time . Mr . Berg stated that a garage is not a weight - bearing structure . Mr . Berg pointed out his pictures of the next door neighbor ' s property , Mr . VanArsdale , at 207 Tudor r Zoning Board of Appeals 7 October 13 , 1982 • Road as an illustration of the driveway and what can be done . Mr . Berg stated that he could understand the appellant ' s desire for a near level driveway . Mr . Berg referenced his pictures again as illustrating the raised area that they want to build the garage on . He stated that he did not see any compelling , practical reason to grant a variance to move this thing closer to the highway . Mr . Cartee stated for the record that he had received a telephone call from Mr . William Frandsen from Spencer on Friday , October 8 , 1982s Mr . Frandsen stated to him that he owns the adjacent property to the south and east of the Gray ' s lot and would be unable to attend this meeting because he will be in the hospital , however , he wanted to register his opposition to the granting of a second variance on this lot . Mr . Cartee stated that Mr . Frandsen told him that he was in opposition for the same reasons that he stated at the September meeting . The Secretary stated that the following letter with attached Protective Covenants was received , this date , from Mr . Robert H . Schwarting who asked that it be placed before the Board : " 112 Park Lane Ithaca , New York 14850 October 13 , 1982 • Mr . Henry Aron , Chairman Re : Norma Gray , Appellant . . . Please allow me to summarize the points I made in opposition to the variance at the initial hearing of this appeal . 1 . As co - chairman of the Eastern Heights Association , I make the following two points : a . Our covenants ( attached ) prohibit any construction within the 25 ' setback from the road . b . Four neighbors have asked me to restate their general opposition to a detached garage . 2 . As a homeowner in the affected area , I raise the following points : a . The garage can be built , using accepted construction techniques and architectural treatment which meets setbacks and allows light into adjacent rooms . b . The garage can be placed behind the dwelling and better incorporated in the overall site , however , the entry drive will be difficult . c . If a variance is to be granted , then grant one allowing infringement on the rear lot line setbacks . Since the initial hearing , I have learned that Mrs . Gray and Mr . Frandsen , who holds the property behind Mrs . Gray , could privately resolve the issue without need for a variance . It appears that the two property owners are mutually better off if they exchange portions of their lots and thereby create two conventional lots . A variance granted on this date would remove i Zoning Board of Appeals 8 October 13 , 1982 • the final material incentive ( from Mrs . Gray ' s point of view ) to seek a no - cost compromise . Cordially , ( sgd . ) Robert H . Schwarting " Mr . King stated that in view of all the documents which have been presented at this meeting , the Grays , the Stedingers , the other Board members not present , and the residents should have an opportunity to review them and he would be prepared to move to adjourn this hearing to the next meeting of the Board at which time the whole Board may be present and vote on it . Mrs . Reuning asked Mrs . Stedinger if they have been working with any construction engineer . Mrs . Stedinger stated that Charles Hubbell is their general contractor and it was he who built the decks this summer , adding that they are working also with Mr . McGuire of McGuire Gardens . Mr . Stedinger stated that they discussed the types of questions raised by Mr . Berg with both Mr . Hubbell and Mr . McGuire and they both said the garage would be best where the Grays would like to put it ; it would be the best place and the house would not get wet . Mr . Stedinger noted that the way the street slopes , the garage will not stick up , Mr . Berg will be looking across the street at a garage . Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Berg if his background was in construction of some sort . Mr . Berg stated that he is a • certified safety engineer and that he has been associated with heavy construction for thirty years . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the Gray Appeal to the first meeting of said Board in November 1982 . There being no further discussion , the Acting - Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Acting - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Gray Appeal duly adjourned . ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 22 , 1982 ) OF NELSON EDDY AND ALFRED EDDY , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO EXTRACT NATURAL PRODUCTS ( GRAVEL ) AT 296 ENFIELD FALLS ROAD EAST , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 33 - 1 - 11 ITHACA , N . Y . ( ARTICLE XII , SECTION 70 . ) Acting - Chairman Austen declared the Adjourned Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8 : 10 p . m . and stated Zoning Board of Appeals 9 October 13 , 1982 • that the Mining and Reclamation Plan , and maps therefor , prepared by George C . Schlecht , L . P . E . , L . S . , signed and sealed 7 / 8 / 82 , submitted by Messrs . Nelson and Alfred Eddy , had been received by the Board members and reviewed . The total package submitted consists of : 1 . Completed Appeal Form 2 . Title Page 3 . Introduction 4 . Index 5 . Narrative 6 . Completed Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form ( Long Form ) 7 . Completed Mining Permit Application and Reclamation Report 8 . Completed NYS Short Environmental Assessment Form 9 . Completed Mineral Resources Unit Environmental Questionnaire 10 . Completed NYS DEC Bureau of Minterals Organizational Report 11 . Completed NYS DEC Notice of Complete Application 12 . Two Prepared Drawings : a . Mining Plan b . Reclamation Plan Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Eddy where he takes the gravel after he gets it . Mr . Alfred Eddy responded , down Teeter Road . Mrs . Reuning asked Mr . Eddy what his normal route is . Mr . Alfred Eddy stated that he called the area a hog back , commenting that the soil is all upside - down . Mr . Eddy stated that if they get it [ viz . , the gravel ] out of the way , they can farm it . He stated • that the gravel is basically what is used for a driveway or a septic system where they have poor drainage , or for barnyard fill . Mr . Alfred Eddy stated that the Church wants to build a level driveway on Applegate Road . He stated that they may use Bostwick Road , noting that you come out on Teeter Road and then to Bostwick Road . He stated that if they go west , they would go on Bostwick Road , adding that they could come on Applegate Road , or north on Sheffield Road . Mr . Alfred Eddy commented that he always thought the land was in the Town of Enfield , adding that his deed said it was in the Town of Enfield . Mr . King noted that the Eddys just need two acres in which they want to operate . Mr . Alfred Eddy stated that that is the way it ended up and commented that he was a little disappointed in the size , adding that it cost him $ 1 , 500 . 00 to have the package the Board received prepared . He stated that they will give it all away . Mr . King noted that the total amount of material to be removed is about 40 , 000 cubic yards which will be taken to various places , i . e . , whoever needs fill . Mr . Alfred Eddy stated that that was correct , adding that they need some and the neighbors need some and the Church wants to build a driveway . Mr . King noted that the Town of Ithaca Environmental Assessment Form ( Long Form ) had been reviewed by the Town Engineer , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , on September 16 , 1982 and had recommended a Negative Declaration , stating that the " scope is small ; reclamation will • be to active agricultural use , soil profile is supporting intended future use , access and site isolated so naturally buffered . " Zoning Board of Appeals 10 October 13 , 1982 • Acting - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone present who wished to be heard . No one spoke . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed extraction of natural products ( gravel ) by Nelson and Alfred Eddy at 296 Enfield Falls Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 1 - 1 , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , Part 617 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Acting - Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning , • Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval , pursuant to Article XII , Section 70 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to Alfred and Nelson Eddy to permit the extraction of natural products ( gravel ) , as requested , at 296 Enfield Falls, Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 1 - 1 . There being no further discussion , the Acting -Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Acting - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Eddy Appeal for Special Approval duly closed at 8 : 25 p . m . APPEAL OF DAVID Be BOWLSBY , APPELLANT , FROM THE DECISION OF THE . BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION FOR THE OCCUPANCY OF A TWO - FAMILY DWELLING BY FIVE UNRELATED PERSONS AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 25 - 2 - 381 ITHACA , N . Y . c . Zoning Board of Appeals 11 October 13 , 1982 . PERMISSION IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2a , SUB - PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE Acting - Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly -opened at 8 : 26 p . m . The Secretary noted that the tax parcel number for the subject property had been incorrectly cited as 6 - 25 - 3 - 8 rather than 6 - 25 - 2 - 38 ( as noted above ) . Acting -Chairman Austen read aloud from the Appeal Form as submitted and signed by Mr . Bowlsby , dated October 2 , 1982 , as follows : " Having been denied permission to allow five ( 5 ) unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 38 . . . Due to the fact that 75 % of my house is on State property , I was forced to finance the house by different means than intended . I had to take a collateral loan of $ 15 , 000 . @ 19 % interest for five years from the bank , with the owner taking the balance as a second mortgage versus one mortgage from the bank . So I decided to go ahead and buy the house this way , not knowing of the zoning regulations in this area , and support the house by renting it for five years until I would be able to afford to live in it myself . Therefore , I ' m requesting a variance for 3 years after the present lease is over , which would be August 15 , 1983 . " Acting -Chairman Austen asked Mr . Bowlsby if he wished to comment any further . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he would answer questions . Mr . King asked Mr . Bowlsby what the nature of the house is . Mr . Bowlsby stated that there is an apartment on the top and he intends renting . Mr . King asked how many apartments are in the house . Mr . Bowlsby stated that there are two apartments - one two - bedroom upstairs and one three -bedroom down . Mr . Bowlsby stated that 75 % of the house sits on State property because the State has so much right of way by the Lake , and , closer to the highway , it is on State property . He stated that the bank would not touch it having 75 % of house on State property . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he bought this house for himself ; he bought it out of town . He stated that he is familiar with the City of Ithaca . Mr . King noted that the property is located in an R- 15 Residence District . Mr . Bowlsby commented that just up the street there are houses , actually all up and down , just full of apartments . Mr . King stated that a two - family house is permitted , it is the number of unrelated people that is the problem . Mr . Bowlsby asked how far up the R- 15 goes ; Mr . Cartee stated that it extends to the Town line . Mr . Bowlsby stated that just up the street he has friends , one of which has at least four apartments . Mr . King inquired if the house was supposed to be a two - apartment building . Mr . Bowlsby stated that it had begun to be and that is why he bought it ; the previous owner had started it to be that way . Mr . King asked if a certain area was a garage and wondered what the purpose of all this construction was , inquiring if it were occupied as a single family house . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he thought so , commenting that John Henderson was the previous owner and adding that he bought it one and a half years ago . Mr . Bowlsby stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals 12 October 13 , 1982 • only reason he does not live there is because the bank turned him down so he could not get one mortgage , so he took a collateral loan for the down payment at 19 % for $ 15 , 000 . He stated that he gets $ 350 . 00 for the upstairs apartment and it is costing him $ 1 , 000 a month to own it . He stated that he is asking for three years after the expiration of the lease in August 1983 , Mr . Bowlsby stated that he had been informed that it is common practice to allow a lease to run out . Mr . Austen stated that that was not so . Mr . Cartee commented that Mr . Bowlsby had mentioned numerous houses up and down the Lake over - occupied and stated that he had no doubt that we have other problems , however , this particular one was brought to his attention and that is why he knew about it . Mr . Cartee stated that he had a telephone call from Mr . Robert Terry who lives at 835 Taughannock Blvd . and who stated that he objected to a variance for the Bowlsby property on the premise that too many vehicles parked on Taughannock Blvd . create a traffic hazard . Mr . Bowlsby stated that that is a problem all along the Lake . He stated that the people that live there do not seem to have a problem parking , but if you are in a cottage on that Lake , there are not any places to park . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he has plenty of parking on the road which is basically all you have up the Lake . Mr . Cartee noted that some people have built places to park . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he would like to do that also when he lives in it . Mr . Bowlsby stated that his nephew just moved in with them and he is thinking about adoption or legal guardianship . Mr . King asked Mr . Bowlsby if he had a lease . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he did - - two leases - - he brought the lease for downstairs , dated June 15 , 1982 , which goes from August 15 , 1982 to August / 1983 , with rent of $ 550 . 00 per month . Mr . Bowlsby indicated that Eric Ros lives there , Boyd is gone , Marty and Anthony are there . Mr . King stated that he did not see where Mr . Bowlsby is under hardship at all . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he had two leases , one for up and one for down , adding that he has two houses in the City . He stated that he intended to live in this house but he did not intend to buy it the way he ended up getting it . Mrs . Reuning asked if Mr . Bowlsby ' s realtor had not informed him of the Town regulations . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he had no intention of renting the house ; he had no realtorI it was self - purchased . He noted again that there are three people down and two up . Mr . King pointed out that the lease refers only to 'the named tenants with no names . Mr . Bowlsby stated that three names were to be there . Mr . King noted that the rent for the upstairs is $ 350 . 00 per month . Mr . Bowlsby commented that that was unusual rent . Mr . Austen noted that the Town of Ithaca sign stating that zoning is enforced is opposite this house on the highway . . Acting - Chairman Austen asked if there were anyone who wished to be heard . No one spoke . Acting- Chairman Austen declared the Public Hearing closed at 8 : 45 p . m . Zoning Board of Appeals 13 October 13 , 1982 • Mrs . Reuning stated that she thought if would be helpful to explain to Mr . Bowlsby about how this Board . has had several meetings with people asking for the same thing , however , the difference in this case is the request for an extension of three years after the expiration of the lease . Mr . King commented that interest rates will be high for a long time , he thought , adding that if the Board were to accept this argument we would have to let everyone do the same in order to afford high interest rates . Mr . Bowlsby noted again that 750 of the house is on State land plus the problem of the high interest rates . He stated that it would be a different matter were it not for the collateral loan . Mr . Cartee asked Mr . Bowlsby if he had corrected his problem with the water supply . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he had , but now he has another problem - - because they did work on the well something is not good in the water and he was advised to put a quart of Clorox in it . Mr . King asked if this lot extends to the Lake and how many buildings are on the lot . Mr . Bowlsby stated that it does extend to the Lake and there is just one building on the lot . Mrs . Reuning stated that she felt the problem is particularly Mr . Bowlsby ' s ignorance of the zoning ordinance and not looking into it , and also the fact that more money can be realized by renting to more people . Mrs . Reuning stated that she would suggest extending the matter until August 14 , 1983 so that • he has a chance to locate a family and two unrelated persons . Mrs . Reuning stated that she was not in favor of extending the matter beyond that . Mr . King stated that he thought any extension beyond that would be out of the question . Mr . King stated that he is disturbed by the inference that people just have to have a lease and this Board will extend the lease , adding that the Board would have to give such consideration to every property in the Town . Mr . King stated that the law is clear as to occupancy . Mr . Bowlsby asked how one gets one and not another . Mr . King described different sets of circumstances , particularly unnecessary hardship . Mr . Austen stated that he felt it is not the Board ' s problem as to how a property is financed , adding that unnecessary hardship has to be proved and not self - imposed hardship . Mr . Bowlsby commented that it appears to be irrelevant to the Board that he would have to sell the house or find a family . Mr . King asked how many of Mr . Bowlsby ' s tenants have automobiles . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he did not know , adding that at least two do . Mr . King commented that with so many unrelated people , there is a tendency to have more cars . Mr . Bowlsby stated that the people from up above his property park on his place . Mrs . Reuning stated that the zoning ordinance is written to protect the community and the Zoning Board ' s job is to uphold that . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he agreed and all he is asking for is a three - years ' variance . Mr . King asked if these people were students , to which Mr . Bowlsby replied that the • upstairs tenants are not and one , or maybe , two downstairs are . Mr . King stated that he would like to deny the variance but give Mr . Bowlsby a reasonable time to bring the property into Zoning Board of Appeals 14 October 13 , 1982 • compliance . Mrs . Reuning asked when the other lease expires , to which Mr . Bowlsby replied , one month earlier . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , . that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the David B . Bowlsby Appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector denying permission for the occupancy of a two - family dwelling by five unrelated persons at 829 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 25 - 2 - 38 , until the first meeting of said Board in November 1982 , at which time the Appellant will submit for Board review the two signed leases for the above - named premises . There being no further discussion , the Acting -Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Acting - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Bowlsby Appeal duly adjourned . APPEAL OF DAVID AND SYLVIA MINTZ , APPELLANTS , FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A SINGLE -FAMILY DWELLING HAVING BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITH A SIDE YARD OF 616 " CONTRARY TO THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE OF 111 1 AT 1061 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 6 - 21 - 2 - 13 , ITHACA , N . Y . CERTIFICATE IS DENIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , AND ARTICLE XIV , SECTION 76 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Mintz Appeal before this Board this date , October 13 , 1982 , is a Re - hearing of said Mintz Appeal for variance denied on May 13 , 1981 , thereby denying a Certificate of Occupancy , a Resolution to Re -hear having been unanimously adopted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals at its regular meeting held on September 22 , 1982 , with Messrs . Aron , King , and Austen and Mrs . Reuning being present and voting aye . There being no further discussion , the Acting -Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . [ Secretary ' s Note : Following is the Report of Proceedings g as taken and transcribed by Ms . Billie Drake , Court Reporter , Zoning Board of Appeals 15 October 13 , 1982 SCRIBES , Suite 305 , Clinton House , 103 W . Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York 14850 , Said Report is a true and exact copy of that which was presented to the Secretary of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals by Peter N . Littman , Counsel for Karen and Jeffrey O ' Regan and Libby 0 . Leonard . For the record , all documents received by the Office of the Building Inspector prior to and / or at this meeting , October 13 , 1982 , were received by the Board of Appeals prior to said meeting or reviewed at said meeting , copies of which are filed in the Office of the Town Clerk of said Town of Ithaca . ] " Mr . Kerrigan : I ' m Jim Kerrigan and I represent the Mintzes . As a prefatory note , you will recall , I received a call from Nelson Roth indicating that two members of the board would not be able to attend this evening and asking as to whether we would wish to adjourn it . In the next couple of days the Mintzes leave again and will not be available until next Spring . And I have asked Mr . Roth if we could proceed with Mintz ' s hearing . % However , there are a couple of other things , and people , I did not bring by this evening . I would ask , and I think Mr . Littman , who represents the next door neighbor , received the same call , and also has at least one other witness that I ' m aware of that he ' d like to bring back to the next meeting . But , with that note , and with the board ' s permission , I ' d like to proceed tonight since the Mintz ' s will not be able to return in November . And I ' ll talk about the reasons in a moment or two . % In so much as I have prepared two or three things for the board to take a look at . If the board will proceed again on the 2nd of November , at your next meeting I ' ll , of course , bring them back and put them into a size you can put in your wallet , or at least look at a little bit more easily . 5I prepared a sequence of events to try and give the board some understanding as to what happened and when . There are a couple of dates that I have listed on the significant events that I ' ve picked out that I ' m not sure about . The order I am sure about and the Mintzes will be able to confirm . 9[Back in 1957 they purchased a hundred foot lot , which has subsequently been sold to the O ' Regan ' s , at 1057 Taughannock Blvd , and lived there and raised their family there for a number of years . 5In 1978 they purchased the property immediately to the north , the 50 - foot lot at 1061 , which is shown on both of these surveys . They were beginning to get to the point , their family was up and gone , and in part because of health reasons and in part could not manage the larger property at 1057 , down by the lake . So , there is a point in time when they owned both lots , 150 feet frontage on the boulevard with two houses on them . The two houses at that time are the existing house at 1057 and a house down by the lake at the bottom of the bank , which has since been demolished on the 50 - foot lot . % In 1978 there was a survey prepared by Mr . Dougherty . Although the Mintzes were not aware of that until I discovered it in this Town Board minutes , or this Zoning Board minutes , sometime in 1981 . I ' ll come back to the differences between the two surveys that we ' re talking about in a moment . In the Spring of 1980 , in March , the Mintzes signed a contract with a firm known as North Country Homestead , Inc . , to which I ' ll f Zoning Board of Appeals 16 October 13 , 1982 probably refer to later as Mr . Finkleday , or Arnold Finkleday , who is a principle of the corporation . IThe basic outline of that contract is that they want to demolish the house at the bottom of the 50 - foot strip and build a new home , smaller home , up at the top of the 50 - foot strip . They came to the board , I don ' t recall whether or not Mr . and Mrs . Mintz were here , Mr . Finkleday made that initial application in 1980 , on April 10th of 1980 . Were you here ? Mr . Mintz : I don ' t remember . Mrs . Fuller : Yes , Mrs . Mintz : I was not . Mr . Kerrigan : At any rate , Mr . Finkleday , with apparently Mr . Mintz , had come here to this board in April of 1980 with an application to grant a side yard variance to permit the construction of a home on the 50 - foot lot , and which involves contramittently the construction / demolition of the house at the bottom of the lake property . Mrs . Fuller : Can I ask you to start over again ? I was looking up this . Would you repeat what happened in 1980 ? Mr . Kerrigan : In 1980 they signed a contract with Mr . Finkleday ' s corporation to demolish the lower house and build a newer house on the 50 - foot lot , 1061 , which is the lot that we ' re talking about here . 9[Mr . Finkleday and Mr . Mintz come before this board and this board grants a side yard variance to permit the construction of that house with an 11 - foot rather than a 15 - foot side yard variance between a proposed line or between this 50 - foot lot and the 100 - foot lot . One of these two , and I ' m not sure which exhibits back here , is a blow up of lot plans submitted by Mr . Finkleday and Mr . Mintz , signed by Mr . Finkleday , for the construction on the 50 - foot lot . It shows a 50 - foot lot , the depth from the lake to the boulevard , and shows an 11 - foot side yard variance or deficiency , which this board approves at the time . So far , fairly simple . IThe next step is that a surveyor by the name of Clarence Brashear goes out to the property , is retained to survey the 50 - foot lot and set stakes on the 50 - foot lot . At that time this survey is , again I ' ll come back to , is not done . At that time Mr . Brashear is aware , and I ' ll bring him here on the 2nd , of the Dougherty 1978 survey of the property and the two deeds to the property , the 1957 deed to Mintzes of the 100 - foot lot , and the 1978 deed to Mintzes of the 50 - foot lot . The survey as done by Mr . Dougherty had apparently been retained by the owner of the property to the North , Libby Leonard , at 10 / 65 , if I ' m not mistaken , shows the line between Leonard and the 50 - foot lot as running with an iron pipe . It shows that this line clears a shed on the Leonard property half way between the boulevard and the lake . And it shows that the line clears , and an inset by what might be a couple of inches , at the Southwesterly corner of the Leonard cottage , and by three feet at the North , excuse me , Southeasterly corner of the Leonard property . The two corners of Leonard ' s house right up against the line . 9[ There is an inset done in 1978 showing that Mrs . Leonard claims a portion of the land to the South , to the South of the line dividing the two . And there is also an indication on the Dougherty survey that Miss Leonard claims a portion where the Zoning Board of Appeals 17 October 13 , 1982 driveway cuts across the corner up at the boulevard end of the • two properties . jMr . Brashear sets stakes and find stakes , which are referred to on the later survey . JAfter this board ' s variance is granted , and within a very short period of time after that , Mr . Besheer goes down there and marks this line based on the deeds and the Dougherty 1978 survey . There comes a time - - He does not go back to the property because of , largely because of difficulties he has in surveying this line , which we ' ll come back to when he ' s here , if the board permits us to come back on the 2nd . And with those stakes in place , it ' s my understanding that the next event is that Mr . Finkleday , the contractor , Mr . David Mintz , and Mr . Cartee , I think , go out to the property . They find at that point the stakes marked by , in little flags , if I ' m not mistaken . 9[ I want to be clear on the fact , and correct me if I ' m wrong , and they measure from that line , the distance to what will be the north side of the new house , the middle of the house , and how far out they measure , I ' m not sure . But , they set the house , based on the surveyor ' s stakes , and marks on what the survey indicated and what Doughtery indicated was the line dividing Mintz and Leonard , the Mintz ' s 50 - foot lot and Leonard to the North . The house is built where those stakes are set . It ' s not moved in terms of any distance . It ' s not expanded in width at any time . There is a subsequent change , before we get to the Miller survey , in that after the start of construction , Mr . Finkleday does some excavation on what is originally to be a one level home , I believe . I believe there may be some elevations in the earlier submissions of one of the earlier applications . And what happens is the Mintzes go up to the house to find that rather than being build on grade , the house is set into the grade . According to Mr . Finkleday , so it won ' t slide down the slope . 9[The problem from the Mintz ' s perspective is that they had been told that it was going to be on grade . Lake properties are dark and treed , and somewhat damp to begin with . And their concerned about a damp house . The change that has been made at that time , to which there has been some reference to from time to time in these proceedings , is the now sunken basement level . This change was discovered when the basement floor - Mr . Mintz : After the foundation was poured . Mr . Kerrigan : They find that it ' s lower than they think it ' s going to be as placed by the contractor . That level becomes the basement and they build substantially the same house , one floor above that which is now at the rear , I would guess pretty close to grade , and at the front probably some eight foot above grade ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , about . Mr . Kerrigan : As the left of the land slopes down to the lake . The Mintzes and some of the earlier references indicate , from my understanding , that there are - - the town zoning officer is familiar with that change being made . There is some concern over plumming for the washer and dryer down in the basement . And I think that plumming is removed . What ' s in the basement right now is unfinished with the exception of a large storage area where the Mintzes lock and store their furniture and other possessions while they ' re in Florida a good time of the year . Construction proceeds with the house substantially . And that ' s the only Zoning Board of Appeals 18 October 13 , 1982 change that ' s made . It ' s not expanded . It ' s not moved . It ' s not made wider . It goes up . The house and the construction proceed until by the 15th of August , before labor delay . I ' ll admit , I ' m not sure it ' s the 15th . I know it ' s before , based on what my client has told me , before 1st of September . The house is substantially completed . There are details yet to be done . TAnd the house is rented and occupied by three engineers who work , at National Cash Register . As the Mintzes prepare to go to Florida for their health , which they ' re required to do for much of the winter time , for the entire winter time , when I say for the winter , perhaps coupled by other factors , they ' re gone generally from September until June . And they have been at all times in this . They ' re here now for one other reason . And also so they could personally talk to this board and answer your questions in person . TOn September 7th , or two or three weeks after occupancy of the house , Mr . O ' Regan signs a purchase offer to buy the 100 - foot lot and the Mintz ' s old home that they lived in for twenty years , the 1057 . After that , and in September , but before the property is surveyed and before the Miller survey is done , and before the closing takes place , the Mintzes sign Power of Attorney to their then attorney for the closing and go to Florida . TOn the 29th of September the Miller survey was completed . And I ' d like to stop for a moment here and point out a couple of differences in the Miller survey . IThe Miller survey also was never shown to the Mintzes until after the O ' Regan closing took place . It was mailed to them in Florida . The Miller survey does two or three things . Starting first , and this is after the completion of the house , and after the Mintzes left , and after occupancy of the house the end of September , the Miller survey shows the line between Mintzes 50 - foot lot and Leonard to the north as being a distance that ' s roughly five , or six , or seven feet , I ' m not sure , north , south , wait a minute , excuse me , north of where we think it is . In affect , it moves everything to the north . Why do I say that ? The Miller survey , for example , on the Mintzes , excuse me , on the Leonard house shows the house at 1065 , Ms . Leonard ' s house . It indicates by drawing in the Miller survey that the distance between the lot line and the south boundary of the Leonard house as 5 . 8 feet , which indicates that the Leonard house encroaches , according to this location of the line , by some five feet under the line between the two . Compare that with the Dougherty survey . He has a distance of the one corner that I ' ve already mentioned to what looks like a few inches at the other end of the property of three feet , jIn addition , the Miller survey shows a pipe found , which is indicated as 3 . 9 feet south of where he draws the line . I ' m now in the middle of the property at the garage , which is referred to as a shed on the Dougherty survey . The line again runs some three feet into the Leonard shed , showing a 3 . 9 foot encroachment , if you will , or the shed hanging over the line on the property . The pipe found is a short distance to the south of the south line of the shed . Again , the Dougherty survey line clears the Leonard shed on a survey prepared for Leonard . The . same thing happens farther up . There ' s a pipe found also at 1 . 9 feet . Mr . Miller sets a new survey and there are no pipes found Zoning Board of Appeals 19 October 13 , 1982 on that boundary farther up towards the road . So , in at least one portion or another , the Leonard -Mintz 50 - foot lot line is moved to the north , according to the survey of Mr . Miller . Mr . Miller also shows at this point the location of the house . There is , and I ' ll submit to this board , a letter from Mr . Slade from his field notes , who is one of the surveyors , Dick Slade , who does the survey work , indicating the house dimensions have not changed . Indicating , I believe , that the distance between the north of the new Mintz house , which has now been built , and the Leonard -Mintz 50 - foot line is greater than the 15 feet shown on Mr . Finkleday ' s house . Mr . Finkleday shows on the two plot plans , that have been submitted to this board , a 15 - food side lot dimensions between the house and Leonard and 11 - feet between the then proposed line to O ' Regan , and a 24 - foot house on a 50 - foot lot . So , Finkleday Mintz , Brashear , and Cartee , I think relying on all of their information , set the house based on the old survey . The house is built . The Miller survey shows a six inch distance between the edge of the house and the line , the new line at that time proposed in relation to the closing , which has not yet happened by the sale of the Mintzes to O ' Regan of 100 feet , although there ' s an earlier contract to sell 100 feet to O ' Regan . IThe survey also shows a well which is built on what is proposed to be sold to O ' Regan . It refers to two parking areas , that I ' ll come back to , and are not dotted in as potential or perspective driveways ; I think shows , I guess in passing , it indicates the O ' Regan house down the hill toward the lake , and indicates the O ' Regan garage next to , what I think is Barr ' s property - - Okay , I guess not - -O ' Regan garage on the other side of the lot . There is another garage at the top . JThe next thing- - - Mr . Mintz : Excuse me , that ' s Barr ' s . Mrs . Mintz : It ' s Barr ' s . Mr . Kerrigan : The Barr property is the property to the South . And the lower garage is shown as being on that side , or the south side of the lot . IThe next thing that happens , again , while the Mintzes are in Florida , is that the closing takes place on the 23rd of October , after some discussion . I ' ve brought along the deed , stated the 15th of October , but recorded on the 23rd of October , which is when the closing actually took place . It ' s signed by the Mintzes by their attorney , in fact , under a Power of Attorney . And what I ' d like to point out , briefly , to the board , insofar as the deed is concerned , is that the sale of 100 feet , which described in the first type written paragraph to O ' Regan , is made subject to three things : The maintenance of a ramp . There ' s a ramp to get up from grade level . I would , at this point the elevation covered by that ramp is about three feet from the grade at this level to the level of the first floor of the house , which is at grade here and about six feet , eight feet or so at the south end of the house . The second reference that ' s made in the deed is that there ' s an easement given or reserved , if you will , a right retained by the Mintzes to use the driveway and to use the two areas that are shown as parking areas on this survey with access to them . The third , although I ' m now out of order , item taken care of in the deed is a reservation of the right of the Mintzes to maintain their well , which was shown to Zoning Board of Appeals 20 October 13 , 1982 • be on the property that was going to be , and is by that deed , conveyed to the O ' Regans . Next things , so what we have now are two different surveys , a deed , a closing that has taken place , two houses that are complete , and this house completed , and this demolished in reliance to the Dougherty survey . So , the house down below is demolished after the building permit is issued in contemplation of the house on the top . Is that right ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , Mr . Kerrigan : The next thing that happens Arno Finkleday , some six months later , or four or five months later , makes an application on behalf of the Mintzes to this board for a variance , asking for a new variance now , not of 11 feet as has been shown on the two earlier plot plans , but for 6 . 6 feet . The Mintzes are still in Florida , are not aware of this . I think the only comment that I ' d like to make in that regard insofar as the Mintzes knowledge , because there ' s some prior suggestion at some of these board meetings that notices were made to the Mintzes of that meeting , is that when I reviewed that town file , and I haven ' t for about a year , the two envelopes addressed presumably with that notice of meeting to the Mintzes , were addressed to 1061 Taughannock Boulevard and were returned undeliverable and in the town files . This board denies that application . Mr . Finkleday , I believe , appears at the first meeting , but not the second meeting , if I ' m not mistaken . It ' s after that , and after the board in that decision denies the application either for variance or CO and recommends the town attorney takes action , • that the town attorney get in contact with the Mintzes , they discover the problem . And in order to protect their right in thier 30 - day statute of limitations in terms of any proceedings involving a zoning decision , I file an Article 78 proceeding , principlely claiming that their not bound by what somebody else did that they didn ' t know about . It ' s true that they had clearly authorized the first . I don ' t know . I would assume , and I ' m not sure , and I ' ll try and bring to the next meeting if the board will hear it then , a contract that presumably obligated the builder to get a CO upon completion of the house . It is somewhere along in this fashion the builder finds out , with all the confusion surrounding it , the house has got to be in the wrong place , and he comes back in to one of the meetings , doesn ' t appear at the second one in June . We ' re now in the summer . The Mintzes return to Ithaca . And in June this appeal or application for a rehearing , which ever it is , is made to this board . And I think those are the essential facts that I ' m trying to point out to you from which there was some additional information that I ' d like to bring back on the 7th when the entire board is here , to point out to you , and to raise some questions . IThe first question becomes : Which survey is correct ? I don ' t know the answer to that question . I have been unable to determine it . Maybe I can find out by the time that we come back . I would assume that the owner to the North would prefer her survey , which indicates that the lot line , her lot encompasses the two buildings that she has there , somebody ' s had there for 70 years . I think both the shed and house have been there for 70 years , if not longer , based on my visual examination . If that survey is Zoning Board of Appeals 21 October 13 , 1982 • the correct survey , it ' s my understanding that this house , if it doesn ' t comply to the inch , substantially complies with the 11 - foot set back variance that this board granted . 9[ If the Miller survey is correct , I would submit to you that the confusion between the two as shown to you suggests that the Mintzes , the town officer who went out there , the contractor acted in good faith in terms of trying to set a house precisely where this board said it could build , and found out by another survey , upon completion of construction that it may very well be somewhere else . TI would also like to suggest that the issue that we ' re dealing with is a side yard and would point out to you as you try and think in your mind as to why we have side yards set back requirements , that the house to the south is , must be 150 feet from the closest point of the Mintz ' s house . That ' s a guess . I haven ' t scaled it . I would point out to you that there ' s a distance between the house as it is actually built and the south side of the 8 - foot driveway that is approximately 39 to 40 feet in which no structure can be built next to the new Mintz house . I say that because the owner of the Mintz house has an easement for the use of this parking area , has an easement to use the defined driveway , and has an easement to get into the parking area below . And aside from the fact - - So , even if this board wanted to grant a variance , or even if the owner wanted , the owner can ' t take out the driveway and build in this area . So , we ' re not going to get a situation where two houses are side by side , which I think is the principle reason and objective of a • zoner or a planner in designing a zoning ordinance , and require that we get away from 5 - foot or 2 - foot alleys between houses for fire escapes , or privacy reasons , or whatever reasons there are for the construction of houses . You can ' t build in an area some 40 feet by legal operation and affect of the right of ways contained in the deed from the Mintzes to the O ' Regans . 9[There is some reference , and I think some of these meetings mentioned , to a septic question . As I understand it , the sand filter system , which has been built on this property , is built with Health Department approval , and with their specifications . I ' ve tried personally to determine whether or not there is any discharge from a sand filter located somewhere in this area on to the property of the north , and have been unable , and have not been informed as to the occurence of any . I have asked to give me a call when there is such a problem and I ' ll go out and look at it . If there is a sand filter discharge problem , we ' ll solve it . I don ' t think , at this point , that that ' s an issue . It was built with Health Department approval . I think it works properly . I don ' t know of anything to the contrary . The owner to the north insofar as set back concerns should be delighted in that the Mintz house is actually father away than when Miller shows her line to be . Mrs . Fuller : This is Miller ? That ' s Dougherty ? Mr . Kerrigan . This is Miller . That ' s Dougherty . 5[ Insofar as the owners to the south are concerned , there is the survey and • the deed to indicate that when they purchased the property , and they knew what was there , their house is a substantial distance from that . They have granted easements which settled what would Zoning Board of Appeals 22 October 13 , 1982 have been a problem . And I think they could have walked away • from their property because the well was clearly an encroachment . IThe house was complete . The house was occupied when they signed the contract to buy the 1057 . And it had been occupied for close to two months by the time of the closing by the tenants . IThere has been some reference , in all of the many hours that you ' ve spent dealing with this property , to parking problems . I guess to some degree in the parking problem , and having some knowledge of the west shore of the lake , I don ' t have a complete answer for you . Whenever two houses share a driveway , particularly the driveways that go down the cliff on the boulevard , it ' s a problem . However , there ' s a clearly defined and adequate parking area on both places of these . The boulevard is used , as I think I heard at the last appeal on the parking , by all the residents on the boulevard . I don ' t know how to solve the Taughannock Boulevard parking prolbems , other than in this case to point out that there is adequate room to park on the area reserved for parking on the deed given to the O ' Regans . The use of the property has been as a summer home for the Mintzes since it has been built . Mrs . Fuller : This is the new one ? Mr . Kerrigan : The new one . As a summer home for the Mintzes , They have to spend the winters in Florida . They can ' t spend winters in this climate . And it has been rented to , principlely rented to two people . It was rented last year before to three people , which I believe to be in accordance with the requirements . of the ordinance in terms of the use of the single family home . 51 guess , since I ' m asking permission to talk to you some more , maybe my best suggestion is either for me to try to answer whatever questions you have at this point and to let you ask questions of the Mintzes to confirm any of this or dispute any of this , since they ' ll not be here at the next Zoning Board meeting . Mr . King : I would like to ask the Mintzes : You ' ve heard all the comments by your attorney , Mr . Kerrigan , is there anything you would correct ? Mr . Mintz : No . I have nothing to add . The only thing I can tell you , in all honesty , is that to the best of my knowledge , there was no work done anywhere unless the proper permits were posed . 5We even got permits from the Coast Guard to hall stuff across the lake because we couldn ' t drag it up the bank . And the Board of Health - - I ' m very fussy about that - - and I know they were there at least three times . They supervised it . We got final approval before it was covered up and everything was done the way it ' s suppose to be done . Mrs . Mintz : And as to the parking problems , the area is clearly designated . And the only problem that occurs is when one car is going down and one car is going up . Mr . Mintz : We ' re well out of everybody ' s way . He has clear access up and down . Mr . King : Would you say it was the obligation of the contractor , Finkleday , to obtain whatever permit was necessary from this point ? . Mr . Mintz : Oh , yes . He said he ' d take care of everything . Please understand this . I never built a house before . But , Zoning Board of Appeals 23 October 13 , 1982 . although I know I want everything done , I ' m a strong believer in zoning and doing things the right way . And I ' ve impressed him with that . I don ' t want anyting done that ' s not proper . JAnd he posed permits . And , in fact , I think they ' re still up on the tree . I never took them down . Mr . King : Mr . Kerrigan , do you have a copy of this contract , the construction contract ? Mr . Kerrigan : I think I ' ve got one in my file . Let me see if I can find it , quickly . If not , with your permission , perhaps I could bring it in on the 2nd . Let me look now . This may take a minute or two . JI don ' t find one in my files . I ' ve been through it the last couple of days . The Mintzes told me that they don ' t think I have one . But , they have one in Florida . And I ' ll somehow make arrangements to get that and submit it to the board . Mr . King : It was my understanding that the sketch on the back wall here represented the building , a site plan with the proposed building , the way it was to be constructed under that contract . Is that .correct ? Mr . Kerrigan : Those are both taken from this board ' s files and they were submitted by Mr . Finkleday on two different days . I ' m not sure , without going through your files . Mrs . Fuller : I have it all here . Mr . Kerrigan : Which was the first or second ? Mr . King : Were these sketches part of your contract with Finkleday ? Mr . Mintz : I ' m not quite sure . Yes . • Mr . in Neither of these sketches show any porch to the south side or total east side of the building . Mr . Mintz : Because that was added after we decided to elevate the building . Mrs . Mintz : There was always a deck . We always talked about a deck . Mr . Mintz : We were going to have a patio . Mr . Mintz : No . There was to be a deck . What happened was there was a patio instead of a deck . And we raised it and the deck was where it should have been . Mr . Kerrigan .* Originally to the deck to the east side facing the lake ? Mrs . Mintz : Looking at the lake . Mr . Kerrigan : And is it correct that when the elevation of the house changed that the deck was wrapped around and added on the south side ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , Mrs . Mintz : Yes , Mr . Kerrigan : I hope that answers the question . Mr . King : Was that done in discussion between you and Mr . Finkleday ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , oh , yes . Mr . King : And did you instruct him to return to this board to indicate any change in those plans ? Mr . Mintz : Mr . King , as I say , I don ' t know anything about building . I ' m just a layman . I left it up to him to make the proper applications to the board . And as far as I know , as we went along , he was doing it . And whether that was required or Zoning Board of Appeals 24 October 13 , 1982 not , I have no knowledge . And I don ' t know what he did . I really don ' t . Mr . King : Do we have , Mr . Kerrigan , a sketch you referred to by Mr . Slade showing the house as built with the porches on it ? Mr . Kerrigan : This . The survey shows it . There was . I do not have that with me . Mr . Cartee : What ' s the date on that survey ? Mr . Kerrigan : This survey was dated September 29 , 1980 . There ' s a later version done at my request and submitted with this appeal the 22nd or 23rd of June of this year . Mr . Slade verified the survey . In other words , the version is added at the time of this appeal for this appeal . There was no additional field work on it at that point . It ' s the print of the 1979 - 1980 survey . Mrs . Fuller : Mr . Dubow , I believe , gave us . Mr . King : That ' s what you referred to as the Miller survey and now verified by Mr . Slade ? Mr . Kerrigan : Slade works for T . G . Miller and Sons , an employer , or a partner , or principle , or whatever in the firm . I don ' t think Tom personally did any of the survey work . And from my conversations with Dick Slade , I ' m pretty sure he indicated that he had done the original field work in the drawing . And the original signature over the seal is his and what looks like another employee . Mr . Fuller : That ' s Thomas Miller , I ' m sure ? Mr . King : And can you tell us where Mrs . Leonard ' s house is in relation• to this house on the subject property ?Mr . Kerrigan : Mrs . Leonard ' s house is at lake level . Mr . King : Some several hundred yards to the east of the - - . Mr . Kerrigan : I don ' t think I can get it to several hundred yards . But , it ' s 150 , 200 feet . I think the total distance between the boulevard and the lake is here on the order of 400 feet , 350 feet . This is a 530 foot course here , for example , at the bottom . So , if that might make this 575 , a couple hundred feet anyway , at least 200 feet it looks like . Elevation , of course , between the boulevard here and even the house here , which is at the top is substantially different than it is at the lake level . And I think the steepest portion of this is down below the wires , is it not ? Mr . Mintz : It ' s down . Mr . Kerrigan : I guess the - Mr . Mintz : The last 150 feet are pretty steep . It goes way down . Mr . King : Is there any other structure on Mrs . Leonard ' s land to the north ? Mr . Mintz : That old garage or chicken house , or whatever you want to call it , shack sort of thing . Mr . Kerrigan : Garage - shed structure . Mr . King : No other house ? Mr . Kerrigan : No . Mrs . Mintz : No . Mr . Austen : Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to comment on this matter ? Mr . Littman : Well , ladies and gentlemen , I have a number of things tomment on . I think , in vi o cew of the fact that you ' ve a Zoning Board of Appeals 25 October 13 , 1982 • agreed to adjourn this hearing and have another hearing related to this , I have a witness or two that are going to be coming next time . And I think , considering that I have already submitted a written statement , I would defer most of my remarks until the next time , with your permission . Mr . Austen : Do you have any remarks that are pertinent to , while the Mintzes are here ? Mr . Littman : I did have a question are two . 9[Mr . Mintz , do you recall when you first discussed with Mr . Finkleday your desire to have the porch on the south side ? Mr . Mintz : It was sometime during construction . Mr . Littman : Was it not until you decided to raise the building ? Mr . Mintz ; That ' s a reasonable way - Mr . Littman : That ' s a reasonable way to look at it . At that time , you didn ' t make any applicatin to the board to have the porch - Mr . Mintz : I have no idea what he did . I personally did not , no . Mr . Littman : You say that Mr . Finkleday was authorized to make whatever applications for permits or whatever would be necessary in order for you to be in lawful possession of this house ? Mr . Mintz : That ' s right . Mr . Littman : Would you say that he was authorized to require to request the variances that you ' re asking for today , was he authorized to do that ? Mr . Mintz : I don ' t know . I can ' t answer you . • Mrs . Mintz : I can just remember one very short conversation that I had with Mr . Finkleday about these things earlier on . Because of my own vast ignorance , I said , " What do we have to do ? " He said , " Don ' t worry about it . I can take care of that for you . " Because we had to make the house at some point , skinnier . Mr . Littman : The reason that I ' m asking is you instituted an Article 78 proceeding that Mr . Kerrigan referred to and that was over a year ago . And you and your husband have not really done anything to pursue that appeal in the courts . As a matter of fact , your initial papers indicated that a hearing would be had in court back in November of 1981 . 9[Now , instead of pursuing that , and you had alleged in those papers that Mr . Finkleday was not authorized to make the application for this very variance that your asking for today . And , therefore , you requested that the board ' s decision be set aside . Mr . Mintz : May I say something ? It seems to me , as far as I ' m concerned , Mr . Finkleday was my agent during the construction of this house . And sometime after the construction his authorization ceased . 9[Now , you ' ve got me on a tough legal question I can ' t answer . I defer to my attorney . Mr . Littman : Mr . Mintz , is it true ? Mr . Mintz : He doesn ' t have this right in perpetuity . Mr . Littman : It is true that part of your contract with Mr . Finkleday was that he would present a certificate of occupancy before his contract obligation would be complete ? Is that . correct ? Zoning Board of Appeals 26 October 13 , 1982 Mr . Mintz : I ' m not sure . I mean , I really am not sure . Alot has happened to me since . I just can ' t remember a detail like that . TI assumed he was building me a legal house . Mr . Littman : Right . And did you have tenants in there , approximately , August of 1980 ? Mr . Mintz : That ' s right . Mr . Littman : And at that time you were still living at 1057 next door ? Mr . Mintz : That ' s correct . Mr . Littman : So , your tenants moved in and then you sold to the O ' Regans . Is that correct ? Mrs . Mintz : When did the O ' Regans look at it first ? I don ' t remember , cl Mintz : The contract had been signed , but it hadn ' t been closed . Mr . Littman : Right . And these tenants were occupying the house and you were uncertain at the time whether there was a certificate of occupancy . The building was complete . In other words , you didn ' t know whether or not the certificate had been issued ? Mr . Mintz : That ' s true . Mr . Littman : Okay . Now , after sometime in Junes of 1981 , did you receive a phone call from Attorney Buyoucos ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , I did . Mr . Littman : And he told you that there was a problem up here ? Mr . Mintz : Right . • Mr . Littman : Did you tell him that you didn ' t know that any problem was going on up here ? Mr . Mintz : I didn ' t know . Mr . Littman . Did you tell him that you weren ' t aware of it ? Mr . Mintz : Of course . Let me give you some sequence of events here . %My address in Florida is on file at the town ordinance and I ' m getting my tax billing . It ' s a simple thing . Do you know how Buyoucos found me ? He dialed a number that ' s in the book . I have an arrangement with the phone company that if anybody calls my number they refer it to Florida . Mr . Littman : Did Mr . Cortee or anyone else from the board or Town of Ithaca get in touch with you ? Mr . Mintz : I got a call from Mr . Buyoucos that something had to be done . Mr . Littman : Now , you also told this board , back in 1980 , that you were going to rent this house to a Cornell family if you could . Is that right ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , Mr . Littman : When you actually placed the house on the market for rent , did you list with a real estate broker ? Mr . Mintz : I listed it with Cornell . Mr . Littman : You listed with Cornell ? Mr . Mintz : Right . Mr . Littman : Do you know much higher the house is , now that it ' s two stories rather than one ? • Mr . Mintz : It ' s one story higher and the standard stud , is what , seven feet ? It ' s just a standard height . Mr . Littman : What is the roof of the house , straight , peaked ? + 4 Zoning Board of Appeals 27 October 13 , 1982 Mr . Mintz : Peaked , Mr . Littman : And the survey that was done by Mr . Miller , was that done at your direction ? Mr . Mintz : O ' Regan insisted on it . Mr . Littman : You did it as part of the requirement to sell the proper ty0 Mr . Mintz : Right , Mr . Littman : You hired for Mr . Miller and paid for him ? Mr . Mintz : The lawyers took care of it . I paid half and I guess Mr . O ' Regan paid half . Mr . Littman : When you bought the property at 1061 , who did you buy from ? Mr . Mintz : The estate of a family named Kritchlo . Mr . Littman : And there was a shack or an old house down by the water . Is that correct ? Mr . Mintz : That ' s correct . Mr . Littman : Okay . And let ' s see , would that be indicated over here on the Dougherty survey ? Mr . Mintz : That ' s it , right there . Mr . Littman : At the time that you purchased it , was there actually a house there ? Mr . Mintz : yes . Mr . Littman : Did it have four walls ? Mr . Mintz : Yes , Mr . Littman : Did it have any operating heat and services , water ? Mr . Mintz : There was a pump that was disconnected and there was a septic system and a septic tank . They unhooked the pump . It was already to go except that the house had been badly damaged in the flood of ' 72 and had not been occupied since then . Mr . Littman : And initially when you thought about building a house on 1061 property , did you initially consider rebuilding the Kritchlo house ? Mr . Mintz : Yes . I had a contractor look at it and he told me he couldn ' t do it . Mr . Littman : Did you talk to anyone from the Health Department ? Mr . Mintz : I asked them about the septic tank and they were not encouraging . Mr . Littman : But , that was about the existing septic system ? Mr . Mintz : Right , Mr . Littman : That ' s all I have . Mr . Austen : Okay . Thank you . Mr . King : I would ask Mr . Mintz , was the easement and for the parking to the south of the new house and the subject property , was that all negotiated with the O ' Regans after you signed a contract to sell for the O ' Regans ? Mr . Mintz : Well , part of the sale was a right of way down to the house . Mr . King : That was a right of way , was it always contemplated ? Mr . Mintz : Oh , yes . The other lot was useless without a right of way . Mr . King : And the extention of a parking lot and reservation of the area where the well was located , was that contemplated in your original contract with O ' Regans ? Mr . Mintz : I ' m not sure . I don ' t think there was . #A • • � „ Zoning Board of Appeals 28 October 13 , 1982 o Mr . Kerrigan : I have a copy of the purchase offer which I can bring back or blow up . Mr . Littman : I have an extra copy . Mr . Kerrigan : This is Mintzes to O ' Regan purchase offer , J . D . Gallager Broker stationary and handwritten . About two - thirds of the way down is a clause which reads : " Owner reserves the right of way for driveway from Route 89 to the driveway of the new home , located north of the subject property being conveyed . And the seller agrees to share maintenance of the above mentioned part . " Mr . King : There ' s no mention of a specific easement area such as is mapped out on the Miller survey showing a parcel 75 feet by 18 feet . Mr . Kerrigan : That ' s correct . That survey was not done at that point . And one of the things I ' ll be arguing to the board is that it was not contemplated at the time . We were going to reserve a right of way to drive down the driveway and drive to a lot line and park on the lot itself . Mr . King : At what point was it agreed to have this reserved lot here of the parking and such with the O ' Regans ? Mr . Kerrigan : I was not the attorney in either transaction at that time . It ' s my understanding that that was negotiated together with the right of firse refusal and the other clauses in the deed after the survey was done on the 29th of September and the closing on the 23rd of October . The closing had originally been scheduled , I believe , in a significantly earlier - - It was • originally going to close on the 5th of October as is indicated at the bottom of the purchase offer Mr . Littman just gave to you . Mr . King : What ' s the right of first refusal ? Mr . Kerrigan : There ' s an agreement which is recorded granting to the O ' Regans a right of first refusal quoting in parts also - - I had started this afternoon to do a complete stack of exhibits in handable form . But , it looked like we were going to do it and it got late and I didn ' t finish that . So , my apologies for that . I ' ll get them to you . There is , reading portions of it , that in the event that the Mintzes sell 1061 , they agree to give O ' Regan the offer to first offer the same property to O ' Regan . If any third person submits an offer , they ' re going to give , the Mintzes will give the O ' Regans a chance to match the offer within 15 days . That offer is not assignable by the O ' Regans . ( There is one paragraph , the next one , that says that the agreement is binding upon their heirs . That also is not referred to in the original purchase offer . Sometime between the 29th of September and the 22nd or 23rd of October , the deed changes the right of first refusal . Mr . King : So that right of first refusal is for the subject property on which their seeking the certificate of occupancy ? Mr . Kerrigan : Yes , Mr . King : And that was recorded ? Mr . Kerrigan : I don ' t know . I have some doubts about that . Do you know ? . Mr . Littman : I don ' t think it was . Mr . Kerrigan : We don ' t think so . Mr . King : But , it was executed by - - . Zoning Board of Appeals 29 October 13 , 1982 Mr . Kerrigan : It was signed by Mr . Hines under a Power of Attorney on behalf of David and Sylvia Mintz and Mr . and Mrs . O ' Regan , Mr . King : Signed by the O ' Regans and the , oh , I see , for the Mintzes by Mr . Hines , Mr . Kerrigan : Yes , sir . Mrs . Fuller : I thought 1061 was the subject property . Right ? Mr . Cartee : Right , Mr . King : Right , Mrs . Fuller : Who owns it right now ? Mr . Kerrigan : The Mintzes own 1061 . Mrs , Fuller : O ' Regan bought 1057 ? Mr . Kerrigan : Yes , Mr . King : This is stamped filed at Tompkins County Clerk ' s office . Mr . Kerrigan : Mr . Littman and I stand corrected . Mr . King : I don ' t see book and page , but it must be there somewhere . It ' s filed anyway , it ' s not recorded . Mr . Kerrigan : Look recorded the 23rd day of October , 1980 , day after the closing , I think , day of or day after . Mr . King : As I understand it , both parties are willing that this matter be adjourned to be taken up again by the full board , or as many as we can get , at least a quorum , at our next meeting . We don ' t have a regularly scheduled meeting . Somebody said November 3rd , but I don ' t think we had one scheduled . Mrs . Fuller : I ' ve heard about eight dates . • Mr . Kerri an : I ' m happy to do it whenever the board holds your next meeting . I ' ll also indicate to the board that I ' ll agree , I ' m not sure what the rules are . But , I . ' ve certainly agreed to the participation of the board members who are not here tonight based on their review and what we ' ll bring back at your next meeting . Mr . King : Is that agreeable to counsel for the O ' Regans ? Mr . Littman : Yes , that ' s fine . Whenever you want to make arrangements for a hearing , we ' ll be here . " The Board members now discussed the next meeting date with November 17th , 1982 appearing to be suitable for all . MOTION by Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn the matter of the re - hearing of the David and Sylvia Mintz Appeal in re 1061 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 13 , until 8 : 00 p . m . on November 17th , 1982 , subject to confirmation of the parties . There being no further discussion , the Acting -Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Austen , King , Reuning . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . * Zoning Board of Appeals 30 October 13 , 1982 Acting - Chairman Austen declared the matter of the Mintz Appeal duly adjourned . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Acting - Chairman Austen declared the October 13 , 1982 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 10 : 45 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . Edward N . Austen , Acting - Chairman r�