Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1986-08-13 4 I • MINUTES OF TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AGENDA MEETING AUGUST 13 , 1986 An agenda meeting of the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning Appeals was held on August 13 , 1986 at 7 : 00 p . m . at the Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney John Barney . ALSO PRESENT : Vincent R . Franciamone , Mr . and Mrs . William W . Steele , Gary Wood , Susan Beeners , Nancy M . Fuller , Chairman Henry Aron opened the meeting at 7 : 00 p . m . The first agenda item was as follows . Consideration of the request of William W . Steele , owner of 119 - 121 Kendall Avenue , Town of Ithaca , Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 40 , for an interpretation of Article III , Section 4 , • paragraph 2 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Chairman Aron invited Mr . William Steele to speak to the members of the Board . Mr . Steele explained that he would like to have an interpretation as to the zoning law and in particular , Article III , Section 4 , Paragraph 2 , relating to occupancy . Chairman Aron reminded Mr . Steele that he had been turned down in his last appeal as to occupancy and asked exactly what interpretation he wanted . Mr . Steele '' said that he was trying to follow the rules set by the Board to rent to no more than three unrelated persons and had had no luck whatsoever since February . He had been able to rent to two students in the bottom half of the house but as far as having a family in the top half of the house he had tried since last February and had not been able to rent to a family . No one wanted to live next door to a factory and no one wanted to live in a neighborhood where it is total student housing . Chairman Aron asked if he wanted an interpretation as to why Mr . Steele could not have more than three unrelated persons and Mr . Steele responded that that was correct . Chairman Aron then again reminded Mr . Steele that in December Mr . Steele was turned down by the Board of Zoning • Appeals . He advised Mr . Steele that he could ask . for a rehearing of this appeal . The Board could rehear this appeal but there were some criteria that had to be followed , One is that Mr . 2 • Steele must bring to the Board new facts which were not divulged or talked about at the last appeal . Secondly , there had to be a unanimous decision of a positive nature by the members of the Board to grant a rehearing . If there was one who voted against the rehearing it would then be denied . He further advised Mr . Steele that if he wanted to pursue this option he would have to go to the Zoning Officer first who would assist him . Chairman Aron summarized by saying that Mr . Steele had two options - one would be an interpretation or he could attempt to have a rehearing . Mr . Steele preferred to try and have it reheard and Chairman Aron advised him to go to the Building Inspector and give :him all of the facts , but reminded him that it was up to the unanimous vote of the Board whether a rehearing should be granted . The second agenda item was as follows : Consideration of the request of Vincent Franciamone , Agent for Grace Cascioli , owner of 1041 Ridgecrest Road and land backlot of 104 Ridgecrest Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 45 - 1 - 3 and 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 6 , respectively , for an interepretation of . Article XIII , Section 67 , in context with Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and , in context with Section 280 - a of the Town Law . Chairman Aron then invited Mr . Vincent Franciamone to speak to the members of the Board . Mr . Franciamone stated that he would like an interpretation as to what would reduce a lot size . Chairman Aron asked if he wanted interpretation of Article XIII , Section 67 in context with Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance and , in context with Section 280 - a of the Town Law . Mr . Franciamone responded that this was correct . Chairman Aron then read Article XIII , Section 67 , from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance as follows : SECTION 67 . Reduction of Lot Area . Whenever a lot upon which stands a building is changed in size or shape so that the area and yard requirements of this ordinance are no longer complied with , such building shall not thereafter be used until it is altered , reconstructed or relocated so as to comply with these requirements . The provisions of this • Section shall not apply when a portion of a lot is taken for a public purpose . 3 • Mr . Franciamone stated that this passage implied that a portion of a property could be taken over by the State for public purpose and this would mean reduction of the lot size . Attorney Barney asked what the significance of this was and Mr . Franciamone responded that if you have 100 foot frontage and the State comes along and takes 40 feet of it that reduces your property . Since Mr . Franciamone mentioned the State removing property , clarification was asked for as to what constituted public purpose and it was determined that it was not only the State but the County or Town as well which could appropriate property for public use . Chairman Aron then went on to read Article IV , Section 16 as follows : SECTION 16 . Size of Lot . Lot sizes in Residence Districts R15 shall meet the following depths and widths at the front yard set - back . 1 . Minimum width of lots shall be 100 feet and the :minimum depth 150 feet . • Chairman Aron then inquired of Mr . Franciamone what he would like interpreted . Mr . Franciamone responded that he would like an interpretation on exactly what takes away from a lot other than appropriation for public use . He wondered if sharing a driveway took away from the lot and , if so , how . Chairman Aron stated that if a driveway was installed that would be taking away 15 feet or so from the lot because generally speaking the house which stands on the lot might not have enough sideyard . Mr . Franciamone said if 15 feet of parcel No . 45 - 1 •- 3 were used as a driveway , it would not come out of the deed . Chairman Aron then asked if there were any questions from any members of the Board to Mr . Franciamone . At that time there were none and Chairman Aron stated that he would like to consult with the Town Attorney as to this matter and that a written interpretation would be sent to Mr . Franciamone , Attorney Barney then interjected that he was unclear as to what Mr . Franciamone wanted interpreted . • Mr . Franciamone explained that basically what he was asking for was interpretation as to what would reduce a lot size . The 4 • Zoning Ordinance implies that if a portion of the lot is taken by public use that ' portion would be removed from your deed . Attorney Barney said that if you have a lot that otherwise conforms , an R15 lot , 100 foot by 150 foot , and there is a house built 50 feet back from the road and the State elects to widen the road that the house sits on and as a result knocks off 25 feet of your frontage , then under those circumstances , you would only be 25 feet back from the road . This does not become an illegal use because it was a valid use when you started and only became illegal because a public entity made it that way . Therefore it would remain a valid use . Attorney Barney further stated that he did not understand how Mr . Franciamone wanted some sort of interpretation of this fairly narrow exception to his situation . Mr . Franciamone responded that sharing a driveway in no way reduces the frontage of any lot . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Franciamone was asking for an interpretation as to whether a frontage , sideyard , or backyard setback requirement can include an area that is committed to a common driveway for other people to use . Mr . Franciamone stated that he was not asking for that . He • was asking that if a driveway were shared , would it reduce the lot size . Attorney Barney asked for what purpose he was asking ., Mr . Franciamone then referred to the tax map which showed there was no way to gain access to the lot behind Lot No „ 45 - 1 - 3 other than by sharing a driveway . Chairman Aron asked how the land became landlocked . He also asked when Mr . Franciamone bought the property and if it was landlocked when he bought it . Mr . Franciamone responded that it was . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Franciamone if he knew it was landlocked . Mr . Franciamone responded that he knew it was landlocked but there was access from 1 0 8 Ridgecrest Road an d other lots on Ridgecrest Road . Chairman Aron asked if someone had bought those lots . Mr . Franciamone stated that they had been sold . He further stated that at the time no approval was needed for subdivision of one lot but that now the subdivision rules and regulations have changed and by the changing of the subdivision rules and regulations this has caused Mr . Franciamone a hardship in that the land cannot be used unless access is gained through Lot No . 45 - 1 - 3 , 104 Ridgecrest Road , Chairman Aron again asked when Mr . Franciamone bought the lots and Mr . Franciamone responded that it was several years ago . Chairman Aron asked if he knew exactly' when and Mr . Franciamone responded that lie could • look it up and let him know . Chairman Aron stated that he did not understand the 5 • hardship . Mr . Franciamone responded that it was a hardship because of the change in the subdivision rules . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Franciamone owned the two lots where he previously had access to the rest of the lots . Mr . Franciamone responded that he did . Chairman Aron then asked Mr . Franciamone if he sold those lots knowing that it would prevent access to the rest of the acreage . Mr . Franciamone responded that he bought the large acreage first . Chairman Aron asked if there was any occupation on the two lots that were sold . Mr . Franciamone responded that there were buildings on those two lots but he still had access through 104 . Chairman Aron asked how and Mr . Franciamone responded that it was by a driveway . Mr . Franciamone asked Attorney Barney if he understood what had just been talked about and Attorney Barney responded that he did but he was still not certain of what interpretation Mr . Franciamone wanted . Mr . Franciamone responded that the interpretation he wanted was regarding a driveway where 15 feet would be used from parcel No . 45 - 1 - 3 to gain access to the lot behind this lot which driveway was to be shared under the same ownership . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Franciamone wanted to make , create , or use , - whatever the term - a 15 foot easement across 45 - 1 - 3 . Mr . Franciamone said that was correct . Attorney Barney . then asked if Mr . Franciamone wanted to know if by doing so would the existing building on this lot be in violation of the ordinance if 15 feet were excluded from the lot . Attorney Barney asked if it would be in conformance if it were included . Mr . Franciamone responded that it would be in conformance if it were included . Attorney Barney asked if this 15 foot right of way would be for access to all of the property . Mr . Franciamone said it was not for access to a l l of the property but only to the proposed lot shown on the sketch he presented marked " Proposed Lot , 15 , 000 SF MIN . " Chairman Aron asked if there were a surveyor ' s map of the two lots . Mr . Franciamone responded that he had a map of the 16 . 74 acres buti he did not have a surveyor ' s map of the two lots in question but , he could supply one if necessary . Joan Reuning asked who would own the driveway . Mr . Franciamone said it would be under the same ownership as all of the land , namely , his sister , Grace Cascioli , Attorney Barney said that ultimately perhaps there might be separate ownership and Mr . Franciamone stated that he doubted that could ever happen because of the way the rules and regulations regarding subdivisons were . Mr . Franciamone went on to state that if it were separate ownership that would mean that • this 15 foot access would have to be deeded and therefore would reduce the frontage of the front lot . If it was deeded over that would be taking away from the 100 foot frontage but using it 6 • under the same ownership in no way would reduce the frontage of that lot . Mr . Franciamone then brought up Section 280 - a of the Town Law - the access provisions - and Attorney Barney read excerpts from this section . Chairman Aron at this point felt that the Board should study the matter more closely and come to a conclusion one way or the other and notify Mr . Franciamone , Mr . Franciamone had a few more comments to make . He referred to the sketch of the entire 16 . 74 acreage that was presented to the Planning Board and stated that one of the things that the Town Planner said that by doing something like this it would be a misconfiguration of the 16 . 74 acres . He went on to say that the way it was laid out by Mr . Fabbroni , the Town Engineer , there , was no way that the subdivision of that one lot was going to cause any misconfiguration . Chairman Aron asked if it was laid out or if it was a recommendation by Mr . Fabbroni of what could be done . Mr . Franciamone responded that it was a recommendation of what could be done with the land . • Chairman Aron asked who owned the adjoining property and Mr . Franciamone responded that a Mr . Erdman owned it . Chairman Aron asked why Mr . Franciamone did not buy the land from Mr . Erdman and then build a road . Mr . Franciamone responded that that would create a further hardship because of the cost of Mr . Erdman ' s land . Mr . Franciamone said that it would not be feasible to purchase that land just for a one lot subdivision now but if it were 30 lots in question then it might be feasible . Chairman Aron asked what Mr . Franciamone was going to do with the rest of the landlocked property . Mr . Franciamone said that they had to either wait or purchase the Erdman land . Mr . Franciamone mentioned an " opinion " of the State which he found that said it was not a right of a Planning Board to rule on a one lot subdivision . He also stated that it was obvious from the sketch that no one could go any farther than the one lot with the 15 foot access driveway . Chairman Aron again questioned how Mr . Franciamone would get to the rest of the land later on . Mr . Franciamone responded that he only wanted to gain access through Parcel No . 45 - 11 - 3 to the one lot that they want subdivided . Chairman Aron again asked Mr . Franciamone how in the future they were going to be get into that 16 . 74 acres . Mr . Franciamone responded that ' what he was banking on is that when the Erdman property was sold and the owner tried for a subdivision plan the Town or Planning Board would require the owner to provide a 60 foot right of way before any development of the acreage . Mrs . Reuning then inquired as to the ownership of the property and whether the ownership of the driveway was always going to be the same as the ownership of the lot on which the L • . 7 • driveway would be . Mr . Franciamone stated that all of the land would be under one ownership always . Attorney Barney then inquired as to why Mr . Franciamone was asking for a subdivison . Mr . Franciamone responded that Mrs . Cascioli did not want to pay water and sewer charges on the whole 16 . 74 acres . Mrs . Reuning then again mentioned the ownership of the lot and Mr . Franciamone reiterated that both of the lots are under the same ownership and always would be . Attorney Barney advised that once there is a subdivision there is no control adding that you cannot build two buildings on the same lot so there has to be a subdivision . Chairman Aron said that he thought Mr . Franciamone wanted to build a house on the lot behind 45 - 1 - 3 and wanted access to it . Mr . Franciamone said that was correct . Mr . Franciamone stated that there would be no easement in title , that it was Mrs . Cascioli ' s land and she was going to use • the driveway . Chairman Aron wondered what would happen if Mrs . Cascioli decided to sell the property to someone else and the new owner would not grant access . Mr . Franciamone reponded that she would never sell the property . Attorney Barney stated that if she sold the property subject to the rights of someone to get across to the other parcel that would be a right of way . Mr . Franciamone repeated that she was not going to sell the property . Chairman Aron stated that even if she wanted to build a house on the far lot it did not seem that the Planning Board would subdivide without access to it . Mr . Franciamone said that Grace Cascioli owns all of the property and has no intention of selling it unless someday she gets a 60 foot right of way from King Road . He went on to say that there is very good potential there if she can get that right of way from King Road because that ultimately opens up that 16 . 74 acres to about 30 lots but you cannot build 30 lots on a 15 foot • driveway . You would never get any kind of approval . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Franciamone intended to live E 8 • there or rent it out . Mr . Franciamone responded that at this point he did not know . Chairman Aron then mentioned the petition brought by Mrs . Freund to the Planning Board on June 17 , 1986 opposing this situation because of the probability of rental units . Chairman Aron then asked if there was any more discussion or any more questions . There being none , he stated that the Board should meet with the Town Attorney to go through all the materials and see whether or not an interpretation could be made with a written notice of the interpretation being sent to Mr . Franciamone . There being no further discussion , the meeting was adjourned at 7 : 45 p . m . Respectfully submitted , g st4� Beatrice Lincoln 1 4 Recording Secretary •