Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-04-15 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date 30 !M7 • TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 15 , 1987 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on April 15 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Jack Hewett , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO. PRESENT : John E . Ault , Kit Lambert , Anna Stuliglowa , Mark H . Gardner , Carl R . Updike , John Y . Lambert , Jr . , George Rhoads , and Randy Hubbell . The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m . Chairman Aron stated that all posting and publication of the public hearings had been completed and that , proper affidavits of same were in order . The first item on the agenda for consideration was as • follows : APPEAL of Charles Platkin , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for the occupancy of a two - family dwelling containing , one , five - bedroom dwelling unit and one , one - bedroom dwelling unit , located in Residence District R - 15 at 1476 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 23 , by a total of six unrelated persons . Permission is denied under Article IV , Section 11 , paragraph 2 , subparagraph 2a . ( 3 ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a total of no more than three unrelated persons may occupy a two - family dwelling . Chairman Aron reported that Mr . Platkin had called him that afternoon and had told Mr . Aron he was not feeling well and therefore was not able to attend the meeting . A motion was then made by Joan Reuning as follows : It is moved that the matter of Charles Platkin be adjourned until the June 10 , 1987 meeting . Jack Hewett seconded the motion . The vote was as follows : • Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . 2 The second matter on the agenda was as follows . APPEAL of Douglas H . and Lucia L . Armstrong , Appellants , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying Certificates of Compliance for two new lots created by the subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 3 , 0 . 69 acres net to road right of way , Residence District R - 15 , located at 121 Honness Lane , Residence District R - 15 , with frontage also on Terraceview Drive , into two lots , the first of such two new lots containing an existing single - family house , with attached deck , and fronting on Honness Lane with approximately 160 feet of frontage on Honness Lane at the front yard setback , and with a depth of approximately 89 feet , and with a rear yard of approximately 15 feet , and containing approximately 14 , 500 square feet , AND , the second of such two new lots fronting on Terraceview Drive containing an existing garage with attached concrete slab , an existing barn , and an existing , shed , with approximately 90 feet of frontage on Terraceview Drive at the front yard setback , and with a depth of approximately 160 feet , and containing approximately 14 , 500 square feet , AND FURTHER , denying a • Building Permit for the renovation of said existing garage structure located on the second of said proposed two new lots and proposed to contain a three - car garage with a two - bedroom rental unit above , with said existing garage structure proposed to be relocated such that the front yard and side yard setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met . With respect to the first of such two new lots , fronting on Honness Lane , permission is denied under Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , ( Size of Lot ) , pursuant to which the minimum lot size is 15 , 000 square feet and whereby a depth of 150 feet is required , and under Article IV , Section 14 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , ( Yard Regulations ) , whereby a rear yard of not less than 30 feet is required , .AND , with respect to the second of such two new lots , fronting on Terraceview Drive , permission is denied under Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , ( Size of Lot ) , pursuant to which the minimum lot size is 1 5 , 000 square feet and whereby the minimum lot width is 100 feet , and Building Permit is denied under Article XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Certificates of Compliance are denied under Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Chairman Aron presented a photograph of Mr . and Mrs . Armstrong ' s property and passed it around to the Board for viewing and also mentioned that Mr . and Mrs . Armstrong had been before the Planning Board for subdivision of their property . 3 Mr . Douglas Armstrong addressed the Board . Mr . Armstrong referred to a map presented with his application . He explained that the initial reason for asking for the subdivision of the two lots was that for 13 years of living at 121 Honness Lane they had never had any building around them but in the last two years to the west of them there have been two duplexes built and on the east there is: a single family unit plus the road going into the Jonson development , and behind them are 85 units being constructed by Ivar Jonson , Mr . Armstrong went on to say that . this was not too bad at the beginning but now the Jonson properties have marched right up to the south lot line and in order to try to shield their property from the property behind them they would like to move the garage as shown on the map dated September 16 , 1986 designated " Garage fronted by concrete slab " . He continued that they would like to move the garage 30 feet to the west and 14 feet north and that it would be a three car garage on the ground floor , 30 x 22 , and a two bedroom rental unit on top . He went on to say that the shed behind the barn is used for garden equipment , etc . and would be left where it is . Mr . Armstrong said that the barn and shed are iri decent shape but the garage , due to hydrostatic pressure caused by a pond that was formerly on the property , broke the walls and the walls actually are moving under the garage and if left it will fall down . Mr . • Armstrong explained that they were planning on building a concrete block base , three car garage , and then move the upper part of the old structure to the base . Mr . Armstrong further stated that one of the reasons for his application being denied was that the side yard setback was only 15 feet on the first lot with a rear yard of approximately 15 feet , where a rear yard of 30 feet is required . He stated that this is based on the premise that the house is facing Honness Lane but the map shows that the front door of the house fronts Terraceview Drive and in that case all the lot size setbacks would be alright . Chairman Aron asked if the house always had the address of 121 Honness Lane and Mr . Armstrong responded that that was correct . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Armstrong now wanted the Board to consider that his new address would be on Terraceview Drive and Mr . Armstrong said that in 1973 they redid the whole house , closing off the front of the house and moving the front door to the other side where it now fronts on Terraceview Drive . He said that he simply meant that if the front of the house were to be considered on Terraceview Drive all the setback requirements would be in order . Mrs . R euning asked if Terraceview was a Town road and Mr . Armstrong responded that it was and was taken over by the Town as • the entrance into the Jonson development . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing and no one from the 4 public appeared . The public hearing was then closed . Chairman Aron then read the document entitled " Armstrong Subdivision , 121 Honness Lane , Douglas and Lucia Armstrong , Owners / Subdividers , Planning Board , April 7 , 1987 " , a copy of which document is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . While reading the documents Chairman Aron interjected that the Planning Board had determined that the setback requirements were deficient based on the fact that the 121 Honness Lane address prevailed and therefore the Zoning Board of Appeals would consider this appeal in the same light . There was discussion on this matter after which the Board concurred . Chairman Aron also asked Attorney Barney which survey map was being referred to in paragraph b of the proposed resolution on page 2 of said document and it was determined that although there were two maps it was the same on both maps . A motion was made by Jack Hewett as follows : It is moved that this Board grant a variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the subdivision Of two lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net area , one lot with a depth of 89 + feet and a width of 160 + feet and the second lot with a width of 90 + feet and a depth, of 160 + feet , and ,: the granting of a variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , to permit a rear yard depth of 15 + between the existing house deck and the proposed subdivision line , with such granting being recommended by the Planning Board . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . The next item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Belcor Associates , Ltd . , Appellants , Mark H . Gardner , Belcor Realty , Agent , with respect to the subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 3 , 4 . 24 gross acres , located in an Agricultural Zone , ( Residence District R - 30 Regulations applicable ) , with • frontage on Sheffield Road and backlot of Mecklenburg Road , with 50 . 9 feet of frontage on Mecklenburg Road , into three lots , i . e . , two approximately one - acre lots and one • 5 approximately two - acre lot , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying under Article XIV , Section 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , a Certificate of Compliance for said new two - acre lot with 50 . 9 feet of frontage on Mecklenburg Road , 150 feet of frontage at the front yard setback being required under Article V , Section 23 , paragraph 2 , ( minimum width and depth of lots ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and further , with respect to an existing 40 feet by 240 feet structure located on said new two- acre lot , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for the modification of a variance granted by the Board of Appeals on November 20 , 1985 , from the requirements of Article XI , Section 51 , and Article V , Section 18 , ( Use Regulations ) , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , which permitted the use of said existing 40 - foot by 240 - foot structure , previously used for poultry research , for the limited storage of boats and motor vehicles , such modification being a request for permission to include the general storage of household goods , AND FURTHER , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission , also under Article XI , Section 51 , and Article V , Section 18 , ( Use • Regulations ) , of said Zoning Ordinance , for the use of an existing 40 - foot by 80 - foot structure , located on one of the new approximately one - acre lots fronting on Sheffield Road , formerly used as a barn , for the storage of lumber and salvage materials . Chairman Aron presented pictures which were taken the past Monday of the property in question and passed them around to the Board for viewing . He then read from the Appeal of Mark H . Gardner , for Belcor Realty , a copy of which document is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter as to environmental assessment . Mr . Mark H . Gardner , representing Belcor Realty , addressed the Board . Mr . Gardner explained that there is a very pronounced flurry of activity in the spring and fall when the students enter and leave school and that is the greatest traffic , but there is , however , off and on traffic by Student Agencies all year long . He stated that there is unpredictable traffic by the tenant . He continued that it is rental property , part of it being leased to Cornell and part of it being f i l l ed up with f an s and refrigerators and the students come and get them whenever they feel like it . Mr . Gardner further stated that in response to the Planning Board hearing , they were ready to agree to • everything that was recommended in the second version of the Environmental Impact statement . Mr . Gardner stated that they would be willing to make a road from the 240 foot facility out to • 6 Mecklenburg Road and terminate use of the existing driveway . He stated that this was a problem with people getting stuck and making it impossible for that lot to receive a sewage permit and making it an unmarketable building lot . He said that they would terminate use of that driveway and make the road from the longer barn out to Mecklenburg Road , the way it is shown on the map of 4 / 7 / 87 . Mr . Gardner further stated that because cars are getting stuck they would put gravel down . Chairman Aron interjected that the Planning Board would deal with that sort of thing and stated that Belcor Realty was before the Board for a modification of a use variance . Chairman ' Aron then referred to the pictures taken . He asked if Belcor Realty appeared before the Board on November 20 , 1985 and Mr . Gardner said this was correct . Chairman Aron stated that the appearance before the Board on that date was to ask for permission to ' store boats and motor vehicles only . Chairman Aron further stated that by looking at the pictures it appeared that other materials were being stored in the structure and this was a violation . Chairman Aron inquired how long this violation had been going on and Mr . Gardner responded that it was for • approximately " a year , Chairman Aron then asked why they were before the Board now and Mr . Gardner responded that they were before the Board because they wanted to sell the barn and also because they would like to get caught up . Chairman Aron asked if he knew he was in violation and Mr . Gardner responded that personally he did not know because he was not with the company then and had indeed only been with the company for a year . Chairman Aron then opened the public hearing . Mr . John Ault who lives on the corner of Mecklenburg and Sheffield Road addressed the Board . He stated that there had been a problem with traffic going to the large barn used for storage which disrupts his household as he has had to pull many cars out of the road including Mr . Gardner ' s car . He continued that students have used his phone many times . Mr . Ault referred to a letter presented to the Board from Kit Lambert of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers dated April 15 , 1987 , dated April 15 , 1987 . Chairman Aron read said letter to the Board . A , copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Mr . Ault stated that with Mr . Gardner being in violation to begin with this did not show very good faith in his promising to remedy the problems which Mr . Ault faced . • Mr . George Rhoads of 1478 Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York , then spoke to the Board . Mr . Rhoads said that his house was the nearest one to the barn in question aside from Mr . Ault ' s . He stated that there had been no problem from his point of view . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Rhoads which side of Mecklenburg Road he was on and Mr . Rhoads said that he was on the north side and Attorney Barney asked him to identify his property on a tax map . Carl Updike of 421 Sheffield Road , Ithaca , New York , stated that the property in question was originally his property and the property has very little traffic. He felt that the problem is that the people that were hired to plow snow in the wintertime were not familiar with the proper way to do so and that is why Mr . Ault was bothered so much but he could have said no to pulling them out . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Updike appealed to the Board in 1985 for storage of boats and motor vehicles and Mr . Updike stated that that was not correct . Chairman Aron referred to a document stating that this was correct and Mrs . Anna Stuliglowa of Belcor Realty then stated that she had appeared on behalf of Mr . Updike . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Updike if he had sold the property to Belcor and therefore had a vested interest and Mr . • Updike said that was correct . Mrs . Anna Stuliglowa , owner of Belcor Realty , spoke about the economic value of the neighborhood . She maintained that the current use of the four story barn is dangerous because no one is there to oversee the property . She further stated that a prospective buyer , Mr . Hubbell , plans to purchase , improve and take care of the property and will permit no objects on the outside of the property . Mrs . Stuliglowa felt that this will increase the general value of the property in the neighborhood . She continued that as far as the other storage facility is concerned they are considering putting in a new road , painting the building and will also suggest to the tenant that a telephone be put in so the neighbors will not be bothered . Chairman Aron asked if in 1985 there were cars and boats in the storage facility and Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that there were for about four or five months , but that people who had put their cars in the facility began to take them out in March and she realized then that the use of the facility in this way was not economically beneficial to her , and began to consider the possibility of using the premises for other purposes . Mrs . Stuliglowa stated that when she leased the premises to Student Agencies she was ignorant of the fact that she was not in compliance with the use variance . • Chairman Aron reminded her that she knew that she was granted a use variance for a specific purpose and that as a realty person she should have known what the variance pertained 8 to . He suggested that she was responsible for the violation taking place and Mrs . Stuliglowa insisted that the violation was not done willfully . Chairman Aron said that the purpose of the Zoning Board of Appeals was to give a use variance and then rely on the recipient of that variance to make sure that it was used in the proper manner . Mrs . Stuliglowa said that it was an oversight and apologized to the Board . Chairman Aron then addressed the matter of the 40 x 80 foot dilapidated barn which needs a tremendous amount of repair for storage of lumber and salvage material . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Stuliglowa to expand on this matter further . At this point Mr . Randy Hubbell of 1308 Mecklenburg Road , Ithaca , New York , spoke to the Board . He stated that he was desirous of purchasing the building in question and planned to use it for dry storage of lumber and tools with the heavy lumber being on the bottom floor . He went on to say that he would be storing roughly 1800 board feet of used lumber and the salvage material would consist of furniture , dressers , and miscellaneous odds and ends which furniture would be rebuilt as his father owned an antique shop . Mr . Hubbell stated that he would oversee the premises by being there every night and every other day . Chairman Aron then read " Part III " from the Environmental Assessment - Belcor Subdivision document , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Chairman Aron said that he had a note from the Town Planner who recommended that a pay telephone should be installed within the premises so the neighbors would not be disturbed . Mr . Ault asked what kind of lighting would be provided on the premises and Chairman Aron stated that if this Board granted a use variance then Belcor Realty could go back to the! Planning Board and then they will speak about lighting and safety , etc . Chairman Aron then read the " ADOPTED RESOLUTION " Belcor Subdivision , Planning Board April 7 , 1987 " , a copy of which document is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . As to the environmental assessment a motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows : This Board recommends a negative determination of environmental significance with the conditions as listed by the Town Planner in Part III of the Environmental Assessment Beclor Subdivision document , dated 4 / 2 / 87 , revised 4 / 14 / 87 . • Jack Hewett seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : • 9 Aye - Aron , Hewett , Reuning Nay - None The motion was carried . Attorney Barney stated that Mrs . Stuliglowa had done a market survey back in 1985 preparatory to taking on the cars and boats and asked Mrs . Stuliglowa what was involved in that market survey . Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that one of her employees called around and found out what was being charged for storage and it was his sense that there was a market there . She stated that they went with that kind of lease based on their sense that there was some sort of market for it at that time . Mrs . Stuliglowa stated that it cost a lot of money to service this type of business and it was not cost effective . Attorney Barney asked what she had done to increase business and she stated that she had posted flyers , had called dealerships , and had done everything she could to get business but only ended up with about a dozen cars which were there for four months , from November through winter . Mrs . Stuliglowa continued that since they were such a young company it was apparent that it would take quite a while to make money and they could not afford to keep the place • unoccupied . She continued that at this point they found that Student Agencies wanted to lease the space . Attorney Barney asked when the lease was signed and Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that it was in April . Attorney Barney asked if there were other car storages that were successful in Tompkins County and Mrs . Stuliglowa responded she did not know . Mr . Gardner said the difference between storage of cars and boats and the use for which it was now being used by Student Agencies is unique in that they pay a very good price for cold unheated storage for square foot all year round , year after year , and it is an economically sound use of the building . Attorney Barney stated that with storage and cars there would not be the traffic that there was with having students going in all the time to pick up items . Chairman Aron asked how long the lease with Student Agencies ran and Mr . Gardner said that it ran until September of 1987 and hoped to renew it . Chairman Aron said that he was disappointed that the terms of the variance had not been adhered to and this was an annoyance to him and to the Board and that he was very much taken aback by the whole thing . Chairman Aron stated that apparently in the lease nothing was stated as to noise , hours , etc . and that in • fact the students went there at all hours of the night . Chairman Aron then inquired how much storage was in the • 10 building and Mr . Gardner stated that it was a quarter full , that there were three blocks , one of which is subleased to Cornell University for dorm furniture . Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Gardner what would happen if the Board did not look at this appeal favorably and Mr . Gardner responded that they could always return to the rental for cars and boats but that financially it would not be to their benefit . Chairman ' Aron said that financially it was not the business of the Board and that the responsibility of the Board was to make sure that the variance on the property already was used properly . Mr . Gardner stated that the Student Agencies opportunity is really sound from a rental point of view and he did not see another customer coming along that would be as good as Student Agencies . Chairman Aron stated that the Board was concerned about the welfare of the neighborhood and not whether Belcor would be well off financially . Mr . Gardner stated that if Belcor was making economic use of • the building they would maintain the building and go along with all of the stipulated improvements . Joan Reuning inquired what part Mr . Hubbell played in this , and Mr . Hubbell responded that he would like to buy the four story barn and would do everything possible to make improvements to same . Joan Reuning said that she felt that the Board was dealing with a modified use variance in the one building for cars an d boats , and Mr . Hubbell ' s purchasing of the property dealt with a variance for the barn for storage of lumber and salvage materials . Chairman Aron stated that the property was not subdivided yet and once it was subdivided Mr . Hubbell would then have to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for the use of the property . At this point Attorney Barney stated that he had been at the Planning Board meeting concerning the Belcor application and the Planning Board felt that they were not going to pass on the subdivision at that time since it was the Zoning Board of Appeals that granted the original variance and since there was now conflict with that variance the Planning Board wanted to see what the outcome of the Zoning Board of Appeals application was before • they acted on the subdivision . Attorney Barney further stated that as far as the barn was concerned the application of Belcor dealt with both issues so the Board should consider both • 11 buildings . Chairman ' Aron inquired of Mr . Frost what his assessment of the barn was and Mr . Frost stated that he would prefer to have a licensed engineer make a determination as to the structural I ntegrity of the building as to storage of lumber and salvage material . Mr . ' Frost stated that once that was done he might have other considerations such as the fire safety of the building . Kit Lambert wondered if storage of lumber and salvage materials was a proper use for the barn and Chairman Aron indicated that, was for the Board to determine . 11 Attorney Barney asked Mr . Ault how frequently over the past several months he had to respond to pulling someone out of the driveway or letting persons use the telephone and Mr . Ault responded that it was regular over the past six months , and in fact , two or three times a week , varying from 5 : 00 P . M . to 9 : 00 p . m . at night and sometimes later and on weekends at all hours of the day . Mrs . Stuliglowa asked why Mr . Ault had not brought this to the attention ';'of Belcor and Mr . Ault responded that he had called • Belcor Realty on several occasions and had been assured that something would be done about it but nothing ever was . The public hearing was then closed . Chairman Aron then summarized , pointing out that the rental to Student Agencies was a good moneymaking operation for Belcor Realty and the leasing for storage of boats and cars was not . Chairman Aron repeated that the Board was not concerned with whether Belcor. Realty is making a lot of money but was primarily concerned that' the use variance was being used properly . Joan Reuning asked what Belcor Realty would consider a solution to the problem and what would they do to improve the situation should the variance modification be granted . Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that they would meet the requirements as outlined in the environmental assessment recommendations , i . e . , limit the hours students would be on the premises , fix the driveway so it would no longer pass Mr . Ault ' s house , and put in an exterior pay telephone . Chairman Aron asked if the lease with Student Agencies could be amended and Mrs . Stuliglowa responded that they had every reason to believe that Student Agencies wanted to renew the lease • and she did not see any problem with their adhering to the new rules . Chairman Aron asked if the Board members would be more 12 comfortable going to the property to view it before making a decision . Joan Reuning said that she had no real problem with granting the modification of the use variance with the understanding that it be on a trial basis to make sure that all the promises made were being kept . Jack Hewett stated that he could not second a motion of that sort because of what has happened over the past year . Chairman Aron agreed . He suggested that the Board stay with the original use variance as granted in 1985 and deny the request for a modified use variance . Chairman Aron further suggested that the Board adjourn the. matter until September of 1987. and then have the zoning enforcement officer report to this Board that the use variance had been complied with as granted in 1985 . Joan Reuning asked if the lease would be allowed to run its course and Chairman Aron said he would like the lease to be allowed to run its full term as he did riot want to create any hardship for Belcor although they had created their own hardship in a way . A motion was made by Henry Aron as follows : This Board denies the application for a modified use variance and also grants an adjournment for the Jength of the lease to Student Agencies until September of 1987 , at • which time the building inspector will check out the premises and report to this Board then whether Belcor Realty has been complying with the 1985 use variance . Jack Hewett seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Hewett , Aron Nay - Reuning Attorney Barney reminded the Board that the motion could not be carried because even though there was a quorum present. , three affirmative votes of the members of the Board present was required to pass the motion . Chairman Aron then adjourned this matter to May 27 , 1987 at which time a vote will be considered whether or not to grant a modified use variance , such meeting not be a public hearing . Discussion was then held on the matter of the barn . Joan Reuning made a motion ^ as follows ; This matter should be adjourned until May 27 , 1987 so that the members of the Board could view this barn . • Jack Hewett seconded the motion . • 13 The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . Joan Reuning suggested that the engineer Mr . Frost had suggested look at the barn and have the report by the May 27th meeting . Attorney , Barney said the report should take into account what Mr . Hubbell wants to use the barn for . There being no further business to come before the Board , the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m . Respectfully submitted , J Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary • Approved : Henzky Aron , Chairman Exhibits 1 through 5 attached • Armstrong Subdivision , 12. 1 Honness Lane -- 1 Douglas and Lucia Armstrong , Owners / Subdividers Planning Board , : April ' 7 , 1987 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEAR Armstrong . Subdivision Planning Board , :pr_ llr 7 , 1987 MOTIgN by Mrs . Virginia Langhans ., seconded by Mr , James Baker . WHEREAS 1 .0 This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of. Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 � 2 � 3 , located at 11 121 Honness Lane with frontage also on Terraceview Drive , Residence District R- 15 , into two .Lots of 14 , 400 square feet each with dimensions of 90 ± feet by 3. 60 ± feet , AND FURTHET� , the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , to permit - such subdivision , in regard to a request for variance of the . ' requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of .. the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to one lot with a depth of B9 ± feet and a width of 160 ± :feet ( 14 , 2110 ± feet ) , and , with respect to the second lot with a width of' 90 ± feet and 'a depth of 160 ± feet ( 14 , 400 ± feet ) , whereby the minimum lot width is 100 feet and- the minimum lot depth is 150 feet , . at the: front : yard setback . ( 15 , 000 square feet net area ) , AND FURTHER , the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board . of Appeals , _ . in regard to . a request . , for variance . of the . requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , of said Ordinance whereby the minimumrear yard depth is 30 feet . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for . :Environmental. review . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance , with the following conditions : a . The granting by the Zoning Board ' of Appeals of ' a variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph l , . of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the subdivision of two lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net area with lot dimensions of 90 ± feet by 160 ± feet , one lot c% ith a . depth of 89 ± feet and a width of 3. 60 ± feel: and the acond F_ ot with a width of 90 ± feet, and a depth . of 160 ± feet , and , the granting of a variance of the requirements. of Article IV , Section 14 , to permit a rear yard depth of 15 ± between the existing house deck and the proposed subdivision line , • b . The provision of any easements for any joint u.se of the driveway and the proposed garage spaces , subject to the approval of the Town Attorney , xh ; LIT / Armstrong Subdivision , 121 Honness Lane - 2 - Douglas and Lucia. Armstrong , Owners / Subdi.viders Planning Board , April 7 , 1 .987 • c . The provision of a . final subdivision map , for approval by the . Town Engineer , prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , and suitable for fi7. ing in the Of f ice of . the Tompkins County Clerk . 4 . The circumstances on the subject property and on adjacent properties4 represent a .unique situation, THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , a.ct_ i_ nq a 3 Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative , determination of environmental significance , with the following conditions : a . The granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance . of the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of . the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the subdivision of two lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net . area , one lot with a depth of 89 ± feet and a width of 160 ± feet and the second lot with a width of 90 ± feet and a depth of 1. 60 ± feet , and , the granting of a variance of the requirements of Article . IV , Section 14 , to permit a - rear yard depth of 15 ± between- the existing house deck • and the proposed subdivision line r b . Conveyance to the Town of Ithaca of the, easement rights for garage access , as shown on the survey - map submitted . c . The provision of . a final . subdivision map , prepared by a' - licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for. filing by the . Tompkins County Clerk , for approval by the Town Engineer . Aye - May , Gr_ igorov , Mazza , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : . Armstrong Subdivision Planning Board , April . 7 , 1987 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded . by Mr_ . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS . • 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 584 - 2 - 3 , located at 121 Fionness Lane with frontage also on Terraceview Drive , Residence District R- 15r into two lots of 19 , 400 square Armstrong Subdivision , 121 Honness Lane ~ 3 - Douglas and Lucia Armstrong , Owners / Subdivi_ ders Planning Board , April 7 , 1987 feet each with dimensions of 904= feet by 3. 60 ± feet , AND FURTHER , the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , to permit . such subdivision , in regard to a request for variance of the requirements of Art .i_ cle IV , Section 16 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning . Ordinance , with respect to- one lot with a depth of 89 ± feet and a, width of 1604- feet ( 3: 4 , 240 ± feet ) , and , with respect to the second loft with a width of 90 ± feet and a depth of 1601 feet ( 3. 4 , 400 ±. feet ) , wherehiy the minimum , lot , width is 100 feet and . the h-lini_mu.m lot depth is 150 feet , at the . front yard setback ( 15 , 000 square feet net - area ) , AND FURTHER , . the consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , in regard to a request for variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 3. 4 , of said Ordinance whereby the minimum rear yard . depth is 30 feet . . 2 . This is an . Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative determination of environmental significance , with certain conditions . 3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on April 7 , 1987 , has reviewed the following material . . " Survey Map , No .' 121 Honness Lane " , dated September 16 , 1986 , by T . G . Miller Associates , PX . , amended for .. . ,.April 7 , 1987 to show the proposed subdivision and building relocation . SEQR Short EAF , Appeals Form . . Proposal dated March 23 , 1987 , from Douglas and Lucia ,Armstrong . 4 . . ' The circumstances on the subject property and on adjacent properties represent a unique situation . THEREFORE ,. IT IS RESOLVED 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver w ill result in neither a significant alteration of the purpo.se .. of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or :implied by the Town Board , 2 . . . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivi. s _i . on as herein proposed , with the following conditions : • a . The granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 3. 6 , paragraph 1 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit + ; e subdivision of two lots , each 14 , 400 square feet in net Armstrong- Subdivision , 121 Honness Lane - 4 Douglas and Lucia Armstrong , Owners / Subdividers Planning Board , April 7 , 1 .987 • area , one lot with a depth of 89 ± feet and . a width of 160 ± . feet and the second lot with a . width of 90 ± feet and a depth. of 160 ± feet , and , the granting of a variance - of . the ' requirements of Article IV , Section 14 , to permit a rear yard depth of 15 ± betweenthe existing house. deck . and the proposed subdivision 1j} c , with such granting being recommended by the Planning Board . , b . . Conveyance to the Town of 1.. i:haca of the easement rights for garage . . access , as shown on, . the survey . map submitted . c . The provision of a final subdivision map , prepared by . a Licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County . Clerk , for approval . by the Town Engineer . Aye - May , Grigorov , Mazza , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . • Nandy M . F,,,VT1era , Secretary , . Town of Ithaca Planning Board , April 9 , 1987 . r TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 10 . 00 t, 126 Fast Seneca StreetRECEIVEas Ithaca , New York 1. 4850 C61� H (. 607 ) 273 - 1. 747 (:HECK • A P P E A L ZONING : to the For Office Use Only 4 • Building Inspector. ' and Zoning Board of Appeals . of the Town of Ithaca -, . New York Saving been dented permission to subdivide . into two , one acre tential building, sites ' and one , . two acre general use storage ace j. ty , to use a large sing e- story barn for gener'A storage on the two acre parcel , and to use a multistory barn on one one acre parcel . for storage of salvage material .. It 1478 'MECKLENBURG ROAD Town of Ithaca Ta Parcel : No . . 27-1-24 : 3 , as . shown on the ac.compan ,yi. nf application and / or - plans or other supporting documents, for the stated reason that - : the issuance of . such permit . would be In violation of : •-•-Art . XI , Section 51 , Art . V , Section 23 , Paragraph 2 . -- Article ( s ) . Section ( s ) • 1 . of the 'town of Ithaca . Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits thisappeal from such denial and , in ' support of the appeal. , affirms that -strict observance of the Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows The single story barn , 40 ' x240 ' , designed as a large scale chicken house , currently, authorized for storage of cars and boats would best be used for one annual loading and unloading of house o . go s IDY -13";MI s Lenan , to ens encLes . NOzse , z � c , MM PtEencial harm are irtinimized by the infrequent use and benign character of stored . goods . Use of this building for raising animals or storage of farm. produce would cause . substantially great: Jr1le our , sCory arni x , eslgn as a traaztzona am an aLser converge or usa as a large scale chicken house with concrete floors , would most economically be used as ong erm s �orage Tor: r dnd sa vage materia s . mafferla . swou . a enclosed in walls of barn-board . siding ; completely secure and under lock . No vehicles or materials UL any Kina WOuld , be sEoreU ou �sz e , and tis res � ric � lon wou pe passe on as a restric ion on the dead 'in any . sale of the existing . barn . % s barn is out of date and unsuited for ral51119, anima S . "961,17BU- 11dinys are oasp „ ecorkomlca y Sulk to _ Ow tfra J. (` , . . Ow S lnlpacl. , 6n' , )se , ecure rage Renewed economic use of these buildings would allow them to be restored and maintained an enante t eva. ue • oz surroun 3 n property . � J Dated : � Z Signed : It� .. KIT LAMBERT 306 NORTH CAYUGA STREET/ ITHACA . NY 14850 / ( 607 ) 277 -3100 Residential Member American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers Apn.L.2 15 , 1987 Mn . and Mns . John Autt Mecktenbung and Shebbietd Roads Ithaca , New yank , 14850 Dean John and Sue : It cs my op .in .ion the vatue ob youn nes .Ldenee woutd subben to a eons .idenabte extent i the use ob the 6anm buitd.ings adjacent to your pnopenty wene attowed to be used Jot commene .iat wanehous .ing . Genenatty speaking pnopenty vaZues .in the Town ob Ithaca ane greaten than they ane aeras the street .in the Town ob Fnb .ie.Ld because pnopenty owners have the pno .tect.ion ob zoning .in the . . Town ob Ithaca to nestn.ict and negutate devetopment ban th 6t health , satiety and genenat wet ate . An unattended • warehouse poses eone .idenabte hazards : tta44ic , noise , satiety , pn.ivaey;,and bungtany prospects come .to mind . To attow such an entenpn.ize .in an agn .icuttune zone wautd cause nes .iden.ts .in the area to tack ba.ith .in the punpos e o b the Town ab Ithaca ' s Zoning Ond .inanee and those who adm .in .isten and enbonee .it . This .is my pnobers .ionat opinion . Ib you need exact b .igunes as .to the . ass .in value to your pnopenty , ptease .tet me know . LSi'ncen .L y , Kit Lambent , R . M . Amen.ican Institute ob Reat Estate Appna.is ens 40 , • C3 . Vegetation or fauna , movement of fish or wildlife species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered species ? No significant adverse impact is expected . There are no significant habitats or species on the site . C4 . A community ' s existing plans or goals as officially adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or . other natural resources ? Proposal is consistent in concept with the use variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 20 , 1985 . As subject to the recommendations in Cl above , and the conditions recommended in Part III below , no significant change in intensity of land use that would be detrimental to the area is expected . Land use in the general area is a mixture of residential and agricultural uses , and the proposal would not significantly impact these uses . C5 . Growth , subsequent development , or related activities likely to be , induced by the proposed action ? Not expected . Any further_ development would be subject to further review . C6 . Secondary , cumulative , or other effects not identified in C1 - C6 ? Not expected . • C7 . A ' change in use of either quantity or type of: energy ? Not expected . PART III A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended , with the following conditions : a . The barn and the former chicken house are to be inspected by the Town Building Inspector and both buildings are to be brought into compliance with whatever the Building Inspector might require as appropriate to fire and life safety . b . The construction of a suitable driveway to the former chicken house is to be established through the 50 . 9 feet of frontage of this proposed 2 - acre lot , and the existing access from the west is to be terminated . c . The hours and frequency of operation are to be limited , as to be determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals . d . For any subdivision approval action , the submission of a final subdivision plan prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer , suitable for filing by the Tompkins County Clerk , and subject to approval by the Town Engineer , Lead Agency : " Appeal : Zoning Board of Appeals . Subdivision : • Planning Board Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner 4 / 2 / 87 , rev . 4 / 14 / 87 xh� I;T Belcor Subdivision , Sheffield /Mecklenbur. g . Roads - 1 - Belcor Associates , Ltd . Planning Board , , April 7 , 1987 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Belcor Subdivision Planning Board April. 7 , 1987 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning. Board , that the request by Belcor Associates , Ltd . , for subdivision approval of the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 27 - 1 - 24 . 3 , 4 . 24 gross acres , located in an Agricultural Zone ( Residence District R- 30 Regulations applicable ) on . Sheffield Road and backlot of Mecklenburg Road , into three lots , i . e . , two approximately one - acre lots and one approximately two -acre lot , be and hereby is denied , without prejudice , such that the applicant may proceed to the Zoning Board of . Appeals with respect to the requested modification of existing use variance and additional use variance , and further , that the applicant may reapply for subdivision approval , without prejudice , subsequent to a decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals , with the Zoning Officer reporting on the matter to both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board . Aye - May , , Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Baker , Klein , Langhans . Nay - None . a Abstain Mazza , CARRIED . Nancy M . F ller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , April 9 , 1987 . • y / L / �