HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-08-12 W
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
TOWN OF ITHACA
• Clerk e '
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 12 , 1987
A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals was held on August 12 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126
East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York .
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward King , Joan Reuning ,
Edward Austen , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Building Inspector
Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney .
ALSO PRESENT : Arthur Muka , Stephen Muka , Sabatino A .
Maglione , Laurel H . Hodgden , Mrs . Inman , Barbara Park , Rob
MacKenzie , William Tucker .
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 Sabatino A . and Joyce P . Maglione , Appellant , from
g � PP m
the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer denying a Certificate of Compliance for an existing
dwelling located at 112 Valley View Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 6 - 29 - 2 - 3 , Residence District R- 15 . Certificate
is denied under Article IV , Sections 14 and 16 , and Article
XIV , Section 76 , , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
whereby the width of a front yard may be no less than 100
feet and the width of a side yard may be no less than 15
feet . The subject property has a front yard width of 96
feet and contains a wood patio less than 15 feet from the
side lot line .
Mr . Sabatino Maglione was invited to address the Board .
Chairman Aron read from Mr . Maglione ' s appeal as follows :
" It would impose on us the moving of the house and the
removal of a small deck from their original placement . It
would jeopardize the selling of the house , the funds of
which we need to, finance the completion of a house we are
currently building . "
Chairman Aron referred to a map attached to the appeal and
asked Mr . Maglione if there was anything further he wished to
• add . Mr . Maglione replied he did not .
2
• The public hearing was then opened .
Mr . Rob MacKenzie of 108 Valley View Road stated he had no
objections to the granting of the appeal of Mr . Maglione .
Mr . King asked Mr . MacKenzie if he owned the property
immediately south of Mr . Maglione ' s property and Mr . MacKenzie
responded that he did .
Mr . William Tucker of 116 Valley View Road , the owner of the
property directly to the north of the property of Mr . Maglione ,
stated he had no objections to the granting of the appeal of Mr .
Maglione .
The public hearing was then closed .
Chairman Aron stated that he had viewed the property of Mr .
Maglione and had seen the deck and the house and he understood
Mr . Maglione had about 99 feet 6 inches of front yard . He asked
Mr . Maglione how long he had owned the property and Mr . Maglione
responded that he had owned the property since 1973 . Chairman
Aron then inquired if Mr . Maglione was aware when he bought the
property that he was short of the front yard requirement and he
responded that he was not . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Maglione
had built the deck himself and was aware that the sideyard was
• not in conformance and Mr . Maglione responded that he had built
the deck himself and did not know at the time that he was in
violation but that he did now and wished for it to be
straightened out .
Photographs were circulated of the subject property to
members of the Board .
Mr . King inquired whether the deck had been built recently
and Mr . Maglione responded that he had built it in 1979 . Mr .
King then asked how far the corner of the deck was from Mr .
Tucker ' s house and Mr . ' Maglione responded he thought it was about
50 to 60 feet . Mr . Tucker thought it was about 60 to 70 feet .
Mr . Frost interjected that the survey map did not clearly
indicate accurately the location of the deck and that if the
property line is 15 feet from the house and the deck is 8 feet 6
inches , then according to his measurements , this would give a
sideyard from the deck to the property line of 6 feet 4 inches .
Mr . King said then there was actually a little more
separation than the survey map showed .
Mr . King moved as follows :
• WHEREAS , this Board has made the following findings :
3
• ( a ) The deck as it exists now has been there for some time
and is a small structure more in the nature of a patio ;
( b ) The deck is at least one foot south of the applicant ' s
north lot line ,
( c ) By testimony of the applicant and his neighbor , Mr .
Tucker who adjoins applicant on the north , it is at least 50
or 60 feet from the deck to Mr . Tucker ' s house ;
( d ) Mr . Tucker has appeared and stated that he is in favor
of the application , and the neighbor to the south , Mr .
MacKenzie , also appeared in favor of the application ;
( e ) No one would be inconvenienced or hurt by the
continuation of this present deck and it poses no problem to
the community but would impose a hardship if the applicant
were required to remove the deck ,
THEREFORE , it is
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance to permit the
deck on the north side of the house to remain in its present
condition and that a certificate of occupancy be issued , and
• it is further
RESOLVED , that this Board grant the necessary side yard
variance to the applicant , such variance to include a lot
width of only 99 . 6 feet instead of 100 feet .
Joan Reuning seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , Aron , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
The second item on the agenda was as follows :
APPEAL of Lee F . and Laurel H . Hodgden , Appellant , from the
decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer denying a building permit for the construction of a
single - family dwelling on a lot which does not have 100 feet
of frontage on a Town road , at 110 Halcyon Hill Road , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 221 Residence District R- 15 .
Permit is denied under Article IV , Section 16 , and Article
XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and
Section 280 - a of Town Law .
• Mrs . Laurel Hodgden addressed the Board . She stated that
4
• she was " being denied the use of her property to build a single
family house . Chairman Aron said that he understood that Mrs .
Hodgden had been before the Planning Board to ask for subdivision
approval and the Planning Board had adopted a resolution .
Chairman Aron read such resolution , a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit 1 .
Mrs . Hodgden explained that they did not realize it would be
desirable to bring neighbors with them to the meeting but that
the person who would be primarily affected by this move was
Professor Jonathan Bishop with whom they shared a driveway .
Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Hodgden to point out on the map that was
attached to her appeal which driveway she was speaking of . Mrs .
Hodgden did so . Chairman Aron asked if there was a right of way
or agreement with Mr . and Mrs . Bishop regarding the sharing of
the driveway and Mrs . Hodgden answered that they each owned half
of it and the division was down the middle . She continued that
she was not certain that there was a written agreement to this
effect but that they had shared this driveway for over twenty
years . Chairman Aron advised that a written agreement should be
obtained to protect future owners of the properties .
Mrs . Hodgden continued that most of the houses in the area
were non - conforming . She stated that when they decided to put a
house in the desired location they had talked to the Town
Engineer and he had suggested that because there were a number of
non conforming lots there that they should ask on the basis of
that precedent .
Chairman Aron inquired about ingress and egress . He stated
that he had visited the premises with the Building Inspector and
had discovered that the hill was very steep and very narrow and
if more houses were added to the area he was concerned about
traffic . Mrs . Hodgden said that she was planning on selling or
renting the house they now occupied to her daughter and son - in -
law and she and her husband would be living in the new house .
She showed on the map where a carport was planned and where
additional parking would be allowed as to the proposed new house
and the existing house . Mrs . Hodgden stated they would prefer
not to widen or change the existing driveway because it would
involve taking out trees .
The public hearing was then opened .
Mrs . Inman , Mrs . Hodgden ' s daughter , stated that if the
driveway was a problem there was another garage with the existing
house on the back driveway so there was access for the existing
house and garage from the lower road as well as from the upper
road .
• The public hearing was then closed .
5
• Photographs of the subject premises were distributed to the
Board members .
Mr . King asked if Mrs . Hodgden was planning on extending the
existing private driveway which now services the Bishop house ,
and the Hodgden house on the north side to the east and adding a
loop in it . Mrs . Hodgden responded that there was already an
existing loop . Mr . King said that the 1963 survey did not show
the existing driveway extended but that it did show the loop or
turnaround just west of the proposed carport . Mr . King said that
the concern of the Board was that there would be adequate access
to the new house from the existing private driveway so that
firetrucks and emergency vehicles could get in . Mr . King
inquired how wide the loop was and Mrs . Hodgden responded that it
was 15 feet wide and made of gravel while the driveway was paved .
Mrs . Hodgden stated that firetrucks do come up there and
they have had firetrucks on both the upper loop and lower loop .
Mrs . Hodgden said that the firetrucks don ' t go around the loop
but back down as the loop is too narrow for the trucks to go
around . Chairman Aron asked who owned the circle and Mrs .
Hodgden responded that she did . Mr . King wondered why the loop
was not expanded so firetrucks could drive around it and Mrs .
Hodgden responded that it would take a great deal of property to
do it and would require cutting down some more trees .
• Mr . King asked the Town Attorneyif there was a statutory
atutory
presumption that a 15 foot right of way would be adequate in the
absence of any evidence that it was not . He said he was speaking
of Town Law 280-a and wondered if the Town had any different rule
requiring any wider private lane than the Town Law suggested .
Attorney Barney responded that he did not think there was a
standard articulated policy on this .
Mr . King pointed out to the Board that one of the conditions
of the Planning Board in granting subdivision approval was
approval by the Town Engineer of the final subdivision map and he
thought that could include the engineer ' s examination and
approval of the private lane as constructed so that he might
require anything reasonable to make it a little more accessible
without destroying any more trees . Mr . King thought this might
also be a condition in granting a variance .
Attorney Barney gave his interpretation of Town Law 280 -�a and
said that he thought the Planning Board felt that the width of
the private lane was sufficient .
Mr . King asked if there were plans to remove an existing
garage now sitting on the northeast corner of the loop and Mrs .
Hodgden said that was correct and that it might possibly widen
• the driveway .
6
• A motion was made by Mr . King as follows :
WHEREAS , no one from the public appeared in opposition to
this appeal , and
WHEREAS , the Planning Board has approved the subdivision
with adequate recommended conditions , and
WHEREAS , no one is or could be immediately affected by this
proposal , and
WHEREAS , reasonable conditions could be imposed to insure
public safety and welfare , particularly in the matter of
fire and emergency protection access , it is therefore
RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance from the
requirement of Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance as to the usual requirement of a 100 foot
minimum width of a lot thus permitting this subdivision so
that a new house can be constructed on the northerly lot
with the existing private lane of no less than fifteen feet
width , provided that this proposal meet the requirements of
Town Law Section 280 - a as to the amount of frontage of this
new lot on the private lane , and further
• RESOLVED , that this variance is subject to the condition
that the Town Engineer receive a final subdivision map
prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer suitable for
filing with the Tompkins County Clerk , and that the Town
Engineer receive a preliminary copy of such map and that he
examine the roadway and site and recommend such changes , if
any , that he might find necessary or could be reasonably
implemented to improve the access and egress for emergency
vehicles , and it is further
RESOLVED , that this variance is subject to the further
condition that before the map is filed and a building permit
issued that the applicant submit the necessary title
documents to the Town Attorney for examination and approval
with regard to the roadway easement being an enforceable
easement running with the land so that the Board can be
assured of its permanency .
Edward Austen seconded the motion .
The voting was as follows :
Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Austen
Nay - None
• The motion was carried .
7
• The last item on the agenda was the following .
APPEAL of Arthur A . Muka , Appellant , from the decision of
the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying
permission for the operation of a gardening equipment sales
and service business at 113 Kay Street and 410 Warren Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 71 - 1 - 48 and 6 - 71 - 1 - 38 ,
respectively , Residence District R- 15 . Permission is denied
under Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph 5 , of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a customary home occupation
is permitted upon condition that no goods or products are
publicly displayed or advertised for sale and that there be
no outside storage . The subject business operation involves
both outside storage and advertising for the sale of
products .
Mr . Arthur Muka was invited to address the Board . Chairman
Aron called attention to the many advertisements generated by Mr .
Muka regarding his business dated through 1979 to the present
time .
Photographs of the subject premises were distributed to the
Board members .
• Mr . Muka explained that the business was part -time and
seasonal and related to roto -tillers used to plow gardens prior
to planting . He continued that the bulk of the activity took
place when people were planting gardens in the Spring , or April ,
May and June , and after that there was little activity until the
next Spring . He stated that it was part - time because he only did
this nights and weekends and the ads did not contain his name or
address but only his telephone number so that nobody would come
to the house while he was working his full -time job but would
call and make an appointment convenient for him . Mr . Muka said
that he bought a roto -tiller himself and became so intrigued by
it that when the company asked him to become a salesman by
showing it to neighbors , etc . he agreed and that was how the
business started - by word of mouth . Chairman Aron inquired why
Mr . Muka needed to advertise if it was by word of mouth and Mr .
Muka responded that word of mouth was not enough to generate
business . Mr . Muka also said that about four years ago Mr .
Cartee , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer at that time , stopped
by his house for a site inspection and his conclusion was that as
far as he could see there was nothing out of line from the point
of view that a low profile was being kept and there was no
advertising in the yard . It was at this time that Mr . Muka
decided he would continue this business in a low key manner
believing he was in compliance with the zoning ordinance based
upon Mr . Cartee ' s approval .
• Mr . Frost reported that the copies of the advertisements had
been submitted by neighbors of Mr . Muka as well as some of the
8
• pictures being viewed by the Board .
Chairman Aron read a letter from Mr . Muka to Mr . Frost dated
June 22 , 1987 , a copy of which letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit 2 .
Chairman Aron then read from a decision made in the case of
Governdale v . Board of Appeals of Brookhaven , regarding use
variances as follows :
"Where a use variance is sought , the applicant must show
practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship .
Unnecessary hardship means 1 ) that the land cannot yield a
reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in
that zones 2 ) that the plight of the owner is due to unique
circumstances and not to the general conditions in the
neighborhood , which may reflect the unreasonableness of the
zoning ordinance itself ; 3 ) that the use to be authorized by
the variance will not alter the essential character of the
locality . "
. . . . .
"A use variance may not be granted merely to ease the
• personal difficulties of the owner . "
Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Muka was employed five days a
week , from 8 to 5 and Mr . Muka responded that was correct .
Chairman Aron asked if this business actually started as a hobby
and Mr . Muka again responded that that was correct . Chairman
Aron reminded Mr . Muka that a home occupation was allowed if the
area occupied by such occupation was no more than 200 feet and
when he had viewed Mr . Muka ' s premises he discovered that much
more than 200 square feet was being used . Chairman Aron also
asked if it would be possible to find a commercial piece of
property to continue this business . Mr . Muka responded that was
not feasible as he was trying to phase out the business .
Chairman Aron read a letter from neighbors W . Dale Brown and
Miriam Be Brown of 114 Kay Street , Ithaca , New York , in
opposition to the appeal of Mr . Muka . A copy of said letter is
attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . He also read a letter from Mr . and
Mrs . R . N . Tobey of 111 Kay Street , also in opposition to the
appeal . A copy of said letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 .
Chairman Aron also reported a telephone call had come in
that day from Mrs . Fogelsanger of 402 Warren Road in opposition
to Mr . Muka ' s appeal . A copy of said telephone message is
attached hereto as Exhibit 5 .
• There were three letters from neighbors either in favor of
his appeal or in favor of the appeal with the condition that he
9
• be given a sufficient time to phase out said business . Chairman
Aron read said letters and they were as follows : letter from
Helen M . Hamilton of 116 Kay Street , a copy of said letter being
attached hereto as Exhibit 6 ; letter from Barth E . Mapes of 120
Kay Street , a copy of said letter being attached hereto as
Exhibit 7 ; letter from Deborah R . Dyk of 410 Warren Road , a copy
of said letter being attached hereto as Exhibit 8 .
Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Muka whether he was registered
with New York State and Mr . Muka responded that he paid sales
taxes and had a number .
Ms . Beeners was called upon to report her findings as to the
environmental assessment and she did so . A copy of said findings
wherein she recommended a conditional negative determination is
attached hereto as Exhibit 9 .
The public hearing was then opened . .
Barbara Park of 414 Warren Road addressed the Board . She
stated that she had lived there approximately five years and had
never been bothered by Mr . Muka ' s business and saw no reason why
he should not be allowed a sufficient time to discontinue the
business . Ms . Park said she had never observed excessive traffic
around Mr . Muka ' s home .
• Steve Muka of 329 Center Street stated he was in favor of
his father receiving some time to liquidate his business since it
took fourteen years to build up such business and only recently
did he realize that there was a problem with his home business as
the zoning officer had informed his father several years ago that
it was alright to operate this business . Mr . Muka stated that
his father had a lot of inventory to dispose of and felt he
should be allowed some time to dispose of it when the season was
right to do so .
The public hearing was then closed .
Mr . Muka was asked how much inventory he now had on hand and
he responded that he had six or seven new machines , a few being
repaired , and probably three that were going to have to be
rebuilt during the winter . He said at this time there was not
much interest in purchasing new machines but there would be next
Spring when people were planning on planting their gardens .
Joan Reuning asked if Mr . Muka was expecting any more
shipments of machines in and he responded he was not .
Chairman Aron thought Mr . Muka was operating a business
similar to that of Agway and Mr . Muka stated that he was only
• dealing with one line , Troy - Bilt , and dealt strictly with roto -
tillers but he had one or two lawn mowers on hand .
10
•
Chairman Aron inquired what the dollar amount of the
inventory on hand was and Mr . Muka responded that it was about
$ 151000 . 00 . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Muka could return the
inventory to the company and Mr . Muka responded that once the
equipment was bought it was not returnable . Chairman Aron asked
if there were other dealers in the area and Mr . Muka responded
there were not but he was searching for a buyer for the business .
Mr . Muka repeated he was asking for time to go into the next
planting season to sell the inventory . Mr . Muka further stated
that the machines were not visible from the street as they were
located behind a hedgerow on his property and the only time the
machines were visible was upon delivery . Mr . Frost concurred
that the garden shed where the machines were stored was quite a
ways off the road and could not be seen . Mr . Frost also stated
that neighbors on Warren Road really would not be affected by any
traffic generated by Mr . Muka ' s business . Mr . Muka said that the
machines were not visible to anyone on Kay Street because of the
hedgerow .
Chairman Aron felt that Mr . Muka had been operating this
business illegally for fourteen years in an area more than 200
square feet and that the Board must uphold the zoning ordinance
and before the Board could consider a variance it must decide
• whether there was practical difficulty that Mr . Muka was
experiencing .
Mr . Barney stated that he had a little difficulty
understanding where the hardship was in this case other than the
fact that Mr . Muka may have been misled by Mr . Cartee . However ,
he did not think it unreasonable to allow Mr . Muka some time to
get his affairs in order .
Mr . King asked for clarification of a conditional negative
declaration .
Mr . Barney clarified that if a conditional negative
declaration of any sort was made by the Board , then it had to
give the public a period of 30 days to give them an opportunity
to comment . He continued that the Board could either make an
outright negative declaration of no environmental significance of
what Mr . Muka was doing but he was not sure the Board was
prepared to make that determination , or the Board could make a
positive declaration of environmental significance in which event
Mr . Muka would be required to produce an environmental impact
statement before continuing with his action . Mr . Barney went on
to state that if the Board made a conditional negative
declaration , ( i . e . there was none if , for instance , there was no
outside storage , the business was phased out , etc . ) , then there
• would have to be a 30 day waiting period to allow the public to
comment , and after that period the Board could make a
11
• determination that the variance should not be granted if that was
the desire of the Board but since it would have a conditional
negative declaration the Board could also add to that a request
that no enforcement proceedings be carried out until July of 1988
or whatever date the Board wished .
Chairman Aron felt that March of 1988 should be sufficient
to allow Mr . Muka to liquidate his inventory and indeed felt that
three months was long enough . Mr . Muka disagreed saying that the
best time was in the Spring to sell his machines when people were
looking forward to gardening . Chairman Aron insisted that the
crux of the matter was not the seasonal timing of selling the
machines but to get rid of the spare parts by advertising and
repeated that March of 1988 should be a reasonable time to get
rid of the spare parts and other inventory . Mr . Muka said that
he was the only authorized salesman of these type of machines
within a 50 mile radius and Chairman Aron said that if he was the
only person selling then he shouldn ' t have much trouble getting
rid of the inventory especially if he was discounting the
merchandise .
Mr . Muka said he would be happy with June of 1988 and Mr .
Frost asked him if he was talking about June 1 or June 30 and Mr .
Muka said he would pick June 15 because everything should be
bought up by then and in March there was no activity . Mr . Frost
• felt that the roto - tillers could be used in April or May and Mr .
Muka said that was true and agreed that May 30 would be
acceptable also .
Mr . King then made a motion as follows :
This Board makes a conditional negative determination of
environmental significance upon the following conditions .
( a ) The operation must be phased out or reduced to levels
within the requirements of R- 15 home occupation by no later
than June 15 , 1988 and preferably before if at all possible .
( b ) There will be no outside storage or display of any
merchandise during this period .
( c ) No new merchandise shall be brought onto the property
in the meantime .
( d ) The building inspector will observe and monitor the
operation .
( e ) The notice of conditional negative declaration be
published in the Ithaca Journal .
• Edward Austen seconded the motion .
12
• The voting was as follows :
Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King
Nay - None
The motion was carried .
Ms . Beeners asked the Chairman if he was directing the Town
Planner to have the notice of conditional negative declaration
published in a local newspaper or just in the regular channels
such as the Department of Environmental Conservation , Chairman
Aron stated that the public would not be advised this way and Ms .
Beeners stated that that was all that was required of them to do
but thought that it should be published in the Ithaca Journal so
that the public would be made aware . Chairman Aron and the rest
of the Board concurred . Mr . King stated that he would like this
added as a condition to his motion and the Board again concurred .
The Muka matter was adjourned for a decision until the
October 14 , 1987 meeting .
There being no further business to come before the Board ,
the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 00 p . m .
;eeaetrice
espectfully submitted ,
rC
Lincoln
Recording Secretary
APPROVED :
Henry Aron , Chairman
Exhibits 1 through 9 attached
•
Lee F . & Laurel H . Hodgden Two- Lot Subdivision - 1 -
110 Halcyon Hill Road
Planning Board , August 4 , 1987
•
ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Lee F . & Laurel H . Hodgden Two -Lot Subdivision
110 Halcyon Hill Road
Planning Board , August 4 , 1987
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . Robert Renerson :
WHEREAS. :
1 . --.This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
- proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 22 ,
located at 110 Halcyon Hill Road , into two lots .
2 . This is a Type II Action for which no further environmental
review is necessary . The appeal to the Building Inspector and
the Zoning Board of Appeals which is related to this action is
also a Type II action for which no further environmental review
is necessary . The Tompkins County Department of Planning is
being notified in regard to the appeal , pursuant to N . Y . S .
• General Municipal Law Section 239 -m ,
3 . The Planning Board , at a Public Hearing on August 4 , 1987 , has
reviewed the following material :
Survey Map amended as " Lot 66 - 3 - 221F Property of Lee F . and
Laurel Hodgden ( Formerly Lucy W . Curtis Estate ) " .
Site Plan with 5 - foot contours entitled " Prof . Lee F .
Hodgden and Dr . Laurel H . Hodgden , Lot 66 - 3 - 22 , Town of.
. Ithaca " .
Letter , " Notes Accompanying Appeal to the Building Inspector
and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca ,
New York " .
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
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose 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 subdivision as herein
• proposed , with the following conditions :
a . The granting of an appeal for variance from the requirements
of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Exhibit 1
r . Lee F . & Laurel H . Hodgden Two- Lot Subdivision - 2 -
110 Halcyon Hill Road
Planning Board , August 4 , 1987
•
Ordinance ( frontage requirement ) , and from the requirements
of N . Y . S . Town Law Section 280 - a , by the Zoning Board of
Appeals , and an interpretation. by that Board of the proposed .
side yard location .
b . 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 ..
c . The approval of any necessary easements in regard to access
and utilities by the Town Attorney .
Aye - May , Baker, Grigorov , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson .
Nay - None .
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Nancy Fuller , Secretary ,
Town o Ithaca Planning . Board ,
August 7 , 1987 .
•
113 Kay Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
22 June 1987
Mr . Andrew S . Frost
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Mr . Frost ;
This letter is in response to my phone call to
you on 6 / 18 / 87 during which we discussed your letter
of 5 / 27 / 87 . As I indicated to you , . a reinspection
date of 6 / 30 / 87 is impossible .
For your information , your predecessor was . aware
of my enterprise . About four years ago he joined me
for an on - site inspection and determined that he as
zoning officer had no objection to a continuation of
my operation .
This part - time home enterprise has been built up
over the last 14 years . I have because of the nature
• of the neighborhood kept a low profile . No signs
have ever been used on the premises . All contacts .
are by telephone and by appointment . The enterprise
is seasonal so has a low level of activity during; at
least six months of the year . I have built up a repu -
tation with my clients and have an inventory of parts
and equipment .
I would like to request a use variance . I will
be on a business trip until 7 / 1 / 87 . When I return I
will contact you to discuss this further .
I request that this information be kept as privi -
ledged and confidential .
Respectfully yours ,
VVVI
Arthur A . Muka
•
Exhibit 2
• 114 Kay Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
August 10 , 1987
To : Andrew S . Frost
Zoning Enforcement Officer , Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
Re : Arthur A . Muka , Appellant
Dear Mr . Frost :
Thank you for the notification re the public hearing on the Muka re -
quest , received by us August 8 . Inasmuch as we will be unable to be
present at this meeting on Wednesday , August 1 .21 we are setting forth
in this letter our strong feelings relative to the appeal of Arthur
Muka of your decision to 'deny permission for the continued operation
of his gardening equipment sales and service business at 113 Kay
Street and at 410 Warren Road .
It has been most disturbing to us that the authorities have let this
business exist for several years in an area zoned as residential . The
enclosed sampling of advertisements and snapshots , together with a business
card which is available for the taking to customers in two businesses
that we know of , lends support to our recommendation that the zoning
• board of appeals deny Mr . Muka permission for continuing his garden -
ing equipment sales and service business .
Needless to say , such a business has generated a considerable amount
of heavy traffic on Kay Street - much more than would normally be ex -
pected on a deadend residential street . With the resurfacing of Kay
Street about to take place , we feel that the business should be
phased out entirely within a very short time .
Sincerely ,
W . Dale Brown
Miriam B . Brown
•
Exhibit 3
•
August 10 , 1987
To : Henry Aron , Chairman
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
Re : Sales & Service Operations at 113 Kay Street
We are opposed to the continuation of this operation
in this area which is not zoned for business .
Further , it brings additional traffic into the neighbor-
hood , particularly on weekends , and the additional traffic
plus the large trucks used to deliver the merchandise to
the house at 113 Kay Street have caused much erosion to
• the street . Until recently , the driveway was used to
hold many cartons containing merchandise to be sold .
We have been exposed to this problem for several years
even though attempts were made at various times to put
a stop to it . Our complaints went unheeded .
We sincerely hope that this service , or any other
service , will be curtailed in this area as soon as
possible , and return it to a private neighborhood as
it was meant to be .
Mr . & Mrs . R . N . Tobey
111 Kay Street
1W
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
•
Exhibit 4
I
I I ,
i /
i !
I
If
j
j . . . .. i / . , 'Leo .
I i I I I
I t J
�.-�-
/A
ol
I I
I
I
I '
I
I 1
I ,
J
0
d
( I
i t BLACK AND Y(HIIE PRINTS BLUE LINE PRINTS • BLUE PRI TS io PHOTO TAXING AND JU y ' PHOTOSTAT( . BINDERY _
I ( OFFSET PRINTING AR f15T5 SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS DIETZGEN SUPP41E5 AND MATERIALS � LUFNIN TAPES AND RULES
Exhibit 5 . .
sl 77
woe
Exhibit 6 .
TO : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
126 E Seneca Street
Ithaca NY 14850
i
FROM : Barth E . Mapes ]
120 Kay Street
Ithaca . NY 14 50
Arthur Muka has built up his business over quite a few years . He now
realizes it does not fit a residential area . I would agree to a zoning variance
of one year in order for him to completely remove this business from the Kay
Street - Hanshaw Road area.
8 / 12 /87
•
Exhibit 7
August 10 , 1987
To : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
From : Deborah Dyk , 410 Warren Road , Ithaca , NY
Subject : Zoning Variance for Mr . Muka
I am a resident of the house at 410 Warren Road .
The house is situated on a heavily wooded lot which
is 300 + feet deep_ . While I am aware that Mr . Muka
does seasonal / part time work on small garden roto -
tillers , his operation has in no way bothered me .
Since his building is more than 300 feet from Warren
Road I neither see or hear any activity .
I understand that he plans for various reasons
• to cease his operation , and because it is seasonal he
is requesting a tempory zoning variance . I feel it
is only fair to grant his request .
Exhibit 8
J
PART II - Environmental Assessment - Muka Appeal
A . Action is Unlisted .
Be Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins Co .
Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 -m . )
C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising
from the following :
Cl . Existing air quality , surface - or groundwater quality or
quantity , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste
production or disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or
flooding problems ?
There may be localized adverse impacts to noise levels from
the operation and repair of garden equipment , and to traffic
patterns .on a residential cul - de - sac from customer traffic and
delivery trucks , if the operation were to continue at the present
scale . The requested continuance of the operation until stock
can be liquidated should be limited to a reasonable timeframe to
mitigate these localized impacts , and should include at least the
prohibition of outdoor storage during that time .
C2 . Aesthetic , agricultural , archeological , historic , or
other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood
character ?
The business currently exceeds the use levels permitted
under R- 15 zoning for a home occupation with respect to outdoor
storage , advertising , and possibly indoor storage and business
operation . The business may thus have an adverse impact on the
character of this R- 15 neighborhood .
C3 . Vegetation or fauna , fish , shellfish or wildlife
species , significant habitats , or threatened or endangered
species ?
No significant species or habitats are known 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 ?
As described in C2 , the business exceeds the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance with respect to home occupations , and there
may be an adverse impact to community plans and goals as
officially adopted in Article IV , Section 12 . 5 of the Zoning
Ordinance . The intensity of land use related to the business
operation is not , in the reviewer ' s opinion , an intensity that
was intended for this area .
C5 . Growth , subsequent_ development , or related activities
likely to be induced by the proposed action ?
The granting of variances to permit the continuance of the
business operation at its present level may lead to similar
requests for business operations in residential neighborhoods
that exceed zoning requirements .
Exhibit .
r;
ti
• C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not
identified in Cl - 05 ?
As above .
C7 . Other impacts ( including changes in use of either
quantity or type of energy ) ?
Not expected .
D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to
potential adverse environmental impacts ?
There have allegedly been complaints from area residents
regarding impacts to noise levels , traffic , and related to
outdoor storage . There may be public controversy related to the
current appeal .
PART III
While an adverse impact is expected to community plans and
goals as officially adopted in Article IV , Section 12 , Paragraph
5 of the Zoning Ordinance , where criteria for home occupation
activity are defined , including localized adverse impacts related
to noise , traffic , and outdoor storage , based on the proposed
phasing out of the business through liquidation , a conditional
negative determination of environmental significance is
• recommended , with the following conditions :
a . The operation should be phased out , or reduced to
levels within the requirements of R- 15 home occupation by either
the end of 1987 or by the end of July , 1988 , or by a time to be
determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals at Public Hearing .
b . There should be no outdoor storage during this time .
Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
Reviewer : "Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner
Review Date : August 6 , 1987
•