Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1987-09-09 TOWN OF ITHACA Date 8 • TOWN OF ITHACA Clem ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 9 , 1987 A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on September 9 , 1987 in the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Jack Hewett , Edward Austen , Edward King , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Nelson E . Roth , and Town Attorney John C . Barney , ALSO PRESENT : Vida Caslick , Dallas Reynolds , Chris Newhart , Lese Bronfenbrenner , Urie Bronfenbrenner . 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 . Photographs of the subject properties were passed around for • the Board to review . The first item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : APPEAL of Richard and Vida Caslick , Appellants , from the decision of the Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a Building Permit for the construction of a room addition at the rear ( west side ) of an existing single - family dwelling , creating a rear yard depth of 13 feet , at 108 Christopher Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 71 - 2 - 6 , Residence District R - 15 . Permit is denied under Article IV , Section 14 , and Article XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby a rear yard may be no less than 30 feet in depth . A 9 - foot rear yard depth deficiency presently exists at the subject property , such rear yard depth presently being 21 feet . Mrs . Vida Caslick addressed the Board . She explained that her husband was a disabled person and therefore spending most of his time in bed . She continued that the existing floor plan of the house was impossible to live with and the eight foot addition she desired would allow her husband to exit from the bedroom to the outdoors and also to a bathroom she wished to add . Mrs . Caslick said this would allow her husband more privacy , since he was in his nightclothes all of the time , by allowing him to pass to the outdoors or bathroom without going through the living room of the house . She presented a sketch to the Board showing the floor plans and elaborated on such plans . Mrs . Caslick explained • 2 that by removing certain windows and replacing them with doors and creating a hallway this would allow Mr . Caslick egress to the outdoors and bathroom without being seen by anyone in the living room at the time . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Caslick was completely disabled and Mrs . Caslick responded that he was and presented a note from Drs . Rothenberg , Ferger and Baurle , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . Chairman Aron also read a note from Anita M . and James K . Estates of 110 Christopher Circle claiming no objection to the proposed room addition by the Caslicks . A copy of such note is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 . Mr . King inquired if the addition would be to the westerly side of the house which was the back yard , and Mrs . Caslick responded that was correct . He asked if Mr . and Mrs . Estes ' property was immediately adjacent to her property on the west side and she responded that was correct . The public hearing was then opened . No one appeared and the public hearing was closed . • Joan Reuning questioned the discrepancy on the map the Board had which showed the rear yard depth as being 20 feet and the appeal mentioning that it was 21 feet . Mr . Frost clarified that he thought that when the house was built it was not built according to the plot plan as originally shown . He stated that when he measured the rear yard depth it was 21 feet and there was an existing deck which was also encroaching in the rear yard deficiency . Mr . Frost said that the deck encroachment should be part of the appeal since the deficiency was present . Mr . King asked if the deck would be removed when the new addition was added and Mrs . Caslick responded it would not be . Mr . King asked how far westerly the addition would extend and Mrs . Caslick responded it would be eight feet but it would be flush with the deck . Mr . Austen questioned the necessity for the addition and Mrs . Caslick stated that the addition would allow her husband access to the outdoors , the kitchen and the new bathroom without going through the living room , thus allowing more privacy to her as well as to her husband . Mrs . Caslick said that the new bathroom would be nice but not necessary and Chairman Aron inquired if she was going to put the bathroom in now or add it on later and come before the Board again . Mrs . Caslick said that if • she had permission she would have her contractor , Mr . Reynolds , install the bathroom now . Mr . Frost stated at this time that the building permit • 3 application which he denied was only for a room addition . There was some discussion but it did not include a bathroom . Chairman Aron said to Mrs . Caslick that any time she put in a bathroom she had to see Mr . Frost . Chairman Aron inquired how long ago the deck had been placed there and she responded it was 10 years ago and had been done by a contractor from Trumansburg . Chairman Aron asked if she knew she needed a building permit and Mrs . Caslick said she assumed the contractor had one . Chairman Aron stated that the responsibility of obtaining a building permit was the owner ' s . Mrs . Caslick stated that she was trying to do things the proper way now and that Mr . Reynolds was very efficient and the addition would enhance the property . A motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows : WHEREAS , no neighbors were present to oppose this appeal and the one neighbor most directly affected wrote in favor of granting the appeals and WHEREAS , the physical condition of Mr . Caslick creates a practical difficulty in the way the house is currently • constructed ; it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance to Mr . and Mrs . Caslick to allow them to construct an addition to their property with dimensions as indicated in the drawing thus making a rear yard deficiency of 17 feet ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the deck is included with this variance . Edward King seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Austen , Hewett Nay - None The motion was carried . Edward King made a motion as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board grant a further variance to the Caslicks to validate the location of the house as built prior to this addition , there appearing to be a nine or ten foot basic deficiency in the rear yard , with the practical difficulty that the house was constructed that way and it . would be difficult to move the house at this time . Jack Hewett seconded the motion . • 4 The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Aron , King , Hewett , Austen Nay - None The motion was carried . The second item on the agenda for consideration was as follows : APPEAL of Mark R . and Judith D . Ashton , Appellants , from the decision of the . Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer denying a building permit for the construction of additions to an existing legal non - conforming single - family dwelling at 105 McIntyre Place , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 6 - 2 , Residence District R - 15 . Permit is denied under Article XII , Section 54 , and Article XIV , Section 75 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , whereby authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals is required for extension of a non - conforming building . The existing house occupies 26 . 7 % of the lot and , with the proposed additions , would occupy 27 . 3 % of said lot . The existing rear yard depth is approximately 6 feet and the existing west side • yard setback is approximately 7 feet . The proposed additions would not further encroach on the property line setbacks . Chairman Aron read from the appeal of Mr . and Mrs . Ashton as follows : ' Authorization for non - conforming construction is requested in order to create an eating area open to the kitchen that is large enough for our family of 6 . To do this will require relocating a bathroom that is currently in the southwest corner of the house . The only practicable place to relocate it sothat it functions best and looks best in the house is the southeast corner of the older wing . In order to move the bath to that position , it will be necessary to project about half the room outside the rear exterior wall . This will fill in an inside corner where the wings of the house meet ( see diagram ) . Since opening up of the eating area will eliminate current storage space , we would also like to enlarge the back porch area to fill in the corner made by the house and the current porch . Re . Art . IV , sec . 14 : Structure currently violates rear • and side yard restrictions . New bathroom construction will push a maximum of 6 feet of rear wall of older wing back to line up with rear of new wing ; new porch - area construction will fill in a blank corner of 4 . 5 feet square at the 5 southwest . None of these changes brings the house closer to property lines than it currently is . Re : Art . IV , sec . 15 : House currently occupies 26 . 7 % of lot . With additions , it will cover 27 . 3 % . " Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Ashton had anything further to add and Mr . Ashton responded that it was pretty well covered . Chairman Aron referred to a drawing made by Mr . Ashton showing where the additions were desired as well as to a survey map . Mr . Ashton stated that he had spoken with everyone in the neighborhood and no one was against his proposal . The public hearing was then opened . Mr . Urie Bronfenbrenner and Mrs . Lese Bronfenbrenner , both of 108 McIntyre Place , Ithaca , New York , both spoke in favor of the Ashton appeal . The public hearing was then closed . A motion was made by Edward King as follows : • WHEREAS , the proposed two additions to the applicants ' property are minor in scope , one being a small extension 4 - 1 / 2 feet wide by 4 - 1 / 2 feet long at the southwest corner of the house , and the other addition being only 3 - 1 / 2 feet by 6 feet at the southeasterly corner of the main body of the original house , and WHEREAS , neither of these additions would impact adversely on the neighbors due to the contour of the land ; and WHEREAS , the additions would be in keeping with the structures found generally in the Forest Home community where the lots are abnormally small to begin with , and WHEREAS , no one appeared in opposition to this appeal and in fact the neighbors across the street appeared in support of this appeal , it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board grant a variance to permit the two additions to the house as designated on the sketch plan ; and it is further RESOLVED , that a variance be granted regarding the coverage of the lot to be increased from its present 26 . 7 % of lot coverage to 27 . 3 % of lot coverage , and it is further • RESOLVED , that a variance be granted permitting the rear yard south of the southeasterly corner extension to be 2 - 1 / 2 feet , and permitting the westerly side yard at the 6 southernmost extension to be within 5 feet of the westerly lot line . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Hewett , Austen Nay - None The motion was carried . The last item on the agenda was the findings in the Randolph F . Brown appeal decided on June 24 , 1987 . After discussion by the Board a motion was made by Edward King as to the adoption of such findings , a copy of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 3 . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , King , Austen , Hewett , Reuning Nay - None • The motion was carried . There being no further business to come before the Board , the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary Approved . Henry Aron , Chairman Exhibits 1 through 3 attached • JOHN FERGER , M . D . WALTER BAURLE. M . D. DEA No. DEA No. AF 0523096 MMIS No. 00451107 MMIS No.. 0 0 0046654765476 JOSEPH G . ROTHENBERG, M . D. DEA No AR 1759440 MMIS No. 00451116 5 EVERGREEN ST. O OURS 7) 644.8181 TMEN' DRYDEN, N. Y. 13053 OFFICE r � {\ NAME AGE ADDRESS DATE I D r. / "IRIS PRESCRIP11011 WILL BE FILLED GENERTM UNLESS PRESCRIBER WR10 'a a wIN TRE BOX BELOW' DISPENSE AS WRITTEN REFILL TIMES MDD 1 Exhibit 1 1 aw Exhibit 2 • FINDINGS ON APPEAL OF RANDOLPH F . BROWN DECIDED JUNE 24 , 1987 WHEREAS , this Board of Appeals ruled on an appeal of Marie Louise Brown , Appellant , Randolph F . Brown , Agent , on June 24 , 1987 ; and WHEREAS , the Board made implicit findings in conjunction with deciding that appeal but neglected to express those findings in its formal resolution granting the appeals and WHEREAS , the Board now wishes to articulate those findings and confirm its prior decision , it is RESOLVED , that this Board confirm the following findings made in connection with the above - mentioned appeal on June 24 , 1987 : 1 . The construction of the proposed inflatable plastic greenhouse as shown on the site plan submitted to this Board , provided that the traffic and parking arrangements are completed in accordance with the site plan and in accordance with New York State Department of Transportation requirements as expressed to this Board promotes the health , • safety , morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance . 2 . The greenhouse , being an agricultural use on property that has been dedicated to the use of agriculture since before the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance is reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and such use will continue to fill a neighborhood and community need for the provision of fresh garden produce . 3 . The proposed greenhouse and the location and design of the structure is consistent with ' the character of the district and area in which it is located . 4 . The proposed greenhouse is , in essence , a replacement for a barn that was destroyed by fire , the greenhouse to be sited further north on applicant ' s property than was his original barn - and hence , further away from the barn on the property of Mr . and Mrs . Bower to the south ; and the proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . 5 . The applicant has made , with assistance from the • Department of Transportation of the State of New York , adequate plans for traffic and for parking so that the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses has Exhibit 3 JI . • • • been safely designed . 6 . The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load upon Route 96 ( a heavily trafficked road that will see no significant increase in traffic as a result of this project ) and load upon water and sewage systems ( the proposal will not require any additional water and sewage systems except on those already existing on the property ) is not detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare of the community . 7 . The construction of said greenhouse in the proposed location is a minimal extension of a non - conforming use given the fact that it is largely a replacement for a barn that was previously destroyed by fire ; and it is further RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby confirms the granting to the applicant of approval for the erection of the proposed inflatable plastic greenhouse 30 feet by 75 feet , in the location shown on the site plan , conditioned upon his also completing the erection of the planters in a semi - circle around the easterly side of the road stand , and his putting up suitable signs directing traffic in and out of the parking area behind the stand , all as shown on the site plan . Approved and filed this 9th day of Se ember , 1987 Henry Aron , Chairman Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals J2c.�c_.� itL.e Beatrice Liricoln Recording Secretary r