Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-01-13 TOWN OF ITHACA MW • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN Of ITHACA January 13 , 1988 Date Ad Clerk A regular meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was held on January 13 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Joan Reuning , Edward Austen , Edward King , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Town Planner Susan Beeners , Town Attorney John C . Barney ALSO PRESENT . Ed Dellert , Milt vonHahmann , Louise vonHahmann , Joseph 0 . Ciaschi , Robert Bartholf , Les Reizes , Peggy Reizes , Larry O ' Neil , James Mayer . The public meeting opened at 7 : 20 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 : ADJOURNED APPEAL of Leslie N . and Margaret B . Reizes , Appellants , with respect to a request for authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals , pursuant to Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to extend an existing non - conforming residence structure at 1061 Taughannock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 21 - 2 - 13 , Residence District R - 15 . The existing residence is located approximately ten feet from the south side yard lot line ; a room addition proposed for the north side of said residence would create a north side yard of approximately two feet . Chairman Aron stated that the Board had heard discussions on this appeal at the last meeting and had adjourned because the Board wanted to have more information as to the survey maps which had not been available to the Board . He further stated that this property had been in discussion before the Board numerous times , the property having originally belonged to the Mintz family . Chairman Aron inquired of Mr . Reizes if that was correct and Mr . Reizes responded that originally it had belonged to Pritchlow . At this point , Attorney Barney interrupted stating he wanted to make a clarification for the record . Attorney Barney said that he noticed a young lady present at the meeting who was • � 2 transcribing the proceedings and he was not sure whether the Zoning Board of Appeals had hired her for that purpose . Chairman Aron said that that was a point well taken . Attorney Barney inquired of Mr . Reines if she was there at his request and Mr . Reizes responded that she was . Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Reizes was free to transcribe anything he wanted but Attorney Barney wanted to make it absolutely clear for the record that the official record of the proceedings would not be what the young lady ( brought by Mr . Reizes ) took down but rather that the official record would be in the minutes of the Board as finally approved by the Board at a subsequent time . Attorney Barney inquired of Mr . Reize "s whether they understood each other and Mr . Reizes stated that he understood that was Attorney Barney ' s position . ChairmanAron interjected that it was not the Town Attorney ' s position but the position of the Town . Chairman Aron then read an excerpt from the minutes of the last meeting wherein Mr . King had stated that the " survey showed the property at 1061 Taughannock Boulevard under construction and the earlier Dougherty survey showed no houses under construction so the Board did not have any survey site plan showing the location of the structures . " Chairman Aron said that he understood Mr . Reizes , had a survey map now and asked him to come forward and explain to the Board the location of his property . • Mr . Leslie N . Reizes addressed the Board . He said that he had tried to reproduce copies of the survey map - for the convenience of the `Board but they had not reproduced well . Therefore , he placed one full size copy of the survey map on the table before the Board members , and tacked one full size copy on the poster board . Mr . King noted that the map in question was a survey map by T . G . Miller , dated September 29 , 1980 , ( which the Board had seen before ) , and amended as of September 28 , 1987 . Mr . Reizes pointed out to the Board that since the last meeting he met again with Libby Leonard , the neighbor to the north . He continued that the survey showed that if the proposed addition were built it would come within about two feet of the north property line as set forth on the plot plan which was formerly furnished to the Board at the last meeting . Mr . Reizes stated that Mrs . Leonard had agreed that the proposed addition was within the lot line and there was no dispute at this point as to the lot line to the north with respect to where this addition was going to be built if approved by the Board . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Reizes to point out on the map exactly where the addition was going to „ be . Mr . Reizes marked on the map showing the north boundary line , and pointed out where the Leonard house , the Friedlander house ,, and his house were , and stated that the • deck on his house came to approximately two feet of the boundary line . He continued that the addition at the closest distance to the boundary line would be two feet plus or minus . Mr . Reizes said that the stake ' shown in one of the photographs showed the distance to be about ', four feet but they had applied for a two foot variance since the closest the addition would be at any point along the proposed construction would be two feet because the building was not exactly parallel to the lot line , so that while it might be four feet from the stake that was shown , at the closest extreme to the line which is westerly it might be two feet . He added that it might not even be that close . Mr . Reizes continued that his lot was 50 feet , the property to the north was 50 feet , the next property to the north was 50 feet as were many of the other properties to the south . Mr . Reizes continued that his property was out of sight distance from the Leonard house which is towards the lake over the bank . He stated that the proposed addition would be out of sight from the Friedlander house to the south because of the angle and the slope . He repeated that his lot was 50 feet wide and in order to use such a lot for a reasonable modern residence it was impossible to build al: house with 15 foot setbacks on each side as that would leave you with a 20 foot wide house . Mr . Reizes stated that the house was originally built as a cottage but was now a full - time residence and in order to expand it to be used as a full - time residence they would have practical difficulty in • expanding to the west because of the very steep gully , to the east towards the lake there are decks already built , and to the south there are decks , and it is already close to the lot line from the south so the only reasonably practical solution is to expand to the north . Mr . Reizes stated that Mrs . Leonard had some questions about the lot line and he had gone over them with her before the last meeting and again before this meeting , and Mrs . Leonard had withdrawn her objections and had written a letter to the Board to that effect . He continued that the Friedlanders to the south had written a letter in support of the application . Mr . Reizes said that therewas a question at the last meeting as to the character of the neighborhood and how this proposed addition would fit in and with respect to that he had done some research . He found by reviewing the tax map that there were 76 parcels of land between the Town of Ulysses line on the north and the City line on the south that lie between Taughannock Boulevard and the lake . Out of those 76 parcels , he said , 56 of them do not conform to the current requirements of the zoning ordinance , because either they were two narrow or the properties were too close to the lot line . He continued that many of them are on the line or over the line or over the highway right of way towards the west . Mr . Reizes referred to a submission he had made of these properties , a copy of which document is attached • hereto as Exhibit 1 . Mr . Reizes did not feel that the proposed addition to his property would be out of character with the 4 neighborhood which is a cramped neighborhood with narrow lots . He said that there was only one lot which could be considered normal size and that was the Barr property . Chairman Aron then read two letters referred to by Mr . Reizes , the first from Libby Leonard , a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 , and the second from Kay E . and Alan J . Friedlander , attached , hereto as Exhibit 3 . The public hearing was opened . No one from the public appeared to speak for or against the appeal . The public hearing was closed . Chairman Aron stated that in order to grant a variance hardship had to be proven and the Board had a responsibility to determine whether the criteria submitted by Mr . Reizes was sufficient enough to ,, grant this variance . He continued that Mr . Reizes had purchased the house originally as a summer residence and had apparently found it quite comfortable for the summertime but now that he was living there during the winter months he found it , unsuitable without another dining room . Chairman Aron stated he could not understand why the summer would be different than the '' winter as to living conditions . Mr . Reizes responded that when they were living there during the summer they • had a permanent home in Athens , Pennsylvania and used the property on Taughannock Boulevard on weekends and - extended weekends . Mr . Reizes continued that in the summer it, was much easier to entertain outside because of the decks and the outdoor area . Mr . Reizes stated that his wife had a large family in the area and when they visited in the summer months they were easily accommodated outside on the decks but in the wintertime to have anyone over it was crowded . He stated that there is a woodstove in the small area that is part of the living room and used as a dining room Mr . Reizes said that in fact they had to go over to his sister- in - law ' s house at Thanksgiving because there was not room to have the family over at their house . For this reason , Mr . Reizes stated , ' t is much different using the house as a summer retreat as opposed to a full - time residence . Chairman Aronasked Mr . Reizes if he considered entertainment a hardship and Mr . Reizes responded that he felt you should at least be able to have your family over for dinner with reasonable comfort and if the dining area is too small then that is a hardship . ' By entertainment , he continued , he was including having the 'family over for dinner . He stated that his wife ' s parents live in Ithaca , her sister and her husband live in Ithaca and it is a hardship not to be able to have them over for meals . Mr . Reizes stated that by entertainment he did not mean having fifty people over for a party . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Reizes commuted daily and Mr . Reizes responded that ' he had an office in Ithaca and an office in • 5 Waverly . Mr . Reizessaid that he was in Waverly approximately four days a week and in Ithaca one day . He continued that they had sold their home in Athens , Pennsylvania , and are now living in Ithaca full - time . Chairman Aron referred to the document submitted by Mr . Reizes ( attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ) wherein some properties were listed as deficient . Mr . Reizes said he did not mean to say they were illegal uses . Chairman Aron said they were non - conforming uses and '; they have not been extended but had been built prior to the ordinance being effective . Chairman Aron said this document had no `bearing on the case before the Board as Mr . Reizes was attempting to add on to an already non - conforming use and the properties in the document were not trying to do that . Mr . Reizes said what he meant to show by the document was that the expansion of the . iuse within two feet of the lot line is in character with the neighborhood and that is one of the criteria that the Board was to employ in deciding whether to grant a variance . He continued that in addition the Chairman mentioned that they had to prove hardship and it was his belief that they could show hardship or practical difficulties . He thought they could show both and stated that the purpose of the document attached as Exhibit 1 was not to say that the neighbors had violated the zoning ordinance but only to show that in the area , 56 out of 76 properties are either too narrow or the buildings are closer than the current zoning ordinance would permit , and in view of this , then his type of expansion was not out of character with the neighborhood . Joan Reuning corrected Mr . Reizes by stating that the number was 50 and not 56 , according to his figures on Exhibit 1 . Edward King asked what the habitable area of the house was and it was determined that it was approximately 2300 square feet on two levels . Mr . King then asked Mr . Reizes if he wanted to add another 336 square feet and Mr . Reizes responded that was correct . Mr . King asked what the area of the decks on the north , south and east and Mr . Reizes responded it was a wrap - around deck approximately 500 to 700 square feet . Mr . King said that the 1980 survey by Mr . Miller indicated that the deck extended to approximately 10 feet from the north line and the present survey shows that that it was within one or two feet . Mr . Reizes said that a piece of that had since been taken off to make room for the proposed addition . Mr . King then asked Mr . Reizes why it would be difficult to expand to the west and Mr . Reizes responded that there was a very deep depression there , a gulley , and also that to place a dining room in this location would be impractical because it would be away from the kitchen on the other side of the house and the area they proposed to build the dining room in would be more convenient . Chairman Aron questioned Mr . Reizes about the depression on i6 the west , the street side , and it was determined that there was a hillside there . A photograph was viewed wherein it showed the foundation laid for the proposed new addition . Chairman Aron questioned Mr . Reizes about laying the block ahead of time before getting a variance and Mr . Reizes responded by saying that he had the block laid in the hope that he would get a variance before the winter set in and he understood from the Building Inspector that if he did not get a variance he could use it as a patio . Mr . Frost stated that Mr . Reizes had informed him of his plans to lay the foundation now , but that Mr . Reizes had proceeded at his own risk as there was no discussion of using this area as a patio . Mr . Frost inquired if Mr . Reizes had constructed the decks and Mr . Reizes responded he had not . He continued that in 1983 when Mr . Mintz was before the Board and they were denied a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling there was a six foot six inch sideyard which was contrary to a variance that was granted in 1981 of eleven foot. Mr . Frost continued that now they were seeing a deck that was in fact one or two feet away from the boundary line so it seemed that either the line was moving or the house was moving . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Reizes was related in any way professionally to Mr . Friedlander and Mr . Reizes responded he was , that they were partners in the practice of law . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Friedlander was the same one who wrote the letter in support of his application and Mr . Reizes responded he was . Attorney Barney asked if Exhibit 1 represented every tax parcel between the Town of Ulysses line and the City line and Mr . Reizes said it did not but represented only those where there was a deficiency . Attorney Barney asked of those deficiencies did Mr . Reizes notice how many of them involved a deficiency of two feet or less relative to the lot line and Mr . Reizes responded he had not , that he had not obtained all of the surveys , that twenty or so were missing , and of those some might or might not be deficient . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Reizes had made any attempt to determine whether those lots that were deficient were authorized by variance or were there before the zoning ordinance and Mr . Reizes said he had not . Mr . Reizes repeated that what he was trying to point out was that a two foot variance off the lot line was not out of character for the area . Attorney Barney said he wanted to make it clear for the record that Mr . Reizes was not contending in any fashion that there had been variances granted in the past and therefore Mr . Reizes thought he was entitled to a variance now because of the • way the other houses were situated , and Mr . Reizes said he understood this . • 7 Mr . King inquired if the addition would be one or two story and Mr . Reizes responded it would be two story . Mr . King stated that this would then increase the total habitable space to almost 3 , 000 square feet plus 500 to 700 square feet of deck space . Mr . King quoted from a letter to the Board from Mr . Reizes wherein Mr . Reizes stated " The use of the narrow lot is permitted under Section 57 of the Zoning Ordinance because the lot has existed prior to passage of the ordinance . " He went on to say that Section 57 states that " Other provisions of this ordinance notwithstanding , nothing shall prohibit the use for a single family dwelling of a lot of deed record at the time of the passage of this ordinance , as amended . . . " Mr . King asked how long Mr . Reizes ' s lot had been 50 feet wide and Mr . Reizes responded that he thought it was well before the zoning ordinance was enacted . He continued that Libby Leonard ' s lot was 50 feet wide , the one next to Leonard was 50 feet wide , and the property next north to that was 50 feet wide . Mr . King went on to read from Section 57 " . . . provided that all other provisions of this ordinance are complied with . " Chairman Aron said that he had a problem with Section 77 , • paragraph 6 where it states " Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of this ordinance . . . " Chairman Aron said his problem was with " unnecessary hardship . " He continued that in his opinion Mr . Reizes had not proven to him personally where his unnecessary hardship was . Chairman Aron stated that without the addition Mr . Reizes ' s house was approximately 2300 square feet and that at the first meeting Mr . Reizes had stated that there were only two people in his family . Mr . Reizes stated that was not correct , that there were three in his family , he , his wife , and their child . Chairman Aron said that still did not prove where the unneccesary hardship was . Mr . Reizes said that in Ithaca in 1988 with the properties available , it would be a hardship not to be able to use the property that he already had with a usable dining area . He stated that the competing interests here would be the lot line setback from the north and he thought he had shown this would not interfere with the use to the north since the house to the north is way out of sight and the same with the house to the south . Mr . Reizes also subm 'fted to the Board that unnecessary hardship was alsojoined with the phrase " or practical difficulties . Chairman Aron said Mr . Reizes had not proven practical difficulties either . Mr . Reizes repeated it was not practical to have a dining area on the west side because of the location of the kitchen . • Mrs . Reuning asked about the Leonard property and the 8 possibility of building on that lot and Mr . Reizes responded there was a huge gulley approximately ten feet north of the property line so it was a totally impracticable site for building another building on the Leonard lot and in addition it would be a non - conforming use to build on a 50 feet lot unless the house was only about 20 feet wide . For these reasons Mr . Reizes did not think a house would be built in that area . Mr . King inspected the floor plans of the house and asked who had done the plans and Mr . Reizes stated his sister- in - law had done them . Mr . King asked about a garage and whether the garage was included in his present proposal and Mr . Reizes responded it was not . There was a garage shown on the plans and Mr . Reizes said there was a garage present on the property now . Mr . King inquired if this was shown in the updated survey and Mr . Reizes responded it was not because it was built after the survey was done . Mr . Frost was asked if he saw this garage as having any impact on the present proposal and Mr . Frost responded he did not see the garage as being an extension of the non - conforming use . Mr . King asked Mr . Reizes if he had stated that he had no dining area and Mr . Reizes responded they had their dining room table set up in the living room on the top floor where the kitchen was . Mr . King felt that the habitable living space was ample and further that the purpose of sideyard requirements was to give the neighbors breathing space . Mr . King was not quite convinced that another home could not be built on Mrs . Leonard ' s property and the main thing was to preserve her right to build on her own lot . Mr . King continued that the Board was being asked to grant a variance in an R15 zone , which required 15 foot sideyards , to put a building right up to the line . He further stated that the Board had not been shown hardship or practical difficulties in that the property had a reasonable use as it was . After further discussion a motion was made by Edward King as follows : WHEREAS , this Board finds that the applicant has not demonstrated either substantial practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship if the property were used in its present state , it is therefore RESOLVED , that the request for the extension to this property be denied . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . • After polling the Board , the vote was as follows : 9 Aye - Austen , Reuning , Aron , King ay . None The motion was unanimously carried . Next on the agenda was the following . ADJOURNED APPEAL of. Michael Weinstein , Appellant , from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for the occupancy of a four - dwelling-unit structure located at 229 Coddington Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 7 - 45 . 1 , Residence District R- 9 , AND FURTHER , denying a building permit for the presently completed conversion of two porches into separate bedrooms , each such porch/ bedroom being a part of a separate existing unit in said structure . Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals was granted on July 7 , 1977 , for the use of then existing three - dwelling -unit structure for occupancy by three families or , a maximum of five unrelated persons . Both the occupancy of the four- dwelling -unit structure and the issuance of a building permit for the conversion of porches to bedrooms are denied under Article XIV , Sections 75 and 76 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and under the terms and conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7 , 1977 . The conversion of the structure from three • dwelling units to four dwelling units has occurred without permission or the issuance of a building permit , and two porches have been converted to bedrooms without the issuance of a building permit . Mr . Weinstein had submitted a sketch of the interior of his building as requested at the last hearing . In that sketch it was noted that a total of six bedrooms existed . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Weinstein had said that when he bought the property he had asked Mr . Cartee about a leaking porch and Mr . Cartee , now passed away , had said to proceed with the renovations . Chairman Aron inquired if Mr . Weinstein understood what Mr . Cartee had meant by renovations . Mr . Weinstein responded that when they finally got to do the repairs on both porches they found they needed extensive work , that they were rotted and the entire structures had to be rebuilt . He continued that the man who was working on the porch went to the Building Clerk and asked what he needed to do in order to repair the porch . The man was informed that if Mr . Cartee told him that he could repair the structures then he should go ahead and do so . Mr . Weinstein continued that the contractor did not know how bad the structures were until he actually started working on them . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared for or against the appeal and the public hearing was closed . • Chairman Aron said that Mr . Weinstein stated that he knew he 10 • was in violation and that he was willing to bring the structure back into the original 1977 granted variance for a three unit structure for five unrelated people . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost how long it would take to bring the structure back into compliance . Mr . Frost said that combining the two first - floor apartments into one apartment would take about a week ' s time . Chairman Aron asked if this was enough time for Mr . Weinstein . Mr . Weinstein stated that in terms of unrelated persons he was in compliance . Mrs ' Weinstein stated that his tenants on the first floor had leases until June of 1988 . Mr . Weinstein further stated that his appeal had been changed from a variance for a four -unit structure . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners if this appeal had been officially withdrawn and Ms . Beeners responded that Mr . Weinstein was doing that now and was withdrawing one part of this appeal . Ms . Beeners stated that she had recommended that , based on the record and certain environmental land use aspects , Mr . Weinstein should appear at the hearing and consider modification of the appeal especially considering the discussions that occurred at the last Zoning Board meeting . Mr . Frost wanted clarification as to what modifications • would be in Mr . Weinstein ' s appeal and what it was he was asking for . Mr . Weinstein stated that he knew it was not appropriate to ask for a variance for a four - unit dwelling based upon his discussions with Ms . Beeners . Mr . Weinstein wanted to modify his appeal to allow him a temporary variance to maintain occupancy under the legal leases he had . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Weinstein if he was withdrawing his appeal as was before the Board , and then the Board would decide when those units should be in compliance with the ordinance as directed in 1977 . Mr . Weinstein stated he was withdrawing his appeal . Chairman Aron said the appeal then was moot and Attorney Barney concurred . Edward King asked if the Board was speaking of the application Mr . Weinstein had made for approval of this as a four-unit dwelling and Mr . Weinstein stated - it was . Mr . King asked if the Board was now considering Mr . Weinstein ' s converting two porches into three bedrooms . Mr . Weinstein said that was correct but he argued that those porches were being used as bedrooms by the tenants but he had not constructed them as bedrooms . Mr . Weinstein said that one porch probably would be eliminated when the downstairs two apartments were converted to a single unit . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Weinstein asked for a building • permit today to convert the porches as they were in their prior condition to bedroom's , assuming that the occupancy and the zoning 11 • ordinance had been complied with , would a building permit be issued . Mr . Frost said there would be no reason to deny a building permit assuming the zoning ordinance was being complied with and that the proposed structural work , i . e . , electrical , and heat , was to code . Attorney Barney said that assuming a building permit had been issued and we were now here today with the work being converted , was that in compliance with the building code requirements . Mr . Frost said that in terms of electrical , the deficiencies in the units were primarily in the basement apartment of which two bedrooms are now what used to be a porch . He continued that the front porch serving the first floor apartment , street side , had no heat . Attorney Barney said that to summarize , even if a valid building permit had been issued a certificate of occupancy would not be issued because of these deficiencies and Mr . Frost concurred . Attorney Barney said there were two problems that needed to be addressed . The first was that there were four units when there were only supposed to be three . The second that there was non - compliance with the building code in several respects . Attorney Barney suggested that the Board might consider imposing a .fairly short deadline for correction of the building code deficiencies , and then the Board could consider when they wanted Mr . Weinstein to terminate his leases . Attorney Barney asked Mr . Weinstein when his leases expired in June and Mr . Weinstein was not sure . Mr . Weinstein stated that one of his tenants had said that if suitable accommodations were found for her she would be willing to move before June . Mr . Weinstein said that when the porches were reconstructed , the front porch was never intended to be used as a bedroom or they would have put heat in . Attorney Barney asked if there were walls on the porch , was it enclosed , were these windows there , and Mr . Weinstein responded that was correct . Attorney Barney asked how Mr . Weinstein could say it was not an enclosed room . Attorney Barney stated that once you enclose a porch you invite people to use them as something else . Mr . Weinstein said that the porch had screens and windows that you could put on for the winter . Attorney Barney stated that the onus was on Mr . Weinstein that either this was a porch in which event it was up to him to see it was not occupied except as a porch or if it was going to be occupied as a bedroom it ought to meet the life - safety requirements . Mr . Frost said that the appearance of the front porch did not suggest it was a typical porch and that in his mind that • front porch is clearly a habitable space such as a bedroom or a living room . 12 • Chairman Aron said that according to the floor plan submitted all of the porches were now bedrooms with the exception of one which was a study . Mr . King read a proposal from a Mr . Charles Bruner agreeing to perform work at 229 Coddington Road to bring the property into compliance with the electrical code requirements , with the work to be completed within thirty days and an inspection to be held as soon as the work was completed . Mr . King asked if Mr . Weinstein had accepted that proposal and Mr . Weinstein said that he had but did not know if the work was actually started . Mr . Weinstein said that he would agree to install baseboard heat on the front porch . A copy of such proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 . Mr . King said that this would suggest that the porch would be made into habitable living space and would this then not violate the zoning ordinance to extend the house this way . Mr . Frost said there was an old porch there to begin with which is now being converted to habitable living space and it was the decision of the Zoning Board as to whether that would constitute a violation . Mr . Frost continued that as Mr . Weinstein said it was not his intent to use the front porch as a bedroom but rather the tenants had decided that . Chairman Aron said that the owner • should have control of what the tenants did . Mr . Frost said that the way this was constructed it was clearly not a porch but habitable space . Attorney Barney asked where the recombination of the units to convert the unit back into a three - apartment house would take place . Mr . Weinstein responded that the main floor which contains the front porch addition would be recombined to its original one unit . Floor plans were studied and it was determined where the recombination would , be , being Apartments 2A and 2B on the first floor . Such portion of the floor plans is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . Chairman Aron said that since Mr . Weinstein was in violation after he withdrew his appeal , he and Mr . Frost should get together and determine the best way to bring the property back into compliance . Mr . King said that he should eliminate one kitchen . Mr . Weinstein said that he and Mr . Frost had discussed the matter . Attorney Barney recommended that the appeal relative to the building permits be granted to allow Mr . Weinstein to convert the porches into enclosed space , if the Board were so advised , so • that the requirements of the electrical code could be put into effect . He continued that if the Board were so advised that the 13 • enforcement of the occupancy violation be deferred until June 30 , 1988 , with the understanding that the electrical work would take place within the next couple of weeks . A motion was made by Edward King as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board authorize the issuance of a building permit to the applicant to permit the reconsolidation of the two apartments on the first floor which units are designated on the drawings submitted by Mr . Weinstein to the Board as Apartments 2A and 2B , said apartments to be combined with the elimination of one kitchen and it is further RESOLVED , that the building permit would be conditional upon compliance with all codes and ordinances including the electrical code , fire code , and all other codes applicable to a dwelling unit ; and it is further RESOLVED , that this electrical work be done no later than February 11 , 1988 , and it is further RESOLVED , that as to the present illegal occupancy the Board directs that there be no proceedings regarding the violation until the end of June , 1988 , at which time the Building Inspector will make an inspection to determine if the recombination of the apartments on the first floor is taking place . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Reuning , Aron , Austen , King Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The next item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL of Millard and Lucille Brink , owners , Louise and Milton vonHahmann , applicants , Edmund J . Dellert , agent , from the decision of the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer denying permission for the construction and operation of a retail lawn and garden equipment and light construction equipment store , with outside display and storage of said equipment at 708 Elmira Road , on a portion of the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 2 - 7 , Business District " C " . Permission is denied under Article 7 , Section 38 , Paragraph 8 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , • which does not permit outside display in a Business District I/ c /1 14 Mr . Edmund Dellert addressed the Board . He stated that Mr . and Mrs . vonHahmann wished to establish a business for the construction and operation of a retail lawn and garden equipment store , with outside display . Mr . Dellert said that the variance they were requesting was for outside display . He continued that the vonHahmanns owned a similar business in Waterloo , New York . Pictures of this existing business were shown to the Board showing the outdoor display . Brochures were presented showing the type of equipment that would be displayed outdoors . Mr . Dellert continued that the reason for having to have outdoor display was that it would be outrageously expensive to construct a building big enough to house everything inside . Mr . Dellert also stated housing everything inside would not be consistent with the norm for this type of business . Mrs vonHahmann said that units would be placed under the overhang and there would be one row of units in front of the building which would take up approximately twenty - five feet . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared for or against the appeal . The public hearing was closed . Chairman Aron then read from "ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR , Finger Lakes Trac:tor ` .- Inc . 708 Elmira Road , Millard A . & Lucille Brink , Owners , Louise & Milton vonHahmann , Applicants , Edmund J . Dellert , Agent , . Preliminary Site Plan Approval , Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 . " A copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 . Chairman Aron then read from "ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . 708 Elmira Road , Millard A . & Lucille Brink , Owners , Louise & Milton vonHahmann , Applicants , Edmund J . Dellert , Agent , Preliminary Site Plan Approval , Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 . " A copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 7 . Chairman Aron then declared the Zoning Board of Appeals as the lead agency in this matter . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Beeners for her recommendation as to the environmental assessment . A copy of Ms . Beeners ' recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit 8 , Ms . Beeners showed on a map the location of the subject property . Chairman Aron inquired whether a larger building could be built . Mrs vonHahmann said this was not feasible for several reasons , To build a building that large on that location would not look too good , he said . Further , he continued , it would not be economically possible for them to be in that business if they • had to pay for a building of that size and heat it and maintain it . Mrs vonHahmann said that the amount of money he would need 15 • to spend on a bigger building could not be realized in profit since the overhead would be so high . Chairman Aron asked if outside storage would alter the character of the neighborhood and Ms . Beeners responded that it would to some extent but she would encourage a business of this sort in a location that was formerly agricultural and was adjacent to such places as McGuire ' s , Sheldrake ' s Greenhouses , etc . and she thought that this business would be an appropriate land use . She continued that the visual impact of outdoor display is mitigable through landscaping and she thought the color of the building was a good one . Chairman Aron asked Mr . vonHahmann if the property had already been purchased and Mr . vonHahmann responded that a purchase offer had been submitted to purchase the property contingent upon the outcome of the appeal before the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Aron stated that in order to obtain a use variance unnecessary hardship had to be proven to the Board which meant that the land could not yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that zone . He asked how unnecessary hardship could be proven . Mr . Dellert responded that the unnecessary hardship would come about if they bought the property and were not able to have the outdoor display . Chairman Aron stated that would be only if Mr . vonHahmann purchased the property . Mro vonHahmann stated that the outdoor display was necessary to attract business from travelers on the road . Mr . Dellert said that the hardship would be at this time on Mrs . Brink , the owner of the property , and listed on the appeal as one of the applicants . Chairman Aron inquired what the hardship would be on Mrs . Brink . Mr . Dellert explained that Mr . Brink had passed away and Mrs . Brink , who could not be at the meeting that evening , was unable to maintain and run the farm as her husband did . He continued that some of the buildings had fallen into disrepair and Mrs . Brink would have a difficult time recovering any income from the property at this point as well as maintaining the farm and paying taxes . Ms . Beeners mentioned that another business of this type , Vann ' s , was no longer in existence . Mr . vonHahmann said the reason they wanted to locate their store in this area was because they felt there was a need for this type of business in this community and described some of the units he would be handling . He stated that they would be representing the two top companies in this field , Kubota and Ford . • Chairman Aron stated some Supreme Court decisions had come 16 down and one of them said that a monetary or competitive situation did not qualify for the granting of a variance . Chairman Aron said he wanted Mr . vonHahmann to show the necessity of the outdoor display and the inability to construct a building large enough to house all the merchandise . Mr . vonHahmann said that there was no way they could stay in business at any reasonable profit if they had to build , heat and maintain a building large enough to store inside the amount of inventory that was needed . He continued that not having an outdoor display would take away his ability to merchandise the equipment and if he could not merchandise it he shouldn ' t be in business . Mr . King inquired as to the location of the building on the property and where the outdoor display would be . Mr . vonHahmann indicated on the sketch plans where these would be . Mr . King said that from what he could see the display area would not come closer than fifty feet to the north side of the Elmira Road . Joan Reuning inquired as to whether there would be access to this property from Calkins Road and Mr . vonHahmann stated there was a driveway which leads onto Calkins Road but customers would use only Route 13 , Mr . Austen asked if there would be any used equipment handled and Mr . vonHahmann stated there would be used lawnmowers and tractors , etc . Mr . vonHahmann continued that they held auctions about five times a year in Waterloo so they kept very little used equipment on hand . Mrs . Reuning inquired where the used pieces were kept and Mro vonHahmann responded that his property in Waterloo was 65 acres with a 20 acre yard and there was much room to keep them there . Mr . Austen inquired if Mr . vonHahmann was contemplating holding auctions in Ithaca and he responded he was not since his auctions were established in Waterloo now . As to the environmental assessment , a motion was made by Edward King as follows : WHEREAS , in view of the character of the neighborhood , the uses in the neighborhood and the zoning for business " C " and Light Industrial to the areas in the east , the proposed use as shown on the site plan as given preliminary approval by the Planning Board would appear to have minimal impact on the area and might constitute an improvement because some of the structures in disrepair on the property would be removed and this would improve the appearance of the neighborhood , and WHEREAS , the proposed outdoor display would seem to be limited to an area about twenty feet south of the proposed • new building and would be at least fifty feet back from the highway , it is therefore • 17 RESOLVED , subject to the conditions placed upon the site plan approval by the Planning Board , including the condition that the Planning Board have final site plan approval , this Board finds a negative declaration of environmental impact . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . As to the use variance for outside storage , a motion was made by Edward King as follows : WHEREAS , in view of the character of the neighborhood , the uses in the neighborhood and the zoning for business " C " and Light Industrial to the areas in the east , the proposed use as shown on the site plan as given preliminary approval by the Planning Board would appear to have minimal impact on the area and might constitute an improvement because some of the structures in disrepair on the property would be removed and this would improve the appearance of the neighborhood , and WHEREAS , the proposed outdoor display would seem to be limited to an area about twenty feet south of the proposed new building and would be at least fifty feet back from the highway , and WHEREAS , even though there is a provision in the ordinance that one cannot display automobiles and accessories outside the building , the proposed display would be smaller units than automobiles ; and WHEREAS , in this area there are outdoor displays such as roadstands , etc . ; and WHEREAS , the proposed display , as well as other facets of this proposal , will be controlled by the site plan involvement of the Planning Board , and WHEREAS , to require the applicant to build a large enough building to store all of the merchandise indoors would create a hardship , and • WHEREAS , no neighbors appeared in opposition to this appeal ; and 18 WHEREAS , this type of retail business could not successfully operate without such outdoor display , it is therefore RESOLVED , that the use variance for an outdoor display be granted . The motion was seconded by Edward Austen . The voting was as follows . Aye - Aron , Reuning , King , Austen Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . The last item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL of Joseph 0 . Ciaschi , owner/ applicant , requesting Special Approval under Article IV , Section 11 , as specified in the Town of Ithaca Local Laws No . 1 and No . 5 , 1987 , ' for the proposed Broome Developmental Disabilities Services Administrative Offices and Day Treatment Center , proposed to be located in the former Odd Fellows Lodge Infirmary at 1257 • Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 51 Town of Ithaca Special Land Use District ( Limited Mixed Use ) , Mr . Joseph Ciaschi addressed the Board . He introduced Lawrence O ' Neil who was the head of the Day Treatment Center at Broome , now housed at Cayuga Heights School . Mr . O ' Neil stated that they operated a day treatment program which served about sixty developmentally disabled adults . He continued that the Oddfellows Infirmary met their requirements for the operation of the day treatment program and inclusion of the regional administrative offices and clinical services offices that operate out of Terrace Hill . He continued that the only thing to be done was to make interior modifications to the building to give them the size of group rooms , etc . necessary for their type of operation . Mr . O ' Neil said they would continue to operate the programs they have currently . Chairman Aron declared the Zoning Board of Appeals the lead agency in this matter . Chairman Aron read an excerpt from ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Broome Developmental Disabilities Service , Administrative Offices and Day Treatment Center , Trumansburg Road ( Former Odd Fellows Lodge Infirmary ) , Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , Planning Board , January 5 , 1988 . " A copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 9 . • 19 Chairman Aron then read from " PART II - Environmental Assessment - Proposed Broome Developmental Disabilities Service Administrtion Offices an Day Treatment Center . " A copy of such document is attached hereto as Exhibit 10 . Ms . Beeners thought the transportation of clients and the parking should be discussed . Mr . O ' Neil stated that they operated five vehicles , one of which was the size of a City school bus , and the other vehicles were roughly the same size as a Gadabout type vehicle . He continued that Mr . Ciaschi had provided additional parking on the site for staff . He further stated that the regional center staff and the community service office staff were essentially in and about of the building during the day but worked at other locations , and the day treatment staff would be on premises every day . He concluded that there was more than adequate parking . The public hearing was opened . Mr . James Mayer , Jr . addressed the Board . He said he was from the Mayer School and reported that their position on this appeal was that they were totally in favor of it . The public hearing was closed . • Edward King inquired how many floors would be occupied and Mr . O ' Neil responded it would be two floors . Mr . Frost stated that the building code occupancy classification would be the same as it was for the nursing home which previously occupied the premises . As to the environmental impact , a motion was made as follows by Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that this Board finds a negative determination of environmental significance . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King Nay - None The motion was unanimously carried . As to the special approval a motion was made by Joan Reuning as follows . WHEREAS , this Board feels this is an excellent location for this type of operation ; and • 20 WHEREAS , this parcel of land is suited for this type of use , and WHEREAS , the Board feels there is a definite need for this type of service in this community ; and WHEREAS , the ingress and egress to the property has been safely designed ; and WHEREAS , the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole will not be detrimental to the safety and general welfare of the community , it is therefore RESOLVED , that this Board issue a special approval for this operation . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Aye - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King Nay - None • The motion was unanimously carried . There being no further business to come before the Board , the meeting adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Beatrice Lincoln Recording Secretary Exhibits 1 t ough 10 attached APPROV Henry Aron , Chairman • • 25 - 2 - 40 Jane Georgette Janner 819 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 38 David B . Bowlsby 829 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 37 Dana Scott Potenza 831 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; 11 . 8 ' from N line & 9 . 4 ' from h ' way line 25 - 2 - 34 C . Henderson & 839 Taughannock Blvd . house over N B . Bassette line by 1 ' 25 - 2 - 33 William J . Gerber 841 Taughannock Blvd . garage 1 . 7 from N & over highway 25 - 2 - 32 John E . Rancich 847 Taughannock Blvd . 2 ' from S line - retain - ing wall over h ' way R /W 25 - 2 - 30 Allan G . Jr . & 855 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot Sheila M . Snyder width ; house 10 ' from S line 25 - 2 - 29 Allan G . Jr . & 857 Taughannock Blvd . patio 4 ' Sheila M . Snyder from N ; gar - age 5 . 8 ' over h ' way R /W 25 - 2 - 28 Frank Loretti 861 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 27 Fred A . Rouse 865 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 26 Lawrence P . Young 867 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 25 Lawrence P . Young 869 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width • 25 - 2 - 24 Leland D . & 871 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot 1 � X � i 6T • Linda Snow width 25 - 2 - 23 Eldred H . & Dor . 873 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot J . Testut width ; " con - verted gar - age " 1 . 0 ' from N & on h ' way R /W 25 - 2 - 22 L . M . Grey 877 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 1 . 5 ' from S & 4 from N ; beach hse . 3 . 2 from N & on S 25 - 2 - 21 Patricia A . Dekar 879 Taughannock Blvd . . hse . 10 ' from N line ; deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 20 Rane Randolph Estate 881 Taughannock Blvd . 11 . 5 ' from N line • 25 - 2 - 19 Joseph W . & Margaret M . Humble 883 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 6 . 5 ' from S line & garage over h ' way R /W 25 - 2 - 18 Joseph W . & Margaret M . Humble 883 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 17 Christopher H , & Sally S . Bond 885 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 4 . 94 ' from N line ; shed 5 . 0 ' from N line 25 - 2 - 16 Alan Zucchino & Susan Hopp 887 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 9 . 45 ' from S line • 25 - 2 - 15 Thomas P . Deroos 891 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot 2 • width 25 - 2 - 14 Robert E . Terry ° 893 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 0 . 6 ' from S line 25 - 2 - 13 Richard C . Wentzel 891 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 25 - 2 - 10 Bradley G . & Nancy S . Corbitt 907 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; carport over N & H ' way R /W ; hse . too close to N & S lines ; patio over S line 25 - 2 - 9 Douglas V . Rogers 909 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 11 . 5 from N line & too • close to S 25 - 2 - 8 Eric & Mary Smith 911 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; cot - tage 12 ' from S @ furthest pt . ; garage over h ' way & 3 . 7 from S 25 - 2 - 7 Hans Christian Wien 913 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; garage 2 . 8 from S & 8 . 21 ' from N 25 - 2 - 6 . 1 Robert E . Terry 925 Taughannock Blvd . garage over h ' way R /W 25 - 2 - 5 Norman R . & Dor . A . Jordan 927 Taughannock Blvd . hse . 3 ' from N . line 25 - 2 - 2 Freedman 941 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 2 . 6 ' from N • line ; 8 . 7 from S line 3 • 21 - 2 - 34 Walter & Joyce Wiggins 969 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 32 Laurence M . Borelli et al 975 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 4 . 6 ' from S line ; shed on S Line 21 - 2 - 31 William R . & Betsy L . Garrison 979 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 1 . 8 ' from S line & boat - house 21 - 2 - 30 Carl Dickens 981 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 12 from S line & 2 . 3 ' from N line 21 - 2 - 29 Raymond & Joan Loehr , et al 983 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 6 . 4 ' from N 21 - 2 - 28 Francis E . Welch 985 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . 3 ' from S line 21 - 2 - 27 Francis W . Welch 987 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 22 Hoyt Benjamin & Rebecca Smith 1013 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; 3 cottages : 5 ' from S & 4 . 4 ' h ' way set - back ; 8 . 3 ' from S ; 3 . 4 ' from N 21 - 2 - 21 Phillip J . Zarriello 1011 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 20 Hoyt Benjamin & • Rebecca Smith 1015 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 4 v • 21 - 2 - 17 Louis R . & K . Webster 1039 Taughannock Blvd . old barn too close to h ' way R /W 21 - 2 - 16 Robert & Patricia Hines 1045 Taughannock Blvd , deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 14 Kay & Alan Friedlander 1057 Taughannock Blvd , beach hse . 2 ' from S , garage over h ' way R /W 21 - 2 - 13 Leslie N . & Margaret B . Reizes 1061 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 12 Libby Leonard 1065 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; hse . over S line ; shed 3 ' from S line 21 - 2 - 11 Leslie R . Dingie 1067 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 10 K . Walker et al 1069 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width 21 - 2 - 9 James W . & Dor . D . Spencer 1071 Taughannock Blvd . hse . 1 . 5 - 1 . 8 ' from S line ; garage too close to h ' way 21 - 2 - 8 Roger W . & Suzanne K . Dennis 1075 Taughannock Blvd . deficient lot width ; 1 . 8 ' from S line 21 - 2 - 6 Max H . & Katherine B . Mattes 1081 Taughannock Blvd , deficient lot width • 5 1065 Taughannock Boulevard Ithaca , NY 14850 January 11 , 1988 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Re . , Application of Leslie N . and Margaret Reizes Premises : 1061 Taughannock Boulevard , Ithaca , NY Gentlemen . I previously had my Attorney , Roger Sovocool , Esti . , write you in opposition to the application of the Reizes for an extension of their house northward . Since writing the letter I have met with Mr . Reizes and have actually seen on the ground where the proposed building extension is to be . Based on my inspection , I withdraw my opposition because it is apparent that the building will be within the lot line . Very truly yours , Libby Leonard • � h , 6 � T . January 131 1900 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Ithaca , New York 14050 We line at 1057 Taughannock Bouleuard , the property next south of Beizes . We urge the Board to grant the variance for expansion of their use of a non-conforming lot to permit an addition on their house . The addition as proposed would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would tend to increase property values here generally . ' We also agree that it is a hardship for them to be limited to a tw ty-four foot wide house on their lot . 4 ut*�� Alan 1J . Fri ander Kay E . Friedlander MMMM • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Page No. , of � Pages Proposal CHAS BRUNER Builder - Electrician 0602 Valley Road BROOKTONDALE, NEW YORK 14817 (607) 539.6231 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO PHONE DATE mIU 1 STREET JOB NAME 0o 4OLD ANO Si 1- V e! CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE JOB LOCATION 2 ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS JOB PHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: ' ................................................ ...............,........................ . . . . . ... . ....................,. .. ................... ....._....................................,..................... _.........,................_..:............... ................................................_.............. _ _........... ............ ...... .......... ......... ...... A I...... ..... �� �b .... _...law . .... .... . ....L W c; A'T 2T .. C�UG b. .0 ............ M V s✓. � ��j S.. T .. .... :� r1 1c_ . ... .......0 c ...... .. �.. . ... ... . _ ... f _......_............. ....... ....................... ......... .. ....... ................. . .I I I 1 I I I I.. 111 I I I I.I I_I I I I I I.I I I I I. .. _I I I I. . .I I I I I I . . 1. 1 .I I I I I 1 4. 1 ... _I ...._I.. .I... .. ..... . ..I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I...I I I I . . 1.1. 1.. . 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I. . _. ... .... .I I . .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. .. . .I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I_ ........._.........�..... ....... ' ' Q . ...... ... 1 .'�" .\dS...... v 0(P ._ 7 tT -1.11 a _. ........... 'UN-S.4 ....... . ...... ... ..... ......... . . . . . . ...... ........... .... .................... . ............................... ....... ........... ......................... ......... ......... ..... . . . ... .. . ......­ 1­111111P ..1. 111.. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. . ..I I I I_.... .1 . 1.11 . . .I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1 I I I I I 111 . . . . . ... .. . . .I I I I I I I I I.__. _I I I I. .. ._ 1_ .... ...1.1 .1 . . .. ....I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_.. . . . I I I I I I. I I I.I I I I_ . T - s. � _ wo �� A� _ . ....... ... ............ ... ......\T �-L _ g P r ....... ......... _ 7.S......Com. pL.. 'D . ............... .............. ......... ..... . ..... . I I ...... ...... ................. ...... __.................... _ .................................... .... .. I . . ...... . .......... ........ . ................................. .......................... . ...... ..... .... .......................... ......... ...... ............................... __........ ...... ............. ...................................................... ........... ....... .......................... .. . .................................I ........................ ...... ..........I. ........ .. .......... ........ ..... .... .......................... ... ............. ..................... .......... .......... ............. .............. .g .............................................. ............................ II II .................... ......................... .............. ....... ...... . ........................ ..................... _............... ..............III .............................. ........................................ . ..... . ....................... ........_............ ............. ....... ....... ............ . .............. .......................... ........ ...III....... .............I _. ........ .. ........... ... ........... ........... ..................................... ....... ............ ............... ....................................................................... .............. ................. ..............._ ......................... ....... ...................... ..............._......................... ............................................................ ... .......... ......:.......... _ ....... _ . _...... . ................ I I .................................... ... ....... ....................................... .................................. ..... .......... . ............. ........... ...... .............. ....... ..........11............................................ .......... ......... ....... .......... .....................................................................I 19P pri1pm hereby to furnish material and labor = complete in accordance with above specifications , for the sum of: dollars ($ ) . Payment to be made as follows : All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifica• Authorized tions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an Signature 140�goo extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents age Mr delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Note:. This proposal may be ur workers are fully covered by Workmen's Compensation Insurance. withdrawn by us if not accepted within days. Arrrp#anrr of Proposal — The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Date of Acceptance: Signature FORM 118-3 COPYRIGHT 1960 - Available from jn E Inc.. Groton, Mass. 01450 ZIP r CJI i 1:.� +. J�rr ✓ { a�} ,r t JS y t. V '�'} ` PI _1\ k {,. * 15 ,i. d xti tl. •k: `� } tX `�f[ Y, a N Yah t rv/ A 1 }.• k #n r .. H IT P-PIIIII :Nan r _. . . n '�', r F v . �fi7 {�� Y" br all L3, u �Y A �' :` d - , 1 }} {' iwu •J`'"' tt �.^ 1h k{ 1 �uiX. •. �7,".. ea.(3 . \> r. 1x a' q � ,.-- , G, 4 .r , ` 3' i. . o �-£ ' �' bi/�� '\ IT PL IT IT 51 -... _. r",. -t ., _ , . �' � is - � :t' r t v . !d . -•„ 1 {' �7. t � '.u. € i•t R;.. + f aj „ , 4 .X .f { ,5' ? :. n'S,t a.� ' k.'�ne aemea-niz*x .-^BIA. �-. : 1 ' x q , TIVIPTx `� { — t [r 3 ayt Y > Ili T^ �'1"-` . . r , . '11+1 r — JL u FIt IV 10 "T TIPIPPIT. PIP iIII, ITTIT, TIP TT7TPP PIP IT ;y . to , ).. t — ITTIP PtPf i 1 r Pw J . ,., IT,y n.l. 1 ' r r 1 b�t'i t r a„ ' i ♦y f' r -jf , , . 7 1\4..,'Vll n. 1 a t t7 ♦ I PLAT, 1 Y., !i '\. e.\f�,. V , a I� " - I>. eS.iJ;� ff ",Cfl ttom' :. lr ' . a ."• 1 IT 1 41 1 To h1 ' — � A ' 1{1t III `3Y. lS;..y,� (~1'. r� + �.. �l l,. _ .- •i., 4IT P­ _ ` \w 1� _ 1 , - _�-- r {4�; i' Ir i .l v t ) 1 .. . � . .. � '. 1 ///��� 1 . 1. PIP, dIIIIPTP 6TPrPPP ;III �- — —V`-0.0_MD_ .� 144 .D O _ u._ IIIIIIIIIP PIP - - -�-- - - I ( I I I 1 - i i TdIP t ! I _ PIP JI IT- III ITT-AP TIP PIPP4IM _ I _� r 4 IT IP PIP IT LIP PIP t JJ __ - - IT r = = -� -�� - T- r. PIT IT, PP - : .. IfTIPPIP _ 1 _ t� 0 I i •_: _ rt 1 r ld j1 I ... - _. . ... 1333 OPP 1 ` ._ - 17^ c- _ s . '_- -... . w..wMev+wlse _._ t 1 5 t rr 'U i i P. TIP T. Iff,IIIIP III wompiP 1. IT TITIPPIP ..1 r -r 1 f - �-I — TITITIP 'PIP � K I ► + + + PPIP 11 _. q-- - - 'l rM I:ti1 . 7r s.. .•t. '. ,ws 'rirC "K5 ,.�tK t i .' yf ._F ') '1 •_ _ ;,A 40 fx ,tT 1v{. t r ! ,IT h '� k� t t , , a E ; . t .. f ... r 0 3C - frl:i.. :.1A f, -.. r ,. . . _ r< ' r . f tD t . A � i� lr v yr 1} KAY . "rkr. 1 F f . '.•r r eOP :i { ,$ +' c2 t . i . f \. '#;. t , 5 , �5 r>a�f , r •n-res o-.s S�Tu ±. '{* .t'T .y n[�;'r' !.._, 4" "'1}". r,, t 'f' F it g.. •,iro.j s a r , .0 ym a.+„4' j .. .'t7 T , aFr: 9$ K J"Il !ta . t 1, y.. FAo.r -U [- �y� 1 . . .T• _ r I St 11 f. . . ,h. :. . 'u ♦ , r' ! f• 5 4 ' � tt r ✓ t . J': t' t , ' 1 1 1 ' " Ci. I ^°� 0 i k1ti F }'. r 3. :fy• X91 t re 11 . 25 7 . r !i � i). JI . 1 i >• �rvf A • :JI tT 4.. . 41 I d ( 1 ifJ j 'Yr h• Yi ' ) Fr''! 1 • 4f. • r(' f A, t. . r� r r 'V$] � �� •' f vft. - ^u '�ili"r rS� G -.�k A N e ' � I° W'.i1 .4"} G t 1 :TATdkiff . .- 1 ,d 5 rt — , e.y 4 15 .{..rt. I ti A. Iii,piIIIIIIiiAi ITITI1 li 5� 1 211.1 _ . r n• r �.. ri I , — 6 } ' t r r r, r .r . r •h , . a . � . r bb _T — - r � . ii 1 ti S i ' Y• vi it -. .• . . r . - . • ; . ® _ r __.-. r •. P e i'1 ' ' i d.y I f .i .IN I� ; Y } .' - _ IT I It ITT it A J • t .. i • Ir - A. I {I��•- l • I ,r \ rt �• f r r i ~\ ' - - -� T IT i `" - IIIIAIIIIIIi I - �� , A. IIITTIPIPIIi ; - - I i-- -- -1-- -- -- ; _ S I ! I ' _ + ' i- -� -I - - � � , IT ITT f i I ITT L-L __I- . A �lr L�EL2iti — _ , I if IT I _ TI Lt=lv�a • , 1 ( AT - b I AT _. E 1 ! ` 1 iITT III TAIATi I mi IT irti, Tr IT A / IrC\ Ti Ii TIAtAii Ii emsAi ' ? SL - ( _ { .............( 3 _ _ 1_ .. �_ _ ITTI IT A fIT , IT Il , Ir j to 4 ' •____• un�'•JV/)`1-/' . illy. = I I 5IT TIT. IIIIIII-Tidi A. TOTTP- Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . - 1 - 708 Elmira Road Louise and Milton vonHahmann Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 F ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . =. 708 Elmira Road Millard A . & Lucille Brink , Owners _ Louise & Milton vonHahmann , Applicants Edmund J . Dellert , Agent Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of : Site Plan Approval for the proposed " Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . " , a lawn and garden equipment and light construction equipment store , proposed to be located in a Business " C " District at 708 Elmira Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel .No . 6 - 33 - 2 - 7 . • 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for site plan review , and for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for consideration of a variance with respect - to - the request for outdoor display of equipment , and with respect to the potential variance of the parking requirement in Business " C " Districts . 3 . The Town Planner has recommended . a negative determination of environmental significance for the site plan . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the site plan for the aforementioned facility , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . - 2 - �. • 708 Elmira Road Louise and Milton vonHahmann Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 • ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . 708 Elmira Road Millard A . & Lucille Brink , Owners Louise & Milton vonHahmann , Applicants Edmund J . Dellert , Agent Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed " Finger .Lakes Tractor , Inc . " , a lawn , and . garden equipment'-e'and light construction equipment store , proposed - ,=to. - be located in a Business " C " District at 708 Elmira Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 2 - 7 . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review of the site plan , has made a negative determination of - environmental significance on December 15 , 1987 . _ �. 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on December 15 , 1987 , has reviewed the following : Short Environmental Assessment Form , dated November 27 , 1987 . Appeal Form , pertaining to a request for outdoor display of equipment , with attachments , dated November 27 , 1987 . Exhibits 3 and 4 , showing overall tax parcel involved and and preliminary site plan for the proposed store . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to the proposed store as presented , subject to the following requirements : a . the granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of variance- of the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , Paragraph 8 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , with respect to outdoor display , and of the requirements of Article VII , Section 38 , Paragraph 1 , with respect to parking ; be the submission , for final site plan approval consideration , of a final site plan showing existing topography and proposed grading • and drainage , proposed parking and loading areas for the store , � � h � b ', 7 '- Finger Lakes Tractor , Inc . - 3 - 708 Elmira Road Louise and Milton vonHahmann Planning Board , December 15 , 1987 • proposed access to the storefrom Calkins Road , existing and proposed wells and .,, septic systems for the store and for - the t dwellings on the property ; improvement of access to the tenant house , and the addition of suitable plant screening between the tenant house and the store as recommended by the Town Planner ; co approval of water supply and septic systems by the Tompkins County " Health Department ; do approval by the New York State Department of Transportation of any work within the Route 13 right of way ; e . if either dwelling on the property is ever proposed to be conveyed by . the applicants to another party , application for subdivision of a suitable lot for such dwelling shall be required prior to such conveyance . Aye - May , Baker , :Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Klein , Lesser . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . • Nancy M . Tuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . December 16 , 1987 . s _____Tractor , Inc . A . Action is Unlisted . B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins County Planning Dept ., Tompkins County Highway Dept . ) Ce QQuId.actionreAullin anY_Adyerse effecta_g,g . to gr ari ing_from the .followingL �l�__Existing_�lr_a X11 Y�_� larface ar_ar"adwater patterns . soiid_waste_production or dispos _potenti afar orogion ,dralaagP.or_floodingproblenis ? No significant adverse impact is expected with respect to these factors subject to the requirements of final plan approval . . The project would involve the demolition of existing farm buildings and structures and the regrading of levels which were created for farming operations . The Proposed store and parking area would essentially use the same area occupied by the existing buildings , structures , and concrete slab . Any potential impact of demolition and earthwork is expected to be localized to the immediate site and mitigatible through adequate site construction and drainage design as would be subject to final site plan • approval . Road conditions arid, traffic capacities are adequate for ` the proposed use . The amount of parking spaces shown ( 24 ) or possible with minor revision ( 27 ) does not meet the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance ( Art . VII , Section 3E ) where 28 spaces are required . It is the reviewer ' s opinion that the 24 spaces shown would be quite adequate for the proposed use because of the moderately low volume of traffic that would be generated by the proposed store . � - - C:12.,yL. A'}eathet �i c�_agricu tuQra^l '1, yarchenoTog1 /i. ,calp _ ic (t' oric � Q�Y Wil.SSG+s_il6`.r_"3L���_N�_}�u�1 ��yLdX5�3.�.�1_Sr_]G]Gidli.l6�iL ]L� n.elghborhood_character ? This section of Elmira Road between Five Mile Drive and Enfield Falls Road is mostly zoned Business " C " or Light Industrial , and contains motels , year round and seasonal garden nurseries and produce stands , a gas station /convenience store , contracting businesses , and machine shops . There are also several established residences , many of which are portions of old farmsteads and /or over 50 years old . Immediately adjoining the Proposed store site are two dwellings on the site proper , as well as several dwellings off - site . The small to moderate local impact on the existing residences in this Business $ $ C " District are expected to be mitigatible through additional • landscape buffers as would be required for final site plan approval . r • �.�__Y��t�ti4�_Qr_i��an�._�..�.h�_�h�.11fi�.h_4�_�il.siii��. cart_hahitats . ._ar thrlateffiad orendangerad speolesS No significant species or habitats are known on the store site that would be adversely impacted . afficlall v sdgmte_' d.i_er_ o�._la�d_or_other_�.tur�._re�sur_c_e In that there would be a change in use from an agricultural operation to a commercial operation in a Business C District , there would a moderate increase in land use intensity which is not expected to have any significant adverse impact , subject to the requirements of final site plan approval . The proposed use is considered to be permitted under Article VII , Section 34 , Paragraph 2 ( automobile sales agency . . . ) but would require variance of the requirement that there be no outdoor display . It is recommended by the reviewer that there may be practical , difficulty in the storage and display of the equipment proposed , and that any potential impacts with respect to the proposed outdoor display would be substantially mitigated through. adequate landscape buffering . While it is currently the reviewer ' s opinion that automobile sales agencies with outdoor display may not be an appropriate land use in the Town Business • Districts along Elmira Road , the proposed sale and outdoor display of farm and garden and light construction equipment would be thematically similar to prior agricultural use of the land and would be compatible with community character and land use planning . C5.__Growth,_subseguent dev_elopment.,_or_related No significant adverse inducement of growth or subsequent development is anticipated as a result of the proposed store development . The proposed 'store site is part of a 41 + / - acre parcel on the northwest and southeast sides of Elmira Road . The store site and the existing residences on the property would occupy 2 to 3 acres of the 5 + / - acres which are zoned Business " C " on the northwest side of Elmira Road . An additional 2 . 5 + / — acres of Business " C " within this parcel , currently occupied by farm buildings , would remain on the southeast side of Elmira Road . The rest of the parcel is zoned Residence District R - 30 . While the applicants may develop additional businesses in the remaining Business " C " land , no immediate plans are known . Any further development of the Business " C " lands of the parcel adjacent to the proposed store site may be limited because of access and the narrowness of remaining land zoned for such . No significant adverse inducement of growth or subsequent development is • anticipated as a result of the proposed store development , with any further development on this property or on other • adjacent properties subject to further environmental review . Cf�__Iong_tem �_shat tgrm� cumuiativ_e �_or_gthgr effects_not _identified_in Cl - 05 ? Not expected . C1 __.Qther impacts _.LinludngchangeS_in use of_either guant.itrQXtXRe_Of _ Not expected . g, � st�1e ,ro there likely to be . controversy related to_potential a��ontixonnan Pio" No controversy is known at the time of this review . E 4R.T_..I I A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for this action . The proposed facility is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts with respect to site and area capacity and character , and will be subject to requirements with respect to site construction and landscaping as part of final site plan review and approval . Lead Agency : For Site Plan : Town of Ithaca Planning Board For Variances : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of • • Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner Review Date : December 9 , 2987 • I Broome Developmental Disabilities Services - 1 - Administrative Offices and Day Treatment Center Trumansburg Road ( Former Odd Fellows Lodge Infirmary ) Planning Board , January 5 , 1988 • ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Broome Developmental Disabilities Services Administrative Offices and Day Treatment Center Trumansburg Road ( Former Odd Fellows Lodge Infirmary ) Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , January 5 , 1988 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is a request for Special Approval for the proposed Broome Developmental Disabilities Services Administrative Offices and Day Treatment Center , proposed to be located in a Special Land Use District ( Limited Mixed Use ) in the former Odd Fellows Lodge Infirmary on Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 3 . 5 . • 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on January 5 , 1988 , has reviewed the submissions for the proposal , including " Proposed Day Treatment Center and Regional Offices , Broome D . D . S . O . " - - " Site Plan and Lower Floor Plan " and " Upper Floor Plan " , dated August 14 , 1987 , by Design East , and , Short Environmental Assessment Form , dated December 22 , 1987 . 4 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this Unlisted Action . 2 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report its approval of the Site Plan for the proposed facility , provided that the required approvals are granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals . • 3 . That the Planning Board find and hereby does find that there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location ; that the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will � � i 6 � Broome Developmental Disabilities Services - 2 - Administrative Offices and Day Treatment Center Trumansburg Road ( Former Odd Fellows Lodge Infirmary ) Planning Board , January 5 , 1988 • not be adversely affected , that the proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 4 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that Special Approval for the facility as proposed be granted . Aye - May , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ;72 Nandly% M . Auller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . January 13 , 1988 . • • r •. n k t1 a. V• Y R . a a . FAR-TIl_-_E' ny* rQ111T1.Qntal._Aaaasament =Proposed Broome : Developmental Disabilities Services Administration Offices :a� .. . _, : . . .: -.. . . :., and Day Treatment - Center : . ... .. . . .. . Cil A . Action is Unlisted . B . Action will receive coordinated review ( Tompkins Co . Planning Dept . - N . Y . S . G . M . L . 239 - m ) C�_CQuld_eQfiQn_re� uin any aSlver efffec_ts_on, 4er ari s i ng_f rotm_the _f olllgHing_ 1.. C1=-- sting a1r� u�aJtY�_s .Q . r wa ex: quality_or_guantiity�noise levels existing_traffic t . . patternsl,_solid_waste_Production_or disposal , potential for erosion , draindge or flo_odingnroblems " Facility would use an existing building ( the former Odd Fellows infirmary ) that is suitable for the proposed use . � . Exterior alterations for client discharge and for parking are not expected to have any significant impact on the above factors , provided that adequate parking arrangements are maintained for the parking of cars , vans and the school bus which would serve the site . Q2 * Agathatia , agriculturAl archeo1Qgi.Qai . hiator • or other naturahor_culltural _resourcesyor_community or nel.ghbQrhoQdchergct�r? � . Because no significant exterior alterations are planned , and considering the former institutional use of the building , no significant adverse impact is expected to these factors . Q.._YegefaJiQnor fauna wildlife specie_ eignifb4Ant)1sjbjf�@Js or t reafened_4rendangered s peck gs ? No significant species or habitats are known on the �• site that would be impacted . C4 _ A community'snaa _gxistinglansroais�as officially adopted or_a_change _ in use or intensity of use of land or other_rnatural resources? Proposed use is consistent in concept with the general plan approved for this 10 . 2 acre Special Land Use District , and the land use intensity proposed is both within the capacity of the site and makes use of an existing building . 4 No objections have been raised by the Mayer School , which occupies the adjoining main building . � .< : . C5 . Growth, subsesuent devalopmnt . or related activitigs_JihelY_tebg_induced_hy the _P.rop4s_edas iQn' Because of the specialized service to be provided by the facility , as proposed to be relocated from other buildings in the Ithaca area , no direct inducement of growth or related activities is expected . O 41 Y1 C_L►Qng..termahart te= cumulative Q�.her (; of f, ea S not i dentifiesi n�l._Q�? , A ; � . . . . .. . . Not expected . (. .; . QJ, Qther impacts ( including changes in use of either luentit.y or type -4f energY_L'7 Not expected . I)� Is there , or is therelikely to be,..controv_ersy_re ate :to potenttsi sdv_erse _environmentsl ampsets? Not expected at the time of this review . A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended . Proposed facility is consistent with t'rie Odd Fellows Special Land Use . District general plan , would provide an essential community service , would adaptively reuse an existing building , and would not involve major exterior alterations . Lead Agency : Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer : Susan C . Beeners , Town Planner • Review Date : January 5 , 1988 L •- . .. . ..- ----. .. - - - 1V%cIVkw.1Nlj AI , /.:W , the following matters, .as . op=; oni propriate :, - . ._. ADJOURNED APUAL of Leslie T. N. end Margaret B. ' Reizes' 1'nuar "F1 DAV1T OF PURUCA71ON Appellants, with respect to a ' - request for authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals; .�� pursuant to Article XII, Section THE 54, of the Town of Ithaca Zen- ing Ordinance, to extend on ITHACA JOURNAL existing non-conforming rest-i • hence structure at 1061 Taug- L honnock Blvd. , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-21 -2- 13, Resi-I dente District R- 15. The exist ing residence is located ap- proximately ten feet from the otIIZit, T=Mpkau fir; south side yard lot line; d room addition proposed fat the north side ' of said resi' .Gail »SUl. 11ns deuce would create a north being duly meorn, deposes side yard of approximatell1 two feet. and Says, that he ICSlaeS In Ithaca, ADJOURNED . APPEAL of Mie. aC46=ty and state aforesaid and choel Weinstein, Appellant,', from the decision of thhe Build 6at he >sclerk ing Inspector/Zoning Enforce-' ----_ -._..».._ _....._-•-_ meat Officer denying ermis' sion for the occupancy o _d four-dwelling-unit structure Of T= I•iBACu JOLILNAL 8 public ne%%7paper printed and b'-'.L _ , located .. at f It Ca Tax Pori >� rel Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Ppr- cel No. 6-54-7-45. 1 , Residence I18CS District R-9, AND FURTHER, de= aforesaid, and that a notice. of which the annexed is a true vying o buildingpermit for._the presently complete conver-' copy, was published in said paper _ _ sion of do porches into sepa- rate bedrooms, each such »• „- • „» •" """"' porch/bedroom being a part of a separate existing unit in --» --............. said structure. Approval of the •` -f -i1• .._... ..»..... .........__�.._. Zoning Board- of Appeals was; granted on July 7, 1977, for ..._..w__..„.._.................... the use of then existing three-' -• --- • •••----.. .. ._..._...._.. _,,,_,„,M», dwelling-unit structure for oc-.: cupancy by three families or a: and that the first publication of said notice was on the , maximum of five unrelated ; ......».._..... persons. Both the occupancy; of the four-dwelling- unit; day of structure and the issuance of a -' �' --••••-• -• • ---• •-... 19 � `� building permit for the con version of porches to bed= roams are denied under Arti? cle XIV, Sections 75 and 76, oil • - - ”""' """ the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ori dinance, and under the terms Su bed �lnd sworn to before me, this , and conditions imposed by thel _-•.•.:•- - »,-»,•_... day Zoning Board of Appeals on .. y "!J Jul 7, 1977. The conversion N_ » _ M- ^. 19 d of the structure from three � •»....., dwelling units to four dwell- � J ing units has occurred without ( permission or the issuance of -_ » ---»» •„»- a building permit, and two i porches havebeen converted ' N pubUc, to bedrooms with9out the issu- once of JEAN FORD APPEAL of building il a' rd and Lucille le Brink, owners, Louise and Mil- . Notary PUI✓` IIC, Slate of NeW York ton vonHohmann , applicants, .: ^ i Edmund J. Dellert, agent, ' o. 4654410 from the decision of the Build- r . i . ing Inspector/Zoning Enforce- L' 31J, Ned in Tompkins County ment Officer denying permis- sion for the construction and Commission expires May 31, 19 : g operation of a retail lawn and / garden equipment and light construction equipment store, with outside display and stor- age of said equipment, at M . Elmira Road, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-33-2-7, Business District "C Permission is denied under Ar- j title 7, Section 38, Paragraph 8, of the Town of Ithaca Zon- ing Ordinance, which does not permit outside display in a Business District "Cf' I APPEAL of Joseph O. Cioschi owner/applicant requesting I Special Approval under Arti- I c(e IV, Section 11 , as specified in Town of Ithaca Local Laws No. 1 and No. 5, 1987, for the ' proposed Broome Devel = opmental Disabilities Services • Administrative Offices and TOWN OF ITHACA BOARD OF Day Treatment Center, pro- APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC posed to be located in the for- ' HEARINGS AND AGENDA mer Odd Fellows Lodge Infir- WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, mary at 1257 Trumansburg 1988s 7:00 P. M. Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Par. By direction of the• Choirmon cel No. 6-24-3-3. 5, Town of of the Zoning Board of Ap- Ithaca Special Land Use Dis- peals . NOTICE IS HEREBY trict (Limited Mixed Use ). GIVEN , that Public Hearings Said Zoning Board of Appeals ' will . be held by the Zoning will at said time, 7:00 p. m. , Board of Appeals of the Town and said place, hear all per- of Ithaca on Wednesday, Jan- stns in support of such matters uary 13, 1988, In Town Hall , or objections thereto, as op-