Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1988-11-30 FILLED TOWN OF ITHACA • Date -TOWN OF ITHACA Clerk ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 30 , 1 1988 An adjourned meeting ( from November 9 , 1988 ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals was ' held on November 30 , 1988 at the Ithaca Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York . PRESENT . Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Joan Reuning , Eva Hoffmann , Building Inspector Andrew Frost , and Town Attorney John C . Barney . ALSO PRESENT : James Rogan , Roger Sovocool , Lynne Wilks , Dan Wilks , Michael Morusty , Janet Jonson , Craig Pease , James Smith , John Izzo , Kathy Izzo , Shirley Valenza , Richard Darlington , Susan Grover , William Grover , John Whitcomb , John Thompson , Richard Kinner . The public meeting opened at 7 : 00 p . m . - Chairman Aron stated all posting and publication of the • public hearings had been advertised for the first week of November . That meeting was adjourned for lack of a quorum . For that reason the meeting is being held tonight . The agendas are the same as was advertised for November 9 , 1988 . Building Inspector Frost stated for the record that the hearings for this meeting were re - advertised . Chairman Aron asked that the advertisements be given to the Recording Secretary to be filed . Photographs of the subject properties were passed around for the Board to review . The first item on the agenda was the following : APPEAL OF IVAR AND JANET JONSON , , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING THE .- AUTHORIZATION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STORY , SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 934B EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 18 - 5 - 9 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID PARCEL OF LAND IS NON - CONFORMING IN SIZE AND THE DWELLING PROPOSED FOR RECONSTRUCTION WAS NON - CONFORMING IN YARD SETBACKS , HOWEVER , IL SAID DWELLING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF SAID PREVIOUSLY EXISTING LEGAL NON- CONFORMING SINGLE STORY , SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING . SHOULD IT BE THE CASE THAT THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING LEGAL NON- CONFORMING DWELLING • HAS BEEN ABANDONED AS A USE IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR , THE APPELLANT HAS ENTERED A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XII , SECTION 53 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE . Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 • - 2 - Chairman Aron presented to the Board a drawing of the dwelling that is proposed to be placed on that lot . He stated for the record that the parcel that ' is in question was a property in the City of Ithaca up until the time of July 3 , 1987 when it became a parcel in the Town of Ithaca . Chairman Aron said that during the appeal and during the time lapse of over one year , what is being discussed is not a matter of an abandoned piece of property which was in the City , but a property which now is in the Town Less than one year from the time of annexation , and for which Mrs . Jonson is asking to have a house built on the same footprint as once had been there . Attorney Sovocool addressed the Board representing Mrs . Jonson . He referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of June 29 , 1988 at which time there was concern by the adjoining property owners concerning the proposed plan . He said that at that time the plan was to add to the Jonson ' s existing dwelling and to build it onto the other additional lot . Atty . Sovocool stated that in view of those concerns and in view of the suggestions of the Board that Mrs . Jonson come back with a new plan , she drew up and submitted to this Board new plans , which will essentially be a replacement of the original building ; it is the same size ; it is a one story building , it is on the very same • 11 lot , and it is a definite improvement in that it will be a new building instead of the former building which was in very poor shape . Chairman Aron stated that the former building is no longer in existence so therefore the shape does not matter . Atty . Sovocool responded that his thinking from the neighbors ' standpoint , is that if Mrs . Jonson , instead of tearing this building down , if she had just re - sided it and had done some repairs , it would not be half the building that is being proposed for that property at this time . Atty . Sovocool said that he thinks that the proper view should be that there was an old building that was in poor shape that was torn down , not to turn this into a lot but to replace it with a new building . Chairman Aron asked Atty . Sovocool to be more specific and to give the Board some sizes . Atty . Sovocool referred to the sketches that were presented to the Board . He also referred to a survey that is dated 1985 that is in front of the Board . He stated that what Mrs . Jonson has done is to take this survey and then plan a new building which will be no larger than the old building . Mrs . Jonson indicated that the building will be the same depth from east to west as the old building . Mr . King commented that in his opinion , the information • being provided is totally inadequate to convince the Board that the footprint is going to be adhered to . The Board would have to have some plans that actually show the sizes of the building , the elevations , etc . Mr . King further stated that there are some Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 . 3 - more serious legal questions to decide before the Board could make a determination on this appeal . He asked Atty . Sovocool when the old building was torn down and if Mrs . Jonson had a permit to do so and was there a permit to rebuild . Atty . Sovocool responded that the old building was torn down in March 1987 while it was still in the City of Ithaca -j that there was a permit to improve this property but when Mrs . Jonson started to improve it she found it in such bad shape she went back to the City and got a permit to tear the building down . Atty . Sovocool stated that Mrs . Jonson did not go back to the City for a new permit to rebuild because at that time the publicity in the newspapers was that this was going to be incorporated into the Town of Ithaca . At that time Mrs . Jonson talked with Supervisor Desch and Andrew Frost about coming back in to apply for a permit from the Town . Mr . King affirmed that there is evidence and statements in the record to that effect . Mr . King asked Atty . Sovocool if Mrs . Jonson had any right under the City of Ithaca ordinance to rebuild on that lot . Atty . Sovocool responded that at that time Mrs . Jonson had a permit to improve the house ; instead she tore it down at that time in order to rebuild . Atty . Sovocool stated that there was no intent to abandon this building , that it was not torn down to turn it into a side yard , it was torn down for the purpose of rebuilding . Mr . King asked Atty . Sovocool if he can provide to • the Board ' s satisfaction that ordinance that applied , and show the Board that Mrs . Jonson had the right under her permit to reconstruct . Atty . Sovocool responded that he could do that . Mr . King then asked if when this property came into the Town of Ithaca on July 3 , 1987 , did that fact that there was no building there or the fact that Mrs . Jonson had previously torn down this building give her a right under the Town of Ithaca ' s ordinance to construct a new building there . Atty . Sovocool responded that he can give the Board some law on that as he has checked on the law regarding transition from one situation to another in municipalities . He said that from the standpoint of the languages in the cases he has researched , it indicates that if there is no intent to abandon but the intent is to rebuild then Mrs . Jonson has the right to rebuild . Atty . Sovocool further stated that the Town ' s own ordinance says if she could not rebuild because of ' government interference ' , that does not take away her right to rebuild . He said that their position is that the City would not give her a new permit after this period because then she was in the Town . Mr . King stated that he would grant Mr . Sovocool that there looks like there might be some equities in favor of extending a one year period because of the transition to Town ownership and there may have been a problem in getting anything done in between . • Mr . Frost stated for clarification that the annexation to the Town of Ithaca was to take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State . The law went through the Town Board in April Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 4 . • and filed with the Secretary of State in July 1987 . He said that his first visit to Mrs . Jonson ' s property was in April 1988 and her first application to construct as she originally proposed was in March 1988 so she was well within the yea ?s time of when it became Town property . Mr . King ! stated that it is his opinion that the City ' s statute would not let her rebuild or reconstitute a non- conforming use that had been more than 75 % demolished . He pointed out that the Town ' s ordinance , Section 56 , says 'restoration of a damaged building when the damage constitutes an amount less than 75 % 1 . He questioned the word ' damaged ' . Mr . Sovocool responded that he would assume that the word damaged meant something beyond a person ' s control such as fire , windstorm , etc . He said that he would get the Board more information . He stated that he is assuming that this building was torn down with the City ' s knowledge that there was going to be a submission of plans to rebuild due to the condition of the building . Chairman Aron stated that he , is in concurrence with Mr . King ' s questions of Atty . Sovocool . The other Board members agreed . Atty . Sovocool said that he will come back to the Board with detailed plans showing the floor plan exactly as well as elevation plans with figures on them . Mr . King suggested that Atty . Sovocool provide copies to Town Attorney Barney also . Chairman Aron agreed with Mr . 'I: King ' s suggestion and made a • motion as follows : RESOLVED , That the matter be adjourned until the information requested by the Board has been received at which time a 11 date will be set for an adjourned hearing . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Ayes - Aron , Ruening , Austen , King , Hoffmann Nays - None The motion was unanimously carried . The second item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL OF THE WALDORF SCHOOL OF THE FINGER LAKES , RICHARD D . KINNER , TRUSTEE/AGENT , REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 4 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE TEMPORARY ( UP TO TWO YEARS ) PLACEMENT OF A PORTABLE CLASSROOM ( A 12 - FOOT BY 60 - FOOT TRAILER ) , AT 855 FIVE MILE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 31 - 2 - 15 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . • Chairman Aron stated that before the Board goes into the appeal he would like to point out that this matter had been before the Planning Board and that that Board made some Board of Zoning Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 5 . recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals . For the record , he wished to point out that any recommendations made by the Planning Board to this Board does not necessarily mean that the ZBA adheres by it . He said that when it comes to decision - making , the Zoning Board of Appeals listen but they make their own decisions . Mr . Richard D . Kinner , Trustee/Agent , addressed the Board . He explained the reason for the trailer that the school is using as a classroom is because of the growth of the school . Chairman Aron referred to the Minutes of the 1987 meeting that Mr . Kinner appeared at . He stated that at that time Mr . Kinner said that the property was formerly used as aschool for about 66 children and that it would be its most suitable use . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Kinner how many children they now have enrolled in this school . Mr . Kinner responded that there are now 88 students enrolled and that includes 24 in the kindergarten and on any one particular day there are approximately 79 or 80 students that will be present . Mr . Kinner gave background information on the growth of the school and the enrollment situation . Chairman Aron expressed concern about the safety of the trailer that he has seen on the property at the school . He asked Mr . Kinner why the school did not come to the Board to ask for an addition to that school instead of " using a trailer . Mr . Kinner • replied that the school board agreed that the trailer is not the best situation and they would have liked to have built a new addition , but before they commit to an addition they have to know that they have a commitment from the parent body that the children are going to be enrolled in the school . Chairman Aron reiterated his concern about putting children into a trailer for schooling . Mr . Kinner responded that he does not feel the trailer is unsafe and he explained all the work that was done to insure that the trailer was safe to be used as a classroom . He stated that the school community is very happy that the school was able to do this . Chairman Aron asked for an exact number of children and adults that are using the trailer . Mr . Kinner responded that there are 13 children in . the trailer on a daily basis , and 1 teacher . The public hearing was opened . Mr . John Thompson , Virgil , New York said that he has two children in the Waldorf School andi that he is a member of the school board and a trustee . He stated that their school board checked with several schools in regard to temporary classrooms , and how the different schools handled their variations in • enrollment . He said that it was the school board ' s feeling that in bringing in a trailer and meeting the code , that it would be fine . He said that with 13 students and 1 teacher and 2 exits he would have no qualms about putting his two children in the Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 . 6 - trailer . He does not believe there is a safety problem . The public hearing was closed . Mr . Austen inquired of Mr . Kinner as to why a building permit was not applied for before the trailer was moved onto the property . Mr . Kinner explained that the school felt it was in a corner , having made a commitment to the community , the parent body , and the teacher body that the school would accommodate a certain number of students and when ; the space that the school had arranged for fell through , it did not allow any time whatsoever in order to investigate the process . He stated that the trailer became available on a certain day and it was delivered and the whole process got started at the same time . He said that as soon as the trailer was on the land he contacted the Town Planner to see what the process was going to have to be . Mrs . Hoffmann asked when the trailer was movedl onto the site . Mr . Kinner replied that the trailer was put on the property in August 1988 . He gave background information on his search for extra space for the school and their students . Mrs . Reuning verified Mr . Kinner ' s search for space for the Waldorf School . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Chairman Aron read Part 3 of the Environmental Assessment , • . dated November 1 , 1988 and signed by George Frantz , Ass ' t . , Town Planner , as follows , " A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended due to the small scale and temporary nature of the proposed project . " Chairman Aron questioned Mr . Kinner as to what the school means by a temporary classroom . Mr . Kinner responded that the nature of the school is to grow . He stated that the trailer is not an ideal situation for them to be in . What would be ideal would be for the school to obtain a piece of land somewhere and put up a school that would allow the school to grow , either the first grades initially and then grow into others or build one through twelfth grade if they can arrange to do that . He stated that it is a temporary building because within a two year period the school is going to be in a position to make a decision about expansion or rebuilding in another location . Mrs . Hoffmann asked how the Zoning Board of Appeals knows that the Waldorf School will not put another trailer onto the site to accommodate their enrollment . Mr . Kinner responded that that would not be feasible . He presented information on the school set up of classrooms and space . Atty . Barney asked Mr . Kinner for assurances to the Board , that there will be no other . • trailers or sheds or buildings moved onto that property . Mr . Kinner replied that there will not be , not without the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 7 - • A motion as to the Environmental Assessment was made by Edward King as follows : RESOLVED , that based on the review by Mr . George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , dated November 1 , 1988 , and on the facts that the Board already knows that this school and property and placement of the trailer are below grade of the highway , that they are all shielded from the highway by a fairly high embankment , and the fact that the Waldorf School has received from the Department of Transportation a permit saying that it is alright by them that the trailer is actually parked within the technical State right - of -way for a highway , and on the further facts that the reviewer finds that there are no impingement of this structure on the wet lands or flood lands which are adjacent to the site , and upon the understanding that the proposal would not extend beyond two years , the Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative declaration of adverse environmental impact . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , Aron , King , Austen , Hoffmann Nays - None • The motion was unanimously carried . Mr . Frost stated that in his opinion the building is sound . The school did recently receive a certificate of compliance from the Board of Fire Underwriters for its electrical system which was re -done . He also stated that he does not believe that mobile homes or trailers are restricted from being used as classrooms but that one of things that he was contemplating in listening to the discussion is to limit the number of students within the trailer . Edward King made a motion as follows , RESOLVED , that this Board grants Special Approval under the Zoning Ordinance , Section 18 , subdivision 4 , for the maintenance by the Waldorf School of the trailer which has been placed on the site of the permanent school building , upon the understanding that the permission is granted for a period not to extend beyond August 31 , 1990 , and that the approval is subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit and complying with applicable building and fire prevention codes and sprinkler law requirements , if they apply as the Building Commissioner determines upon inspection of the property , and further that the occupancy • of the trailer not exceed 25 persons at any one time , and also that there be an audible alarm added to the trailer , and be it further Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 8 - • RESOLVED , that the New York State Department of Transpor- tation issue a use and occupancy permit for the location of the trailer in the State right - of -way . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Reuning , King , Austen , Hoffmann , Aron Nays - None The motion was unanimously carried . The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF MUHAMMAD , KHURSHID , AND ZAFFAR RAZZAQ , APPELLANTS , L & P BUILDERS , INC . , APPLICANT/AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE MAINTAINING OF A TWO - STORY , TWO - FAMILY DWELLING ABSENT A BASEMENT , WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT THEREOF BEING OF EQUAL FLOOR AREA , LOCATED AT 1414 SLATERVILLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 39 . 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID • SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2 , PERMITS A TWO- FAMILY DWELLING PROVIDED THAT THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT NOT EXCEED 50 % OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT EXCEPT WHERE THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT IS CONSTRUCTED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BASEMENT AREA , IT MAY EXCEED 50 % . Chairman Aron stated for the record that he will excuse himself from chairing this appeal because L & P Builders has done some construction work on his house . He asked Vice - chair Austen to Chair the appeal . Mr . James Smith addressed the Board , representing L & P Builders . He stated that he would have to admit that the contractors are a little bit low on the soil level , about 7 " for the most part and a little bit more on the back side of the house due to a bow window . He explained to the Board that L & P Builders ran into some problems in the back of the house with some very old red clay field tile and there is no way that can cut off the flow of water in that area . He said that to keep the water on the lot so as it would not flow onto the neighbor ' s property , and because the property is so steep , that is the reason why they ended up with the soil levels . Mr . Smith explained that there was no intent on the part of the contractors to deviate from any codes , it just happened to be with the areas on the sides of the house that they had to deal with and because • of that particular tile they had no control over it . Mr . Smith showed the Board where the tile is on the sketches that were provided to the Board . Board of Zoning Appeals November 30 , 1988 _ g _ • The public hearing was opened . Mrs . Lynne Wilks , 1410 Slaterville Road , said she lived next door to the property in question . She stated she is objecting to the appeals on the grounds that it is definitely a two - story building ; that it is built up above the original ground level . She further stated that the house as it was built is a definite detriment to her property and it had not been built in accordance with the zoning law . She said when the building was being constructed she was informed it would be a retirement home with an income apartment , and it has turned out to be a house for two full families . She also expressed concern about increased car traffic as there is a shared right - of -way across the back of her yard . Mr . Dan Wilks , 1410 Slaterville Road , asked the Board if he understands correctly that the variance is being requested on the basis of the lower apartment being a basement apartment . Mr . Frost replied that it would not be considered a basement apartment . The Zoning Ordinance would require that the lower level would be a basement by definition but the way it was constructed that lower level is not a basement , but a first story or first floor . Mr . Wilks asked the Board if it is the case that the second • part has not been certified for occupancy . Mr . Frost responded that neither apartment has been certified for occupancy . Mr . Wilks informed the Board that both apartments are occupied . The public hearing was closed . Mr . Frost referred to a letter dated November 17 , 19881r indicating that the lower level would be an inground unit . He asked Mr . Smith why , when the contractor ran into construction problems such as the tile drain that he refers to as dumping water around the foundation , wasn ' t he notified if they felt that , based upon their letter of November 171 they were not going to deviate . He stated the contractor at that time knew he was violating the Ordinance by raising the house because by the subject letter it was very clear that the contractor would comply with the Ordinance . Mr . King said that the contractor should have come back and amended plans to build a single story house or to otherwise obtain a variance to suit the conditions and has not done so . He stated that the contractor went ahead and finished the house even after he was told he would have to bring it into compliance , at which time he wrote a letter saying that he would do so . Mr . King stated that it looks like a crass violation of the law to him . Mr . Smith assured the Board that there was no violation • intended . Mr . Frost said that he issued the permit on November 16 and received the letter on the 17th . He said it was a matter of assurance that the contractors understood that the lower level of the house had to be inground as a basement . It is his opinion Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 . 10 - that to comply there were two things that could have been done , one was the foundation should have been dug deeper which would have resulted in the first floor being deeper , or secondly they could have added more fill which Mr . Smith has indicated would be difficult because of the steep grade . Mr . Smith responded that to go any deeper , with what they found with the water , would have caused an even greater problem trying to comply , because then the soil would have been so high that the bow window on the back of the house would have been underground . Mr . Frost wished to clarify that in receiving the letter dated November 17 , the initial plans for the house did not show the first floor as being in the ground , He stated that one of the reasons he requested the letter was so that the record would be clear that the intent was to have a basement apartment . In response to Mr . King ' s question of how much soil it would take to bring the house into compliance , Mr . Frost responded that it would take about 6 " for the west side of the building , for the front of the building it would be difficult to add soil because it would be above the front door and the rear of the house presents a similar problem . He said that it is his opinion that they only have the option of adding soil to the west side of the house . • Mrs . Hoffmann inquired of Mr . Smith , that since he has built 5 houses in the Town of Ithaca , she assumes he is familiar with the Town ' s zoning ordinance . Mr . Smith replied that he must admit that he has not done a great deal of work in this area and the ordinances here are more involved than many other places where they have built homes , He further stated that normally where they build they do not have all the slope problems that the Town of Ithaca has . Mr . Frost stated for clarification that this is the third" house he has been involved in with L & P Builders ; the other two are similar two - family houses with a basement apartment . He said that the house that was finished prior to this one just barely ( by about 111 ) made the grade for having the lower level in the basement . Mr . Frost stated that in regard to what Mr . and Mrs . Wilks said about the house being occupied , he has not issued any certificates of occupancy for that building nor has he received any final electrical or plumbing inspection certificates . Atty . Barney asked Mr . Smith if the property is occupied . Mr . Smith responded that it is , but that he has no control over that . He said that the homeowner has had title to the property before the project ever started , Mr . King askedif the house would be in compliance as a single - family house if there were not the second unit in it . Mr . • Frost responded that he never did a framing inspection on the building . However , he did receive a letter from the project engineer that she was comfortable that the house was built according to their plans . Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 11 - • Mr . Barney stated that as it stands now , there is no certificate of occupancy ; the Town has a building that is being occupied in two apartments , which is a misdemeanor . A motion was made as follows by Edward King . RESOLVED , That the matter be referred to the Town Attorney for prosecution of the violation , and the Board denies the variance as a self - imposed hardship and the only relief that could be expected would be for the owners to come in with some kind of plan that either would bring the second unit into compliance as being 50 % or less than the size of the first or that it be occupied only as a single - family home so that it does comply with the code . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Hoffmann , Austen , King , Reuning Nays - None The motion was unanimously carried . • The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF JAMES AND JULIE ROGAN , APPELLANTS , WILLIAM P . GROVER , APPLICANT , REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF A USE VARIANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON JUNE 24 , 1987 , PERMITTING A PIZZA/ SANDWICH DELIVERY SERVICE WITH SEATING FOR 19 PEOPLE AT " ROGAN ' S CORNERS " , 825 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOS . 6 - 40 - 4 - 2 AND 6 - 40 - 4 - 5 , BUSINESS DISTRICT " A " . THE MODIFICATION REQUESTED IS THE REPLACEMENT OF SAID PIZZA/ SANDWICH BUSINESS BY A RETAIL BOUTIQUE AND GIFT SHOP . Mr . William Grover addressed the Board , acting as Agent for Mr . Rogan . Chairman Aron stated that he understood that Mr . Grover had already started this business prior to coming to this Board . He asked Mr . Grover if he was not aware that he was not supposed to have this type of business on that property before coming to the Board . Mr . Grover responded that the business had been closed since October 27 , 1988 on Mr . Frost ' s recommendation . He stated that it was a misunderstanding on his and Mr . Rogan ' s part , they both thought the other was handling the request . Mr . Grover said that he and his wife approached Mr . Rogan to lease the 750 ' square foot space . when they learned that Mr . Rogan had decided against putting a pizza carry - out business in the store . He stated that the store was to be finished by August • 1 , 1988 but Mr . Rogan had problems getting contractors there to get the work done . In the meantime , he and Mrs . Grover had secured $ 20 , 000 worth of Fall clothing at great expense financially , and they talked with Mr . Frost at the time to try to Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 . 12 - change the variance , but they could not get in for three months . He stated that neither he nor Mr . Rogan did anything blatantly trying to break the law . They thought they could start the business and that it would not be a big problem to change the variance because it seemed to be something that would fit in with what was already approved , which was going from a Zone " A " to a Zone " B " . Atty . Barney asked if there is a signed lease with Mr . Rogan . Mr . Grover replied that there is only a verbal agreement at this time . Atty . Barney referred to a letter dated September 14 , 1988 from Mr . Frost to Mr . Rogan that stated specifically that he needed to get a change in the variance to operate a boutique in that space . Mr . Frost asked the Board , in terms of guidance for other cases , if the Grovers and Mr . Rogan had to go to the Zoning Board at all with this case for the reason being . if the pizza place established itself in the storefront and then the next day Mr . Rogan decided to take out the pizza business and rent to Mr . Grover , they would be going from a business use " C " as a restaurant to a business use " B " and under that scenario they would be permitted to do that because they would be going from a less restrictive to a more restrictive use and as such they would be able to do that . He stated that it was his feeling in the • end , however , that since the place had not been occupied yet and the variance was given to the pizza business they would have to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairman Aron responded that this Board specifically gave a variance for a pizza place . Mr . Frost then questioned if it had been a year from now and Mr . Rogan had come to him and said he was doing away with his pizza place , that Mr . Grover wanted to rent it as a clothing boutique , would he have been in error to tell Mr . Rogan to go ahead . Atty . Barney asked Mr . Frost on what basis would he have told Mr . Rogan that . Mr . Frost replied on the basis that they would be going from a less restrictive use which would be a business " C " . Atty . Barney responded that relates to a non- conforming use , not a variance . He stated that a non -conforming use can indeed go to a less restrictive use but a non- conforming use is defined as a use that is non- conforming at the time of the enactment of the ordinance . It is not a non - conforming use treated by variance . Chairman Aron responded that is correct ; any use that is more restrictive does not matter , that is for the Zoning Board of Appeals to decide . Mr . Frost noted that he has not issued any certificates of compliance for this building , he has not done a final inspection , and he does not have a plumbing approval yet . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared . The public • hearing was closed . Chairman Aron addressed Mr . Rogan in regard to the June 1987 variance that was granted to him for a pizza parlor that had Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 13 - several conditions put upon it such as landscaping , striping for parking , construction of a pedestrian walkway , speed bumps and stop signs . He asked Mr . Rogan how many of these conditions had been completed . Mr . Rogan responded that the stop signs are in , the speed bump is in , the striping will be done when the black top is finished , and he has an architect working on the landscaping . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT . Chairman Aron ' read the following from Part III of the Environmental Assessment signed by Ms . Susan Beeners , Town Planner , " A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for this action , for reasons described above . It is recommended that there be full compliance with the requirements of the earlier 1987 approval related to drainage , walkway striping and landscape plan approval and that there be installation of such prior to May 31 , 1989 . " A motion as to the environmental assessment was made by Edward King as follows : RESOLVED , that this Board adopt a negative declaration of significant adverse environmental impact for the reasons cited by reviewer Susan Beeners in her report of November 8 , 1988 , and upon the observation that the likely impact of a retail boutique as far as traffic and operating hours and noise , etc . , is likely to be much less than would have been for a pizza parlor which the Board has previously approved . Edward Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - King , Aron , Hoffmann , Austen , Reuning Nays - None The motion was unanimously carried . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Grover to state for the record the meaning of the word " boutique " . Mr . Grover responded that it is a store with 70 % women ' s clothing , 30 % men ' s , with lingerie , socks , belts , leather bags , and jewelry made by local artists . It also has prints done by Mrs . Grover . A motion was made by Edward Austen as follows . RESOLVED ! That the Zoning Board grant a modification of the • variance to permit a boutique in the building formerly given a permit for a pizza parlor , with the understanding that all the sign requirements must be met before a certificate of occupancy can be issued , and with the Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 14 - • findings of fact that it will be less congested than a pizza parlor , less people and less traffic for the area , a lesser business zoning and that it should fit very well into that small shopping area , and be it ` further RESOLVED , that' the conditions be met that were placed on it by the previous grant ; that the striping be done by May 31 , 1989 , that the plantings be done as per the Town Planner , and the store must be given a certificate of occupancy before it is opened and it must comply with all the requirements that were imposed in the granting of the original variance , which was dated June 24 , 1987 . The motion was seconded by Edward King . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Austen , • King , Aron , Hoffmann , Reuning Nays - None The motion was unanimously carried . The last item on the agenda was the following . DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH • RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL . REVIEW AND DECISION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM SEPTEMBER 14 , 1988 AND OCTOBER 26 , 1988 ) OF JOHN E . RANCICH , APPELLANT , MICHAEL J . MORUSTY , APPLICANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 2 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , WHEREBY ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON A PARCEL OF LAND , WITH UP TO TWO DWELLING UNITS WITH OCCUPANCY BY EITHER TWO FAMILIES OR A TOTAL OF THREE UNRELATED PERSONS IN THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE , IS PERMITTED : THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY MAINTAINS TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES , EACH CONTAINING THREE DWELLING UNITS , ON " TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 25 - 2 - 321' , KNOWN AS 845 - 847 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD . , RESIDENCEIDISTRICT R- 15 . Mr . Michael Morusty , Applicant , appeared before the Board . He stated that he had followed all the instructions that the Board had put upon him . He stated that he has corrected the violations as far as the amount of families in the apartments . He said that his intention is to incorporate the two apartments on May 31 , 1989 when the leases expire ; he has removed one of the kitchens and he is in the process of removing another one , and he ha's eliminated one of the meters . He stated that he cannot do the other meter until the electrician can get to the other . tenant ' s apartment on May 31 , 1989 . He further stated that at that time he is going to be one of the owners and occupy No . 847 and , hopefully , he will be able to sell No . 845 . He asked permission from the Board to proceed as planned . 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 - 15 - • Chairman Aron read the following letter , dated November 21 , 1988 into the record that was sent to the Board of Zoning Appeals from Mr . Michael J . Morusty : " To Whom it May Concern . In order to comply with the Zoning Board ' s regulations , this is my intent . As of now , at 845 Taughannock Blvd . apartment C is empty . This will stay empty and when the tenants ' lease in apartment B expires in the summer of 189 , apartments B and C will be converted into a single apartment . Also , at 847 Taughannock Blvd . apartment B is now empty , and apartment C will be vacated on May 31 , 1989 . At this time B and C will be joined into a single unit which I will occupy . As all leases expire in the summer , I intend to replace all current tenants with new tenants who will conform to Zoning Board guidelines . I hope that you will find this action satisfactory . Sincerely , • Michael J . Morusty " For the record , Mr . Morusty corrected the dates of the leases which will expire to May 31 , 1989 . The public hearing was opened . No one appeared . The public hearing was closed . Mr . Edward King made a motion as follows . RESOLVED , that no variances will be granted to the applicant for occupancy beyond that permitted under the Ordinance for these two dwellings at 845 and 847 Taughannock Boulevard , and , it being that the applicant has demonstrated his intent and has taken action to comply with the requirements of the Board to reduce the occupancies there and has shown leases that expire in May 1989 at which time he will be able to structurally bring the properties into compliance with the proper number of units , the Board further resolves that no action against the applicant be recommended by the Board , at least not before July 30 , 1989 , and on the condition that the applicant obtain building permits from the Town to make the structural changes that he has proposed . Joan Reuning seconded the motion . • Zoning Board of Appeals November 30 , 1988 . 16 - The voting was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Austen , Hoffmann , King , Reuning Nays - None The motion was unanimously carried . The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectively submitted , &IAX , R� jAtta Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary APPROVED . Henry Aron , Chairman • • .. .: -• IDAVIr CW ICf�' F r'V�11CAT TOWN OF ITHACA- ; ZONING • - ' BOARD OF APPEALS TH­ .a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGSE . 1THACA . JOURNAL.' ' AND AGENDA WED. ,' NOV. 30, 19881 7P. M., B direction of the Chairmari; of the Zoning ' Board of Ap-•; peals 'NOTICE '' IS HEREBY. GIVEN that Public Hearings; 'ds Qr t � 17Tk, aPPropriate, will be held + by ' ' the Zoning Board of Appeals: of the Town of . Ithaca •ori ' 7 Wednesday, November 30, ; Llr: cy� t 2 •-,�1 � .pr+�• d•�JOS �S 1988, in Twn Hall, 126 East` Seneca Street, (FIRST Floors, REAR Entrance, WEST 'Side), L= iit \zr tit bre TGS1.,J, e! in lth': c., Cqurt•y ILII ! t .Zte Lft . i"eszjwd lLnd Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7:00 P.M. , • on, the following`•' matters. C APPEAL of lvar and Janet Jon- ; that ba It _ :. .. _ . ._ • •••� son Appellants, re ues in the authorization of he Zo - i oar Appeals, r C!� �HL ;SAG 017.': AL 1bT1iC � � d 'SIIteCG tIId. p"1�31. 5.� ' Article XII, 54, of the' _ I Town of 'Ithaca Zoning Ordi:n _ .. ..__� f,. ftht� Lt9= :xZ : amdo- t1Z>i : � .• - Gf �wrll^.h t1Je L=exeG lS a fyU6L : single story, single family --_ . nonce, ShoreA •�"� of a s • . - dw ling at 9 B East el Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Par :; . - !!Qy . lrrLt 1J?:S1.I cel No. 6- 18-59,. Residence R- 15. S Parcel of in si rdwellingpr psed for District land is non-conforming }I ' Q and the o � _. _. _ ��.L . _ _ ... ._. _.._.,. __ _._. ... . _�.___• _,___, reconstruction was non-tori. forming in yard setbacks, however, said dwelling is pro- _ posed to be located within the ; some footprint of said pre- viously existing legal non- :1 c *t, S conforming sin le story, sin- , conforming ter ' we £:n g ::•;: ' � es of s = : a � = -- -- .. . g e ' gle family dwelling. Should it be the case that the previouslyI i �� �_ _ existing legal non.-conforming .l -d t . - - -- ._ . _ ._. . . _. .. . `� ++ dwelling has been aban- • i cloned as a use in the Town of ! Ithaca for more.than one year, _ the Appellant has entered a .. . _ . . . . . ._ _ _.... ..... ... ... . . request for variance f% he v i 1 r requirements o nc XII, ' U � f+, � ` 1y • n -.• -- .^+►. a�.. e, � g Section 53, of the Town of � . .. "' _' " - G.F1 Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. 1% ej4qw� ' APPEAL of The Waldorf School _ of the Finger Lakes, Richard D. Kinner, Trustee/Agent, re approvalo the un- ttiion Appeals . . . . , _... . _ .. .. . _ .... . ... I!+ • questing the - . . . . . . . ._ _. .. - -- oard f - .. _ .. . .. . Be V, Se Town I - Zoning der Article _- agraph 4 of the o tha N&Oa v Ft1J `i;, . ca Zoning Ordinance, for the _ temporary (up to two years) JEAN FOLD placement of a portable class- • _. . . . - Notary Public, Sta ; e room a foot y foot tra- iler), at 855 Five Mile Drive, ,I v York Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel I No. 4a5 6-31 -2-15, Residence Diitrict , 1 ' r R-30. QualifiedIfl Milhnmmad , I mplans Count Il1rY11SS10: P r@S M _.. Khursllid, and Zaffor Razzaq, Co • To eX i May - 3 �, . • Appellants, L 8 P Builders, is Inc. , A plicant/Ag n P e t, re- : questing_ - qu variance of . the re- •I quirement of Article IV, Secd tion 11 , Paragraph 2, of the • ' :: • Town o Ithaca Zoning Ordi- i Hance, to permit the maintain- •. atwo-story, two-family N „ basemen b•OOo � ZOcuiOSOQ.�� � o °ar .mO � 223Zcc. 0 = ° C4cu ,. o °' dCL Oa ornooQ ftble�a9hdwellingunittheret ' � ccc g ° yp -0 tno 'uo > � - m `cOn c ° r .0 (D CL= d � cw ° � o emgofequalfloorarea, , "o ° E � � ° v °oo p c uci �0 3 mw rn � 9' ° E L � - ui � o a ° = E o > � ° ` jC II located at 1414 Slaterville com _aa Wao° ocm � 0 ex E � c � octrmaoay . c , am QgO amhN � . i. f Rood, Town oflthacaTax Par- I :" cUrro pa)i, arnd= c ,,, _ "' °� 3mmar - m » t - E � atO ° ~ � � oEa3o `cocv celNo. 658-2-39. 5, Residencel� :. O U B ion 11 c a, w • c m c ' ON a d o .,00id � . oat 0) 0 0C6-c � ar .� ` n-0 � ocmca °, o0co : fair vo � cn. mo a PororaTh . Spermiittsta two. i E fni o 4) m > - � aat •_ ° or 6 O ur Parajaraclph 2, T mca % w > N � .- � O •r -oc ovoc c Zny ' oEy _ - � Qc . I famiy welling provided that L ` \ � - ~ r = � s � Q ^ a � catNop ° c30 ° � ' � m •Eo - � � m - o ° cac °,c n the second dwelingunit not - - ~ a 3 — - 3 ° o^ ° L O o a_ . a) _ v ° m °c .- a a O ' a) c u+ ! exceed 50% of the floor area • a . •- N a " > o y _ c - > � > a o o , � c o ° of the primary dwelling v N O Qa > c co °+ .E - o b o c d o o O > : . c hm „ u o ° v P y unitJ 10 � �.� as d. w0 °' EZ °' o' � P a' Q m (D aO ° a � � �a' o u O '� o cm 'N a 'oa �.o � a E except where the 'second I ° � - ze� � > > o TL, 0 � ao0 °dv m � a- c t al > 2LL E a ao a OLX c u '0 -0 = -a a ° o o m > entiirely within ising unit constructed basemen i v = °r „ . „ QQQ0" vrQQ _ crQ = aQOU .0Z; ZZ; < (Da �° � °co' v°) 3o � 00. Q. Z area, it may exceed 50% APPEAL of James and Julie Ro- gon, Appellants, William P. ` Grover, Applicant, requesting modification of o use variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 24, 1987, permitting a pizza/sandwich delivery service with seating for 19 people at "Rogan's Cor.