Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-04-12 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date wz /_989 • Clerk*� 1 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 12 , 1989 PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Edward Austen , Edward King , Eva Hoffmann , Joan Reuning , Town Attorney John Barney , Building Inspector Andrew Frost . ALSO PRESENT : John Sherman , Richard Lane , Arlene Rivera , Janet Jonson , David Axenfeld , Vincent Mulcahy , Gerald Raul Mrs . Bowlsby , Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order . The first Appeal was the following : ADJOURNED APPEAL ( FROM NOVEMBER 30 , 1988 ) 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 N0 . 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 , SAID DWELLING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE SAME FOOTPRINT OF SAID PREVIOUSLY EXISTING 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 . Chairman Aron referred to the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of November 30 , 1988 ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 ) 0 1 Attorney Jack Sherman , Attorney for Ms . Janet Jonson , addressed the Board . He stated that as he understand 61 the Board requested an adjournment at the November 30 , 1988 meeting for further information relative to this appeal , that basically the request was for floor plans , elevation plans , and a survey which would show where the building was to be located within the lot , • as well as some information relative to a question as to the existence of the City law and the provisions relative to the Ithaca City code that may have had some effect on this at the time of the demolition of the original building on the lot . He ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 2 presented copies of the material requested to the Board . He apologized for not getting the information to the Board until today but he was not fully aware that he was in charge of this case until a few days ago . Chairman Aron stated that the Board is not in the habit of receiving information at the last minute because the Board will have to study some of the material before they can make a decision and it is very unfair to the Board to make a decision upon things which are handed out at the moment the meeting starts without giving them the opportunity to look into and study the materials . He stated that if the Board feels that it is not fully informed as to all this , there could be the possibility of another adjournment . Atty . Sherman stated that he understands that . He stated , for clarification , that he understands that the Zoning Officer may have been provided with most of these materials sometime ago by Ms . Jonson directly , before he became involved in the case , other than the point of law from the City code , which he provided to the Board . Mr . Frost" concurred that of the materials that Atty . Sherman has presented to the Board , only the point of law from the City code is new . Chairman Aron asked Atty . Sherman to continue . Atty . Sherman stated that the previous difficulty , as he understands it , is that the Jonsons originally proposed an addition to their existing building on the lot to the south and that was finally rejected at the June meeting , with the proviso that the Board might look favorably upon a one - story , one - family , separate dwelling to be put on the same lot and essentially in the same location . That is what the Jonsons have attempted to do . He referred to the drawings before the Board and the copy of the existing survey of 1985 of the building that previously existed there so the Board could compare the two . He said they are not precisely the same shape . In many respects the new building regularizes the line , particularly along the north line where there was a jutting out , particularly on the northeast corner . Atty . Sherman pointed out to the Board on the drawings and the survey the areas that he was speaking of . Atty . Sherman said that basically there was a deletion on the west side of the property to a minor degree to align the property with the west line of the property to the north ; there was a deletion of the northeast side of the part that jutted into the northeast corner virtually to the property line on the north side , and again , all ® of these lines were regularized to basically make a line that is 3 feet parallel to the northerly boundary line of the lot as presently exists and has existed for many years . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 3 Atty . Sherman referred to the elevation maps that the Board had requested and did not receive at the prior meetings showing the single story 15 foot height of the building and the width of the previously existing building on the lot as being essentially 14 feet . He stated that there was no detailed study of the prior building so that they could make a precise determination of the square footage on that building . He said he did the best he could from Mr . Schlieder ' s survey map , and used his scale of one inch to ten feet , and his best determination about the prior square footage was approximately 560 square feet , and on the detailed plans that the Board had before them relative to the new building is estimated at 536 square feet so the square footage is slightly, less than the old building , although the configuration is somewhat different ; it is slightly wider and slightly shorter , to summarize at this point . Chairman Aron asked Atty . Sherman if he is saying that he means that they are not exceeding the footprint that has been in existence . Atty . Sherman stated , for many years , exactly . He further stated that in regard to the question that was raised relevant to the City code , he did do some research and talked to some people in the City Building Department , and he was directed to Section 30 . 51 , which talks about damage to a non - conforming building which is still within a conforming use , which he believes is the situation we have here ; a residential R- 15 use , although the building and the lot were non - conforming . Under the City code , which was essentially the law that controlled the property at the time of the damage , they provided that it could be rebuilt or reconstructed in whole or in part when damaged by fire or other causes , provided essentially that the use not be extended , that the use not be changed , that the floor area not be changed , nor the occupancy or the exterior dimensions . He believes they have attempted to comply with that . Chairman Aron asked in reference to the occupancy , what was the occupancy at the time prior to the fire . Atty . Sherman stated that he believes that the time prior to the fire it was rented out to one family . That use has not increased , . it will not be increased . The dimensions of the building , of overall square footage , are not being increased , and basically they are trying to conform with both the intent of the Town Code and the old City Code , as it existed . He stated that he thinks the City Code was a little more expansive in the sense that there was no time limitation on doing this . ® Chairman Aron stated that the Board is not dealing with the City Code , that what they are dealing with are the Town Codes . The only thing that is relevant is Section 30 . 51 , although it has no bearing as to the Town Codes . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 4 Atty . Sherman responded that it is relevant as a matter of equity . That under the laws that existed at the time that she took the building down , if the lot had not been annexed to the Town , she would have been able to have taken her time and built this basically at her convenience . The annexation put Ms . Jonson in a position where she had to deal with a different agency and there was some question as to whether she had waited too long , she waited more than a year to begin this proceeding or to start the building . Thus , just as a matter of equity , they wanted to at least refer to the old law as to what she would have been allowed to have done under the City if there had been no annexation . Atty . Sherman stated that he realizes that has no binding effect since it is now a matter for the Town to deal with . Chairman Aron referred to Local Law # 3 of 1988 , Section 56 , ( Restoration ) , and asked Atty . Sherman idewas aware of that law . Atty . Sherman responded that he had it in front of him . Chairman Aron read the following from the Local Law : " Nothing herein shall prevent the continued use and substantial restoration of a building damaged by fire , flood , earthquake , act of God , act of the public enemy or catastrophe beyond the control of the Owner provided such ® restoration is completed within one year of the loss of the building and provided that the use of the building in the manner in which it was used prior to the loss is recommenced within one year . The time limit may be extended by the Board of Appeals in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship . " Atty . Sherman stated that he was not aware of the one year provision . Mr . Austen asked , to refresh his memory , if there was a fire in this place . Atty . Sherman responded that yes , there was . He said that as he understands it , there was a small fire whereupon the City inspector came by at Ms . Jonson ' s request , and in looking over the whole situation , the deterioration and the damage caused by the fire as well , recommended that the building be destroyed . That is what generated the whole process of the demolition , whereupon Ms . Jonson obtained the demolition permit which he believes was in March of last year . She had first obtained an improvement permit to try to improve the premises but when the inspector came out , they determined that it would not be feasible to improve the premises , that it would be far better to destroy the premises at that point and start over . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to ® address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Ms . Reuning stated that she had a call from Betsy Darlington , who was at the last meeting on this matter , and she ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 is 5 asked Ms . Reuning to announce that she and Shirley Valenza won ' t be able to be at this meeting but they would like to state for the record that their biggest concern is the fire hazards and she wished to present that to the Board as a part of the public hearing for them . Mr . King made reference to the minutes of the November 30 , 1988 , meeting , page 4 , the first full paragraph of that page . He stated that it is his recollection that what he asked for was a memorandum of law on the question of what happens when the parcel of land is transferred from one municipality to another and Mr . Sovocool had responded that he had some law on that subject and Mr . King was concerned with that , as well as the effect of the Town ' s Section 56 , which says that if the building is damaged by fire , flood , earthquake , and the damage constitutes an amount less that 75 % of replacement costs . As the Chairman has pointed out , the damage must have occurred beyond the control of the owner , and in this case the owner took it down and we have nothing on the replacement costs but obviously 100 % restructuring is beyond the 75 % . Atty . Sherman said he does not think that is in dispute at all . The question is aboutthe mixed judgment as to the partial ® damage by the fire and the recommendation by the person from the Building Department of the City at the time to just start over . Mr . King stated that the whole philosophy of this ordinance is that you allow a non - conforming use to continue until such time as it deteriorates , and you phase it out . He said that the whole idea of the . grandfathering was that they get some use out of it and do not haveA give up a use that was proper at the time the ordinance was adopted . Atty . Sherman stated that he understands that and he thinks that is why they keep going back to the question of what the City would have done when they had control of it . Ms . Jonson tore the building down under the assumption that she would be able to do it and now because of the change of the game , finding out she can ' t . Mr . King said that he would think that maybe the Town is bound if the City gave her a permit to rebuild . Atty . Sherman said she didn ' t seek the permit to rebuild the entire thing because she knew it was being transferred to Town jurisdiction and she would have to apply to the Town to get this . This all started happening about the same time , right after the demolition , he believes this was in March of 1987 . That is when the talk became very serious about the annexation to the Town which was finally accomplished , he believes , in July 1987 . Mr . King responded that was the filing date , he believes that the Town Board adopted it in April 1987 . Atty . Sherman said ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 6 that it all happened about that time . She had already demolished and now suddenly had to apply to the Town and didn ' t apply to the City , feeling that it would be purposeless at that time . He stated that she was basically caught between a rock and a . hard place at that point . She was led into thinking that would be alright under the existing law and then being caught in limbo , essentially not knowing where to go with her application at that point , until the formal annexation was over with . Atty . Sherman stated that whatever the law might be in terms of what the Town might be compelled to do , he is just arguing the equity of it at this point . It does seem fair that she be allowed to do what the City would have allowed her to do , as long as there is not some real safety problem with it . This building does not impinge more upon the neighboring properties than the prior building does , as the Board can see by the plans . Mr . King remarked that he is not quite sure of that point either because this map shows a 15 foot elevation and the pictures that the Board was shown at a hearing a long time ago when this first came up , showed that this had been an old boathouse , and as he recalls it was a fairly flat roof structure . Ms . Jonson responded that at the time of tearing the building down , it had a pitch to the roof . She said she can ' t tell the Board exactly what it was ; it was kind of caving in because of all the years , but it was not a flat roof . Mr . King said that the question is was it a 15 foot elevation to the peak of the roof as is shown on the drawings in front of the Board . Ms . Jonson responded that she would think it would be . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson if she is going to live in the building if the permit is granted to build . Ms . Jonson replied that she thinks at one time in her life she probably will . The house that she lives in now , she will turn over to her children and have a smaller home . Chairman Aron asked if until that time in her life comes , will the house be occupied by others . Ms . Jonson responded that I n the summertime she hopes to have her children there and during the winter months , maybe college students for the season . Chairman Aron asked , for clarification , if what Ms . Jonson is saying is that if a permit should be granted to her , she will rent it to others in accordance to the zoning laws provided in the Town of Ithaca . Ms . Jonson replied yes , that is right . Chairman Aron stated that then when the time comes , she will move into this house and her children will have the larger house . Ms . Jonson responded that that is what she planned to do when she bought this property . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson what she would have done if that house , that building or boathouse or whatever it is called , would not have been burned down , would she have remodeled it or renovated it . Ms . Jonson replied that within that year they had bought that property and rented it ; it was rented by one man at the time of the little fire . Town Atty . Barney referred to the floor plan and remarked that it shows no windows on either side of the building , and that it is going to be wood structured . Ms . Jonson replied that is right . Town Atty . Barney stated that he thinks with the dimension to the side yard on each side , if the variance were granted , according to the Building Code , it has to be non - combustible construction which means that cedar siding would not be acceptable under the construction code . It would have to be steel beamed , non- combustible exterior . Mr . Frost stated that the current Code would require that the building be 4 feet from the next building if it has non - combustible exterior facing to the interior of a property line . It could be 3 feet to the interior of the property line if an exterior facing such as aluminum siding were used , which would be non - combustible exterior facing . Mr . Frost said that the Code says combustible walls with non - combustible exterior facings . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson if she understood that . Ms . Jonson replied that she did . Chairman Aron stated that since the building is going to be 15 feet high , is there going to be that big an attic that there is a need for that big a window there or is there going to be a cathedral ceiling . Ms . Jonson replied that it is` a cathedral ceiling . Mr . Austen asked if there is also a loft . Ms . Johnson responded no . Ms . Hoffmann referred to the drawings that were presented the last time , there were also elevations on some of the north and south sides , which are not shown on the maps now . Also on the previous elevations , it looked like there were skylights in the roof and she asked Ms . Jonson if there are still skylights planned . Ms . Jonson said that she is sure there will be skylights to provide more light because they don ' t have the windows on the sides . Ms . Hoffmann also mentioned that on the old drawings , there was an indication that there was a deck of about 10 x 10 ' , but on the new plans there is no indication of a deck . Ms . Jonson replied that she is sure they will put something off there on the west side as there was on the old plans . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 8 Ms . Hoffmann asked how large the deck will be . Ms . Jonson replied that it will be the same , that it was just a 5 ' x 51 . Ms . Hoffmann said that in the old plans it looks like it is square , which would mean that it is 10 ' x 101 . Ms . Jonson referred to the patio doors on the west elevation and said that is where a deck will be . Ms . Hoffmann said that it is hard to determine how large it will be when there is nothing on the plans . Ms . Jonson said they will try to do the same size . Ms . Hoffmann said that the reason she is asking is because she would like to know how close it will be to the shoreline . Ms . Jonson replied that the one that was there was right to the edge of the shoreline . Ms . Hoffmann asked Ms . Jonson if at this time she could be more specific about the size of the deck . Ms . Jonson said no , she could not tell the Board what that deck size will be right now . Atty . Sherman stated that approximating from the map and the scale that is provided , it looks to be a 10 ' x 101 . Ms . Hoffmann said that the new house is 14 feet wide , that is what makes her curious as to how big the new deck will be . Ms . Jonson assured Ms . Hoffmann that the new deck will not be larger than a 10 ' x 10 ' . Ms . Hoffmann referred to the interior drawings of the plans for the house and she questioned the absence of a sink in the bathroom . Ms . Jonson replied that her husband is a builder and they know they have to have a sink . Ms . Hoffmann remarked that it makes her a little worried if there is anything else missing in regard to what the Board is seeing on the plans . She asked if there is going to be anything else there that the Board doesn ' t know about . Ms . Jonson responded that Mr . Frost will inspect it and if everything is not right she is sure he will let them know . Atty . Sherman asked Ms . Jonson if other than a potential deck toward the lake , approximately 10 ' x 101 , is there any other exterior addition that is planned . Ms . Janson replied no . Mr . Austen stated that he is still very concerned about building on a ' lot that is a maximum of 21 1/ 2 feet wide , Ms . Jonson responded that that is the way the houses are there . Mr . Austen said that the distance between the houses is much less than it should be . Chairman Aron stated that he has had hand delivered to him pictures of 934B with a note on the back that read as follows : " Have you been trying to visualize the space remaining after the construction of the footprint building in our East Shore Drive neighborhood? Turn the page for a photo of the original building in proximity to its neighbors . " ( Attached as Exhibit # 2 . ) Chairman Aron referred to a copy of a fire report dated 11 - 11 - 85 , and read hand written letters that were hand delivered to ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 . 9 him from Om . 0 . Gupta ( dated Nov . 30 , 1988 ) , Donald Weir , a statement from Betsy Darlington ( dated Nov . 30 , 1988 and April 12 , 1989 ) , Doreen S . Schriner , and Shirley Valenza . ( Attached hereto as Exhibits # 3 , # 4 , # 5 , # 6 , # 7 , and # 8 ) . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson and Atty . Sherman if they wished to respond to the letters that he has read into the record . Ms . Jonson stated that in regard to Mrs . Valenza ' s letter concerning the fire that they had in this apartment ; it was a little fire ; they are not irresponsible people . The next fire they had was done by Mrs . Valenza ' s own daughter . She stated that she knows this does not pertain to what she is before the Board for ; it is just that this is what happened . Mrs . Valenza ' s daughter had come to live with the Jonsons because she was thrown out by her mother and her suitcase laid on the heating system and caused a smoke fire . Atty . Sherman stated that there may well be some personal feelings behind the letter that was written . Chairman Aron asked if Betsy Darlington has personal feelings in this matter also . Ms . Reuning stated that Betsy ® Darlington is just a good friend of Mrs . Valenza and is trying to watch out for her interests as Mrs . Valenza is very ill . Ms . Jonson said that if we are talking about septic fields , Shirley Valenza is the only one who voted against the Town ' s sewer system coming into their area , adding that she heard she was the person who didn ' t want it to happen . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson if itAher opinion then that this is a personal vendetta . Ms . Jonson replied no , she is not saying that , she doesn ' t know why Ms . Valenza does this , but she is saying this is what has happened to her , the fire was that way , and the stairs : they want the Jonsons to maintain the stairs that come off the roadway to the homes , which are used by Shirley ' s tenant , Mrs . Valenza herself , it is used by the Weirs , who is a tenant also , and by the Jonsons . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson to tell the Board about the parking which has been mentioned in every letter that he read . Ms . Jonson responded that her daughter does come home from college in Pittsburgh so sometimes they have 3 cars but that is the only time they have 3 cars . Ms . Reuning asked Ms . Jonson if she has clients that use that parking area . Ms . Jonson replied no . They did have people that moved from Texas to stay here and they did have them in their home for 2 weeks before their rented property was available , that is not a client . They have showed their house to clients but they have never had them stay . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 10 Chairman Aron asked if the house that they are living in now is the one they showed . Ms . Jonson responded that they don ' t even do that anymore because that is not the type of houses they build . They used to build big homes , expensive homes . They no longer do that so they don ' t show the home . Mr . Austen asked if all the parking is on the highway . Ms . Jonson replied that all the parking is on the highway , there is a little indentation off the highway that 3 of these cars can use . Chairman Aron asked where the neighbors park . Ms . Jonson said that Mrs . Valenza has a parking space , she and Mr . Jonson are side by side and the person across the street even uses that and ' he has a driveway and a garage but he uses that because it is easier access . There is also another tenant who has a car . At times there have been 5 cars there so she guesses there are 3 more spaces that are being used . In response to Mr . Aron ' s question if this is Ms . Jonson ' s property that is being used for parking , she replied that it is no one ' s property , this is a State road , and the parking is on the shoulder . Mr . King remarked that he could not find a place to park up there when he went to try to view the area . He had to make several passes before he could find a place to pull his car off the pavement . Mr . Sherman stated that it seems to him that a lot of the concerns that are raised are safety type issues , which are certainly being controlled by other factors , such as the fire wall . He thinks the plans are attempting to provide and to give the best protection possible in those areas . If there are problems with sewage , he would assume that that will be investigated too . There has certainly been nothing proven on that issue . He stated that there does seem to be some personal feelings involved here and the import , it seems to him in most of the correspondence , is they really don '. t want anything there at all which essentially means that they want it to be a vacant lot and that the building that the Jonsons had on there and expected to be able to maintain , it will just be gone and lost and they will have lost the value of this property entirely . That is what seems to be the thrust of what these letters are indicating . Ms . Jonson said that she would like the Board to come down and see what she takes a look at . For instance , all of a sudden last year , they brought in blocks , their whole front yard is blocks , so it is not all pleasant to her either . Chairman Aron said that the members of the Board have the final say in the matter but Ms . Jonson was given the opportunity to respond so the Board could hear that and the Board will make up their own minds as to that . He asked the Board if there were any further questions they would like to ask Ms . Jonson . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 11 Mr . King stated that they have an official report of a fire at 934 East Shore Drive , the premises owned by Ivar Jonson , occupied at the time of the fire by Scott O ' Rear and the date of the report is February 2 , 1985 . He noted that the address on the survey shows this property as 932 East Shore Drive and his report says 934A . He asked Ms . Jonson what the number is of her own big house immediately to the south of the property . Ms . Jonson responded that it is 934 East Shore Drive . Ms . Jonson said that their house , at one time , was 2 apartments and they have eliminated that and made it a family home so they have taken density out of that area . Mr . King referred to the xerox copies of the photographs of the property and stated that the indication on there is that these photographs were taken September 24 , 1986 and they depict the property and note the address several ways ; the last one being 934B East Shore Drive . He asked if those pictures are of the cottage that was on this subject lot . Ms . Jonson replied yes . Mr . King asked if that is the one they tore down . Ms . Jonson replied that it is . Mr . King stated that he thinks the Board saw the original of these pictures at a previous meeting and that is where he got the impression that the height of this structure that was there was much lower . However , Ms . Jonson is correct ; it is a pitched roof , not a flat roof . He said it is very difficult to tell from the photographs but it still looks to him as though it doesn ' t extend 15 feet in the air as she is proposing now in a new structure and if the City had given Ms . Jonson a permit to rebuild at the time , under Section 30 . 51 of their ordinance , it said that the floor area , occupancy and exterior dimensions may not be increased when compared to the old building . He believes Ms . Jonson has done well on the footprint . It looks as though she has brought it within that and even trimmed a bit off it , but he does question whether the 15 foot height doesn ' t make it larger . Ms . Jonson asked what the height usually is on a single family home . Mr . Sherman replied to Mr . King that to help him estimate what that height is , it looks to him to be about 12 feet and beyond that he doesn ' t know what it would be . Mr . Frost said you could figure 8 feet to the ceiling or so , probably a little less , and he would say 3 - 4 feet for the attic space . Mr . King referred to the Town Ordinance and stated that if that ordinance applies , it says any destruction more than 75 % , can ' t be rebuilt if it is non - conforming . That and the fact that is a very tight neighborhood . It is so densely occupied there , he can understand why there is all the opposition . He doesn ' t take too much stock in it all being personal ; he thinks that anybody ® might be concerned about the view and the density of occupancies down there and the fire problems of how do you get in to fight a fire down there because there is no way down from that highway , that the highway is substantially east of the railroad track and ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 12 there are houses on the west side of the highway so you have to cross lots that have houses and cross the railroad track to get down to this property . Ms . Jonson responded that the fire department did a wonderful job ; they parked right at the top of the hill and they were there in a very short time and they didn ' t seem to have any problem with bringing out the hose any more than they would going across the street . Chairman Aron asked Ms . Jonson if prior to the house having been burned down , did Mrs . Valenza ever complain to her as to that existing house which was there at the time . Ms . Jonson replied no , never . Chairman Aron asked if any of the other neighbors ever complained about the cars . Ms . Jonson replied no . Chairman Aron stated that what goes through his mind is , why now , why not earlier . He does not see this in the letters . It is now when people are complaining about it and his question is did they ever complain about it before that in regard to having renters there and so having added cars there . Ms . Jonson replied no , and as she stated before , Mrs . Valenza also has renters . Ms . Jonson said Ms . Valenza has a renter now and she knows the house isn ' t in compliance but she knows Mrs . Valenza ' s hardships and she doesn ' t say anything . Mr . King referred to Chairman Aron ' s statement that this house burned down . This house did not burn down . Chairman Aron agreed that the house was demolished , that it was uninhabitable . Ms . Jonson stated that the fire did not really do that much ; the house wasn ' t worth that much when that happened . Mr . King referred to the fire report and stated that it says that the fire had been started in the entryway , burning some floor and a picture and that it was of suspicious origin and would be investigated by the State Police and fire investigation team . Ms . Jonson responded that the tenant she had at the time was not an ideal tenant . She stated that after the fire she was told by the authorities to have him either clean it up or leave and the Jonsons did ask him to leave and that is when they started looking into the building for renovation . It was at that time that they were given the demolition permit . Atty . Sherman stated that that is the whole argument . That is how the Jonsons got led down that road . Obviously , if they had started with the Town procedures , maybe that permission would not have been granted and they wouldn ' t be here now . Ms . Jonson interjected that they certainly would not have torn the house down if they knew that they could never put it back up , they would have figured out a way to put a basement under this . The buildings there now are lying on the ground , and they are not safe . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 13 Mr . King asked Ms . Jonson if she has anything at all that says she may tear it down and rebuild . Ms . Jonson responded that she talked to Tom Hoard , and she has .tried recently to get hold of him again but he has left . There was nothing in writing . At the time that all this happened , he had told Ms . Jonson that this property was going over to the Town ; that the Building Department was busy , and she stated that she knew they were and she understood that . He told her to just hold off for a while so she did . Mr . King asked if there was an official record and Ms . Jonson said there was a conversation . Chairman Aron , for clarification , asked if it was Mr . Hoard that she had this conversation with . Ms . Jonson responded yes . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Hoard now works for Novarr . Mr . King remarked to Ms . Jonson that Mr . Hoard could give her an affidavit though stating that he did say that the Jonsons would be able to rebuild . Ms . Jonson asked if Mr . King meant that Mr . Hoard could do that now . Town Atty . Barney stated that the City Ordinance says that they can rebuild and Mr . Hoard is bound by , the ordinance . He doesn ' t know that an affidavit from him will add or subtract anything from that . Mr . King asked Ms . Jonson if she really tore it down because she wanted to build something else or did she just feel this was a total loss , and wanted some open space . Ms . Jonson asked Mr . King why does he think she is here before the Board if that were the case . Mr . King said that he is referring to March of 1987 when she tore it down . Ms . Jonson replied that that was not the case at all and the Board will just have to believe her . Mr . King answered that would be nice , that she would fit right into the Town ' s Ordinance , that it was old and dilapidated and a non - conforming building . Atty . Sherman interjected that he doesn ' t believe there was a great lapse of time . Ms . Jonson stated that she spoke with Mr . Desch several times in the summer of 1987 , and she also spoke with Nancy Fuller because she knew that Ms . Fuller would be the one collecting the papers for this . She stated that both Mr . Desch and Ms . Fuller assured her they would contact her when the papers were signed and she could come in and that never happened . Chairman Aron asked what kind of papers was Ms . Jonson referring to . Ms . Jonson replied she meant the annexation papers . Ms . Jonson said she could get that report from Ms . Fuller ; that she is sure that Ms . Fuller remembers it and also Noel Desch ; he remembers conversations but he probably doesn ' t know what we talked about . Mr . King asked what her purpose was of these conversations with Mr . Desch and Ms . Fuller . Ms . Jonson responded that it was to get it on the agenda with the Town to get a building permit . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 14 Mr . Austen asked Ms . Jonson if this building were built , wouldn ' t it lower the value of her house next door significantly . Ms . Jonson responded that she does not think so and they don ' t live there just because the neighborhood is beautiful because it is not . There is a lot of work that needs to be done down there . Mr . King said that to him , by having a little yard there it would be nicer . Ms . Jonson asked him if he has seen what is on the other side of her . Mr . King replied that he has seen most of what is down there . Ms . Jonson responded that then he would not want a little yard there . Town Atty . Barney asked if it would be possible to redesign the building that Ms . Jonson wants to put on there to lower the roof line somewhat . He thinks that seems to be one of the major contentions . Ms . Jonson replied that if they can say to Mr . Frost that they would have 8 foot ceilings and still get the pitch , then that is very possible . There was discussion of the pitch that is shown on the maps . In conclusion of the discussion , Chairman Aron stated that they are still finishing up roughly with about 13 1/ 2 to 14 feet as it is , even with a small pitch . Mr . Frost concurred with that . Ms . Hoffmann remarked that there is no doubt that this pitch • is steeper than the pitch on the previous building . Chairman Aron replied absolutely , this is at least a 3 to 1 pitch on the picture . Ms . Hoffmann said that this building is also wider by 4 feet than the original building . Ms . Hoffmann asked Mr . Frost what it means when it says within the original footprint , can it be varied a little bit as long as the square footage remains the same or does it have to be exact ? Mr . Frost replied that he would say it would not have to be in the same footprint . Town Atty . Barney stated that the Board is being asked to grant a variance , and they are not locked into a footprint one way or the other , unless it is a matter of policy that the Board wants to insist that it be on the same footprint as before because we have gone beyond our year ' s period of time here . If he understands the argument , if it had been within the year then they could have rebuilt the building identical to what was there before but we are now beyond the year so the Board is not really limited or obligated . . . . . . either way . Chairman Aron clarified that the Atty . Barney is speaking of the area variance . Mr . King stated that he would like to correct his previous remark when he said that it stayed within the footprint of the old building . The old building was 10 feet wide according to the surveyor , and this one is 14 feet wide . Ms . Hoffmann said the total area also has not been made smaller , it has been made larger as far as she can tell from measuring . Even though Atty . Sherman ' s measurement seems to indicate that it has been made ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 15 smaller , she doesn ' t believe that is correct . Atty . Sherman asked Ms . Hoffmann to show him where she sees that . Discussion followed on the measurements of the proposed house . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if he had any further statements as far as safety concerns . Mr . Frost replied only that they would have to have non - combustible exterior facing on the building to have a 3 foot distance to the property line , but in the back portion of that , on the lake side of that building , i f looks to be less than the 3 feet as shown on the front corner of the building ( the road side ) . It looks like a slightly shorter run than the 3 feet shown on the front corner , which would mean that the 3 feet as permitted with a non - combustible exterior facing would not be met on the lake side of that building . Discussion followed on the footage measurements of the lot and the building . Mr . Frost said there are ways to deal with that in terms of the type of construction which the Jonsons would have to meet . Chairman Aron stated that if there are no further questions , he would entertain a motion of whether the Board should grant a variance to Ms . Jonson on that property or whether the Board should deny it . Ms . Hoffmann stated that it would be nice to have a statement of hardship , if there is any . Chairman Aron referred to the Zoning Ordinance and cited the sections on practical difficulties and area variances , and he asked Board members for their opinions on this matter . Ms . Reuning stated that she wished she had an opinion from the fire department as to how long it takes to respond to a fire in that area , and the impact of building , etc . She doesn ' t know if it is appropriate to request that , but it seems that one of the biggest concerns is the danger of fire . Mr . Austen stated again that he believes it is an awful small lot to put a building on . He is saying that even with the house that was originally there , that a 21 foot wide lot is not wide enough to build a house on . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she this thinking about non - conforming use and what the original intent was . She thinks it was that when the non - conforming use goes out of use , it should not come back again , especially on a lake front . Mr . King stated that he leaned that way also except for this ® question of equities , whether Ms . Jonson was actually given an understanding that she could rebuild and therefor demolished this building on that account . He said he is concerned about the footprint and that what she is proposing is larger than that ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 16 which existed before , so if one adhered strictly to the most lenient code , that would be the City ' s 30 . 51 , saying that she could rebuild provided that she did not increase floor area or exterior dimensions . He remarked that this is a kind of non - committal answer in a way , but he thinks it is the hardest decision that the Board has ever faced if those equities are there . If it had clearly been in the Town of Ithaca and the wind blew it over , Ms . Jonson wouldn ' t be able to rebuild and this Board would not be about to give a permit to build . Town Atty . Barney stated that they could rebuild within a year . Mr . King said that 100 % destruction under the Town ' s Ordinance , Section 56 , would prevent its being rebuilt . Town Atty . Barney stated that he believes that was changed in the Ordinance . Mr . King read from Section 56 and acknowledged that the Section had been changed , that the 75 % had been stricken . Town Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board could not really see what the significance of the 75 % was . The thought was that if somebody has a non - conforming use and it is destroyed by circumstances beyond their control , which may or may not be the case here ; it appears that there is an issue as to that , it could be substantially restored . • Ms . Hoffmann remarked that all the things that are listed here are things that would be beyond the control of the owner , which seems to make a difference . Chairman Aron again referred to the fire report and stated that the report does not say that it was completely demolished and Ms . Jonson agrees that it was not completely demolished ; even under the old ordinance it was not demolished 75 % , but Ms . Jonson , to the best of his knowledge and the record could show that , says it was not worthwhile to repair it and so they tore it down and hoped to build another building . He asked Ms . Jonson if that is correct . She replied that that is right , they Just knew they would be able to do so , they had no doubt . Chairman Aron said to Ms . Jonson that according to the Town ' s Ordinance , it was not completely demolished because she did the actual demolishing herself , that it did not create a hazard the way it was . He asked Ms . Jonson if he was correct . She replied that he is correct . Town Atty . Barney wished to address the policy and stated that if this Board were to turn down a variance of this nature , and had the Jonsons known that a variance would be turned down , or permission in effect to rebuild something different , you would have been left with a much crummier piece of construction there than you might be able to get and the impact that one has in terms of . . value to the extent that anybody else along there has , the thought that " maybe I can take down one of these little caving in buildings and re - erect something that is new and neat ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 17 and somewhat more substantial " . The impact of the decision of the Board here would be to deter that and he is not quite sure that makes sense from a reasonable land use point of view . Chairman Aron remarked that he heard the members of the Board saying that as far as land use is concerned , we are talking about 20 feet + inches . Town Atty . Barney stated that his point is , if the Jonsons had known that they could not put up another building , they never would have torn the one that was there down . The Town couldn ' t come in and say it is a 21 foot lot , take that building down . The Jonsons took it down with the understanding that they could put another building back up there , not necessarily the building they want to put up , but at least a building , presumably something that is newly constructed , and more substantial . Atty . Sherman read from Article XIII , Section 57 , Existing Lots , of the Town Zoning Ordinance and asked Town Atty . Barney if he could clarify for him that Section . Town Atty . Barney responded that there he is into a situation where he is compelled to get a variance to rebuild . • Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the applicant permission to re - build on this lot a single - family , single - story residential property , somewhat along the lines of the drawings proposed , provided that the total area of the building shall not exceed the square footage area of the previous building as best it can be determined from the survey or whatever evidence there is of that , particularly in regard to the original building having been ten ( 10 ) feet wide according to the surveyor , whereas the proposed building is fourteen ( 14 ) feet wide , and be it further RESOLVED , that the granting of this permission is subject to the following conditions . ( 1 ) that the exterior siding of the building meet code requirements for non - combustibility to the extent that the building is within 2 - 3 feet from the side yards , ( 2 ) that the Building Inspector would have the power to determine whether any proposed use is in compliance with the square footage and distance and construction requirements , ( 3 ) that the north side shall be no closer than 4 feet to the north lot line , ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 18 ( 4 ) that the building shall be situated equally between lot lines , and the building shall not exceed 12 ' in width ; ( 5 ) that the permit be applied for with proper plans within one year from this date ; ( 6 ) that the hardship is that the property becomes virtually valueless if building is precluded on the lot . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . Discussion followed on the floor on the matter of the deck . Chairman Aron asked if the deck is going to be a raised deck . Ms . Jonson replied yes . Chairman Aron stated that that makes it a structure and it has to be incorporated because that belongs to the structure which will then extend the length of the house . Mr . King amended his motion and Mr . Austen seconded the amendment as follows . ( 7 ) that if a deck is added to the westerly side of the property , it shall not exceed the size of the original deck which was 10 feet wide by 9 feet • deep . A roll call vote resulted as follows . Ms . Reuning - Aye Mr . King - Aye Mr . Austen - Nay Ms . Hoffmann - Aye Mr . Aron - Aye The motion was carried . The second item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF THE FIRST ITHACA CHINESE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , APPELLANT , GERALD RAU , AGENT , REQUESTING SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 3 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1462 SLATERVILLE ROAD INTO A PLACE OF WORSHIP , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 38 - 2 - 22 . 3 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD , ON MARCH 21 , 1989 , RECOMMENDED THAT SUCH SPECIAL APPROVAL BE GRANTED , SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS . Chairman Aron referred to a letter , dated March 16 , 1989 , • that was sent to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals from Gerald Rau , Church Secretary ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 9 ) 0 ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 19 Chairman Aron read from the adopted resolution of the Planning Board , dated March 21 , 1989 and attached hereto as Exhibit # 10 . Mr . Gerald Rau , Church Secretary , addressed the Board and stated that the Church is composed of Chinese Christians . There is an ordained minister in the church by the name of David Wong . Chairman Aron asked if the Church and building are tax exempt by the State of New York and the federal government . Mr . Rau responded that they are in the process of applying for exemption . They have submitted the property tax exemption and the State tax exemption . They have just received the federal tax exemption papers and are applying for that at this time . Chairman Aron referred to a picture of the building and asked where the parishioners are going to park until the parking lot is finished , if permission is granted to have the building turned into a Church . Mr . Rau stated that they have space currently for 13 cars and the Video Sound store next door , owned by Mr . Powers , has offered to let the Church use his parking lot for any additional vehicles until the parking lot for the Church • is completed . He believes there is room for 8 cars in that lot . Mr . Rau stated that at this time there are approximately 30 people in their congregation so there should be no trouble with space for parking . He said that the proposed parking lot for the Church will have parking spaces for 25 cars . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rau about safety measurements , fire retardation , fire prevention , etc . Mr . Rau replied that there are smoke detectors in place and at least one fire extinguisher . He said that Mr . Frost has told him that they may have to put in a sprinkler system . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost to address the issue of a sprinkler system for the building . Mr . Frost stated that the P Code requires places of worship to have sprinklers . It is his interpretation that it will require sprinklers . He said that in terms of the Building Code definition , they distinguish between assembly space and places of public assembly ; the difference being the number of occupants . Public assembly places would be 50 or more people , so they would be assembly space but not the more stricter term of public assembly space since they are under 50 people . He stated that in either case , by the Town ' s Ordinance , he sees them being required to install sprinklers . Mr . King referred to the picture that was presented to the Board and asked if there is a private entrance and apartment at the northwesterly end of the building . Mr . Frost responded for clarification , that the proposal was to have an apartment there . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 20 Mr . Rau stated that that was the original plan but since then it has been decided that there will not be anyone in residence there . The entire structure will be used for Church purposes . Mr . Austen asked how many floors are in the building . Mr . Rau replied there is only one floor , the building is partially set into the hill so it is on ground level on the front and the ground level is about halfway up the back wall . Chairman Aron read from Local Law No . 7 - 1988 in regard to sprinklers and under No . 36 stated that in accordance with that , there will need to be sprinklers installed . Mr . Rau asked if that means the whole structure or just the assembly room . Chairman Aron replied that it means the whole structure . Town Atty . Barney agreed that the law means the entire building . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mr . King questioned Mr . Rau about the landscaping . Mr . Rau responded that there is some landscaping shown on the front of the building which would be mostly flowering shrubs , and the same sort of thing was proposed at a public meeting to be done to the • rear portion of the parking lot to shield that as well because there are some families on Pine Tree Road that look down on the back of the residence . Further discussion followed regarding the parking lot construction that has been proposed . Ms . Hoffmann asked if there are any plans for changes to the house itself . Mr . Rau stated that there will be no major changes . Environmental Assessment : The following motion was made by Ms . Reuning : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church as recommended by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Austen , Hoffmann , King . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 21 Chairman Aron asked Mr . Rau if he is aware that under the Special Approval that is being requested , there will have to be a sprinkler system installed . Mr . Rau responded that the Church is prepared to put that system in if it is required . Chairman Aron stated that if there were no further questions , he would entertain a motion for the Special Approval being requested for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church . Ms . Reuning made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , in the matter of a request for Special Approval for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church , find and hereby does find as follows . 1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . 2 . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . 3 . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 4 . No one appeared at the Public Hearing held this date , • April 12 , 1989 , in opposition to the proposal . AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board of Appeals determine and hereby does determine as follows : 1 . The health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance will be promoted . 2 . The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use , and that such use will fill a neighborhood or community need . 3 . The proposed use and the location and design of the structure is consistent with the character of the district in which it is located . 4 . The proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . 5 . The proposed access and egress for the structure and use will be safely designed . 6 . The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewerage systems will not be detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare of the community . • AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant the requested Special Approval , subject to the following conditions : ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 22 1 . That the parking spaces as shown on the site plan be completed by December 31 , 1989 . 2 . That any outdoor lighting be downcast . 3 . That the landscaping in front and in back of the Church be completed to the satisfaction of the Town -Planner . 4 . That a sprinkler system be installed in the entire building , prior to the opening of the Church for the general assembly . Mr . Austen seconded the motion . The voting was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Austen , Hoffmann , Reuning , King . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The next item on the agenda was the following . APPEAL OF DAVID Be BOWLSBY , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE REPLACEMENT , EXTENSION , AND RELOCATION OF AN EXISTING LEGAL NON - CONFORMING BUILDING DESTROYED BY FIRE AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF • ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 25 - 2 - 38 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID BUILDING , PRIOR TO ITS DESTRUCTION , HAD A SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5 FEET AND A NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 11 FEET , WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK EXTENDING INTO THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY . THE REPLACEMENT BUILDING IS PROPOSED WITH A SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12 FEET AND A NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK OF BETWEEN 11 AND 15 FEET , WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF BETWEEN 7 FEET AND 13 FEET . ( Appeal Form attached as Exhibit # 11 . ) Mr . Vincent Mulcahy , Architect , addressed the Board , representing Mr . Bowlsby . He referred to the plot plan that was presented to the Board and stated that the difficulty with the existing site is that it is much less than is required by the existing Zoning Ordinance . In addition , the DoT at some point , took a right of way along this highway which basically went right through the existing house and thus it seemed advisable in building on this site to try to relocate the footprint outside of that right of way . He pointed out to the Board on the maps presented where the DoT had taken the right of way . Discussion followed on the floor regarding the setbacks on the property . • Mr . Mulcahy stated that in the previous case , the Bowlsbys purchased it as a rental property . They have asked him to design a house for them in this case and for financial reasons and tax reasons they have asked that the house continue to be regarded as ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 23 a duplex . However , they have no intention of using it as a duplex . Chairman Aron stated for clarification that in other words it is a private single story residence . Mr . Mulcahy said that it is a single family residence as it is being designed . However , the Board will see in the designs that there is a studio unit identified on the top floor . He explained that the reason that is being identified is that , as he understands it , a capital gain tax would be assessed on the property if it were to go from a duplex to a single family property , if they couldn ' t continue to assert it as a duplex . Town Attorney Barney asked what the square footage was of the previous building that was on this property . Mr . Mulcahy replied that he thinks that it was in the neighborhood of 1400 square feet . Mr . Mulcahy stated that one of the things that becomes necessary on this site , because of the slope , is that it almost inevitably becomes a vertical house , at least on one side . Town Attorney Barney asked if the elevation drawings are to scale . Mr . Mulcahy replied they are , 1/ 4 " to the foot . Discussion followed on the floor regarding the drawings . • Town Attorney Barney asked what the footprint of this structure is . Mr . Mulcahy replied that it is 1528 square feet . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Discussion followed regarding the reasons for keeping this identified as an income property . Mrs . Bowlsby answered questions from the Board . Ms . Hoffmann asked if this is a case where the footprint of the house has to be exact to the previous one . Town Attorney Barney responded that if they were going to rebuild on the existing foundation , that is perfectly acceptable but since the building is going to be in a different location and is somewhat of a different structure in terms of layout , he thinks that the Board would have to treat it as an extension of a non - conforming use . Chairman Aron stated for clarification that it would then be Special Approval rather than a variance . Mr . Barney agreed . Mr . King wished to note that the proposed footprint of this house appears to be between 27 and 35 percent of the total lot area , whereas in the previous application the footprint was 40 percent of the lot area , so this has much less impact as far as the immediate impact on the lot itself . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 24 Chairman Aron stated that if the Board has no further questions , he will ask for a motion and he reminded the Board that there are variances to be given . First of all there is Special Approval as to allowing for that house to be built as an extended non - conforming use and then to vary the side yards and rear yards and front yard . Mr . Austen made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant Special Approval for the new house as shown on the plot plan dated March 20 , 1989 , prepared by Mr . Mulcahy , subject to side yard variances , hereby granted , of 3 feet on the south side and a variance , hereby granted , of approximately 4 feet on the northeast corner of the proposed building , and be it further RESOLVED , that a variance , hereby granted , for the northwest corner can be as close as but no closer than 7 feet to the front yard line on the southwest corner , and as close as but no closer than 13 feet to the lot line , said variances and special approval granted upon the condition that the percentage of area covered not exceed 35 percent of the lot , • and with the following findings of fact : 1 . No one appeared at the public hearing to object to the proposal . 21 That this is replacing the building that was destroyed by fire on a legal non - conforming lot , with an extension of a legal non - conforming use . 3 . That the lot size is larger than the average lot size in width along that part of the lake front . 4 . That it is not feasible to reconstruct on the footprint of previous building due to the State highway changing their boundary lines . Mrs . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows . Ayes - Aron , Reuning , Austen , King , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The last item on the agenda was as follows : APPEAL OF CANNON RECREATION AND SPA OF ITHACA , DAVID • AXENFELD , AGENT , EARLAND AND ROBERT MANCINI , CURRENT LANDOWNERS , REQUESTING VARIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 44 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL STORE WITH ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 25 A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 150 FEET AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF LESS THAN 50 FEET . SAID RETAIL STORE IS TO BE LOCATED IN �A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ON THE ELMIRA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH FIVE MILE DRIVE , ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 . Chairman Aron read from the Appeal presented to the Board from Mr . Axenfeld ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 12 ) . He stated that Mr . Axenfeld has been before the Planning Board for a Final Subdivision Approval ( attached hereto as Exhibit 13A ) and for a Site Plan Approval ( attached hereto as Exhibit 13B ) . He said that the Planning Board did go over the Environmental Assessment Form ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 14 ) , and they have granted Mr . Axenfeld a negative declaration with respect to site plan approval . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Axenfeld to explain to the Board about his business and what he plans to do . Mr . Axenfeld stated that they are a retail store that sells swimming pools , both in - ground and above - ground . They will sell chemicals , supplies , spas , patio furniture , basically recreational type things . They are proposing to display two swimming pools . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Axenfeld about parking facilities . Mr . Axenfeld replied that there are 25 spaces for parking . Chairman Aron asked for a location that is being proposed for this retail store . Mr . Axenfeld stated that it is on Route 13 , between Bell ' s Grocery and Salino Electric . He said that there is an access road being built into where his business will be . Mr . King asked Mr . Axenfeld how far back the front of his building would be from the highway , relative to the other commercial buildings in the area . Mr . Axenfeld responded that theirs will be farther back than any along that road within a quarter mile . Mr . King stated that judging from the sketch , the first floor of the building would be about 20 feet below the grade of the highway . He asked Mr . Axenfeld if that is correct . Mr . Axenfeld replied that basically where the entrance would start , he believes that it is 124 ' and the actual elevation of the building would be 1081 , so it would . be 161 . He said that coming up Route 13 heading north , he believes the elevation in the corner is much less . Ms . Hoffmann referred to the project map and discussion followed on the figures on the map in regard to the front and rear yards . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 • 26 Ms . Hoffmann asked if there will be protection around the pools that will be displayed . Mr . Axenfeld responded that there will be a fence around that area , and also a light pole for security purposes . Further discussion followed regarding the display area . There was discussion about equipment that will be stored outside , such as a bulldozer . Mr . Frost stated that it was his feeling that as a retail business , the retail business would not be restricted from outdoor display . He referred to Section 43 of the Ordinance for accessory use as was brought to the Board ' s attention by Town Attorney Barney . He stated that it was his interpretation that if a business use. is permitted in an Industrial District , since it is a more restrictive use , then there would be no prohibition of outside display for a retail store , which is what he would label this from the use standpoint . Further discussion followed on the floor on this matter . Environmental Assessment Ms . Hoffmann made the following motion : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals • make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the required variances . Ms . Reuning seconded the motion . The voting was as follows : Ayes - Aron , Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Aron stated that he would entertain a motion to grant a variance for the front and rear yard of this proposed project Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant variances to the applicant conforming to this Site Plan as approved by the Town Planning Board , subject to the following : 1 . The rear yard requirements will be considered met by having the northwest corner of the building no closer • than 34 feet to the westerly lot line , and the southwest corner no closer than 40 feet to the west lot line ; ZBA 4 - 12 - 89 27 2 . A variance , hereby granted , permitting the display area to be located as shown on the plan , namely within approximately 60 feet west of the highway ; 3 . Such variances are granted with the understanding that the applicant will obtain the approval of the driveway entrance and location and design by the NYS DoT ; 4 . That approval of final landscape plans will be obtained from the Town Planning staff , and and with the following Findings of Fact . 1 . The proposed use of the property is a more restrictive use than that permitted in Light Industrial Districts and consequently this constitutes an upgraded use . 2 . It appears that the potential traffic impact would be minimal in a building of this type and a use of this type which is the display and sales of outdoor pools and similar outdoor recreational furnishings and such . 3 . There will not be an adverse impact on the general quality of the neighborhood and the current uses of the neighborhood , nor on foreseeable uses , there being only two residences in the immediate neighborhood and their being on the opposite side of the highway , and at a more graded elevation , whereas this proposed use is • some 16 - 20 feet below the average elevation on the highway . 4 . No one appeared before the Board in opposition to this project . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Aron , Austen , King , Hoffmann , Reuning . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The meeting adjourned at 10 : 01 p . m . Respectively Submitted Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary Exhibi - 14 attached . PRO D : Henry Aron Chairman FILED TOWN OF ITHACA �~ Datsd�0,40AI11t • -TOWN OF ITHACA Clark ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVE�+IBER 30 , 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 ,: . . 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 N0 . 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 , 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 Is 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 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 . 0 Chairman Aron stated that the . former building is no longer in existence so therefore the . shape does not matter . btty . . Sovocool - responded that his thinking from the neighbors ' standpoint , , is that if Mrs . Jonson , in 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 - - November 30 , 1988 1 ; - 3 - r i t' 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 � .that there was a permit to improve this property but when .Mrs . Jonson started to j improve it she found it in such bad shape she went back to the I, 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 . i p 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 I building give her . a . right under the Town of Ithaca ' s ordinance to i construct a new building there . Atty . Sovocool responded that he b can give the Board some law on that as he has checked on the law I� 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 because then she was in the Town , permit after this period Mr . Kang 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 i the Town of Ithaca was to take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State . The law went through the Town Board in April j 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 yeaz'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 rget 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 plan;.! 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 . 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 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 N0 . * 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 t. do wd� Ic TV;R'y'w � .dr XVIi IMP � ' ; 7P1 -4-,wiP, Ijw It ;' ;or/I 7W y i, Ilii �' � • ` / ♦ 4 'tt }L .I ! '� ..y +'=0. 4r i4,.+ it1 t✓ { F1 � C •Gq �� .e(p L I t". `LYCL ! o � LIY.. N•S t ^'V4�. 1 rs yi •� y 4r: yy`Ak . .+{?• r '^ } i^.m: r . • Bary �:1^+'r t it Vt - TM y r4 +�r}eml i f [[{ ofY ' kklC �wj'6 5`v .'�' ! J` ' f, ���,�s �� ,'Yi' 'tN t •�3k+.{� )n4 r/5 �v Vjpp rig S{ ^". �yfh♦„fy Tn ^i r .. d 1. . r•. r lh ZW Y'�Ci i U f+ r �:.. .. ...rr � Y I ` lewr ', ; �./L t y r m- ,} . ± � f � t�r f • :.F,'•' L EitdrF'�t'�iy J �` v „t 'f�i Ary,~� gkr",�yr LLL `.� - t t r . .a Sir i v� ?'Z� 7y��` '"ty, ,p. 'b��,i °*,�t„rst4' •u _ 1.� '..♦♦ y�L[�`M1. rTyal ; T). • • (” 1.,t_ - f "rtei ,�, d.p, �#tbtrk ' rr' .;.■ ^rx99�i w5fs`F ' •?�"O�r��a nlf r cam: 0 115 _ ' '�� + t'I�...TL 4 w ' / / �law Y s i 1 � YkLyj r AF `°`: frrZiL'�w1 R9ii ' �H1;ir 'Y x'$."I skit 111 7 Vi o, , ~ � do Ilk y rcy ' R e�� w3t _ '�rt�li- }� '. ' ¢F17. - }' �w ...c • _ =e. v, , A > t1 i IS. ♦Ti>.t 't 1, 4?� ( sgy y3 L G ' do V r. j y t *n�.ila1ti e `• „ L��r,' �s6 ,rn�N7* �" r✓' f `k"irc i- t er t v LLLL do M �y yh ', 1'rL40, 4 ..i. yL•�'M h'` j.+.}Br �; .' a— • .•+�, t -:_1. IJ ie�'ra • "� ' r� r171 t �Idkto I Vr '.n r • i•.r f a.� � ,jf a H��� fi.` 4, "fir 1* N (r + ry Crd 7 r / I. �T"ke. v Opt jrZ �• x �.. Sw v J� np It A r. i ., t r s ny n r ..dr rf •¢„ � 1 ed.rr t. yI Y` IIk Ira 1 Wdr Ii did dr '4Z.,i.r�"�*T.`r"Sit'.` '�" r..d j, v. .;,. ° lwt� 77 j 3F, i 7"K`� 1�4x� 11 c �•^ i f �r ty' _� ..... a z r t {k'w,':! r ++ i ?* wr 7c .> Lyre _S � yur4♦ �¢ fyrfrr '71'�1 $•a 4 'Y4 « ' ..Y� , tt �� �:7 } tIFS � 4+tik,'^Cr t � r'` j '+vt'�1tY • u'f+•o .trr - v z is . aas ; •tfr6 �t ' r « -iitt i GST V.+K.x t i # fatTrP' T^o' t .j,Ls.CFe� x • !'+ItL; i • tt�` 9 h° °' t ° F S`1 ''M " • '� ,.,c„ 'irr st st x�i' i '"'•:1 �a±,: - 9 °i r ^ kK y , Y f _I47 . In fA� 'M' s g F tP i F ♦� P n fb 4X ryy' i`f ♦•4Ti� k. iS^3 4 S M1�t �'r{.J : .:.•y . # n' t '- 'J n �a rar'. i ' r'{F' t,'l�`•L",r �t,rivs°iw^' nv.SJ.k ) K rl.�s 'n�,'1 . r . Id a/` �. � �}r . irlj % ��'tE �S�fx�` LtW^.�,-aye Y`t•�jtyd��'Ff �'��r�'���.� ��' ;C �'l `�wti t• ,)y�.r- alJ �t n C4Y � rl �'- �f r'ryr a 1 gi r • ♦ � OW t f+ �fu• tk.�vt i t h 7 f t �, tx rti Y 2'� t � dor• �: Moot .�!tw �'► FaiY,�,ryt'^yr }^str1 ,' )i' i°o. t:Ik�ptJ F. `y. Fl �. tF ,N 'i�+r kFl F. . .SrX � y'� �rr fi7;r afM ..s_, I4.1 odd i A! J y_Milo �' - h1� ooe AAP J I 1 i rtlu• iu i a 11111L ' b1 AWL I 10L 10 1 4u iiL 3zit I M M imptled II street934A E Shore Drive Rm . orApt . Correct Address REVjSED � o of Incident City Ithaca CsnauaTract f o. . a., . Zip REPORT O w Occupant Name Last , Firstt Mutual Aid 0 • Rear , Scott ( circle one ) 1 Recd . 2 Given 4 A Last, Firs, Mutual Aid Given To L caner Name Ivar Johnson i' n L Street Owner Telephone No. D _ 934A . , E , Shore Drive _ �-�Y C Owner Address Cily Ithaca n're zp48S0 No . Fire nelResponding — e 20 A Personnel Responding — L PLEASE PUT APPROPRIATE CODE NUMBER IN CIRCLE FOR EACH CATEGORY No. Engines Responding — L METHOD OF ALARM TYPE OF SITUATION FOUND TYPE OF ACTION TAKEN S FROM PUBLIC 11 Stfuclure Fire 17 Outside spill , leak with 1 Extinguishment No , Aerial Apparatus 1 Telepnone 12 Any fire outside a structure ensuing fire - 2 Rescue only Responding ------ 2 Municipal alarm system where the material burning 19 Firel6plosion not classified 3Investigation only No . Tankers Responding - 3 Private alarm system has a value 20 Overpressure rupture 4 Remove hazard 4 Radio 13 Vehicle lire (no combustion ) 5 Standby No . Other Vehicles 02 5 Verbal 14 Trees, brush , grass lire 30 Rescue — EMS call 6 Salvage Responding - --- - -- 7 Tie- line 15 Refuse fire ( include hostile 40 Hazardous condition , standby 7 Ambulance No , Incident-related Injuries 8 Voice signal : Fire alarm fires outside a building 50 Service call 8 Flit in , move up 0I system where the material burning 60 Good intent call 9 Not classified Fire Srv . other- - 901her. has no value ) 70 False call 0 No . Incident-reialed Fatalities 16 Explo.slon , no after-fire 99 Other situation lound Fire Sry Other - - Fill in this section if " TYPE OF SITUATION FOUND" is 11 . 12, 13 ONLY. Fixed Propert pp REFER TO WORKSHEET TOCODE THE FOLLOWING FIELDS : 4 Area of Fire Origin Equipment Involved in IgnitiolhoneFormol Heat of Ignitffi nown 9 entrance_ way Type at Ma !a�a Vlp nit8d Form of Material Ig i d Ignition Factor r aDr1C . 7I d `Toth suspicious F LEVEL OF FIRE ORIGIN CONDITION MOBILE PROPERTY TYPE 113 F11111111111 BRIW91SIFICATION I 1 Grade level to 9 feet UPON ARRIVAL 20 Freight road transport 1 I1 - 99 R 2 10 feet io 19 feet I Overheat 30 Rail transport tt Automobile 2 % 100 -999 E 3 20 to 29 feet 2 Smoldering 40 Water transport 12 Bus 3 I1 ,000-9 , 999 V I E 4 3010 49 feet 3 Open flame 50 Air transport 13 Motorcycle , snovimobile 4 $ 10 ,000 - 24 .999 5 50 to 70 feet 8 Not a fire 60 Heavy equipment 14 Motor home 5 $25,000.49,999 6 Over 70 feet d 9 Not classified M Special vehicles , containers 15 Travel trader 6 $50,000. 249,999 In 7 bjects m flight " Other mobile property types„ .17 Mobile home 7 $250 .000-999,999 Da ed low ground 8 $1 ,000,000 or more I ctassiliedF 0 9 None t• II Mobile Property Yr Make Model Serial Number St . Lit . Number • r 11 Equippment Involved Yr Make Moder Serial Number Voltage in lqn i3on 5 STRUCTURE TYPE EXTENT OF DAMAGE DETECTOR PERFORMANCE T 1 Bldg . /one fixed use 1 Confined to the object of origin 1 In room of fire : operated R 2 Bldg . / two or more uses 2 Confined to part o1 room or area of origin 2 Not in room of fire : operated u 3 Open shelter 3 Confined to room of origin (enter one number for each category) 3 In room of fire: did not operate C 4 Air supported 4 Confined to lire-rated comp, of origin .4 Not in mom of fire: did not operate T 5 Tent 5 Confined to floor of origin Fire 5 In room : fire too small to operate • V 6 Open platform 6Gonlined to structure of origin Fiame Smoke Water Control 8 No detectors present R 7 Underground ® 7 Extended beyond structure of origin ® � 9 El 9 NolCiassifled E 9 Not classified assilied � 9 No damage of Ih[s type J�yJ CONSTRUCTION METHOD CONSTRUCTION TYPE SPRINKLER PERFORMANCE IF DETECTOR DEFECTIVE—Brand Name F 1 Site_ built (see Worksheet) 1 Equipment operated 2 Factory built, site assembled 1 Fire resistive 2 Equip. should have operated : did not R 3 Factory built modular 2 Noncombustible 3 Equip. present: lire too small to operate T t Factory built mobile 3 Heavy timber 8 No equip. present in roomispat Suspicious Fire Referred to jDael _ $ � S 9Not ctassilied � I 4Ordinary 05 of lire origin State p.p �. iCe & 5 Frame 9Notclassified Fire investigation team Officer in Charge (name , position) Date Member Making Report (if different from Officer In Charge) Hate Shat II - II - 8 . SHORT DESCRIPTION OFCAUSEITYPEIEXTENT — ire ffa been started in t e , entr wayurnin some floor and a Picttire' :" The ' f%t6ht• ' door • had ' been ♦ pusr1hied ' bfortrs ` wee MU arrived. .and . the . fi.re . was . .out .. .0 ' Rear - :drove . to • State . & . Aurora . to • report thatK he had been burned and had a fire at 934B . Fire was OOA . Cause to ♦ b-e - on • separ-atess -sheet t from ' investigators . . . . . . PLEASE RETURN FORM TO OFFICE OF FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL ON A MONTHLY BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - os jig NN. 9 - - e. gg - ' 1,�� ,dv S LJ M. a,.y.�.<..'LF-�'JC.r*' - '•'ry�a.�' `,f�L vn.� l 11 - -- _ / l )'3_ `�-.s^"''`r'. _S — ` h!. /yw" • - 9 aL s'� Ali Y p (ca f `"' 710 i a O c »er o-f 930 - 3z bur ty) LkLt 934 Zr 9 cJe ress tiaCue Cr Y' v � i Statement from Betsy Darlington, 204 Fairmount Ave . • c� Nov . 30, 1988 _7 � Most of the concerns raised in my statement of June 28, 1988 still . stand . I would like to summarize what I feel to be the most significant problems with the Jonsons plan to build a cottage between their house and Mrs . Valenzaos . (For your convenience , I have copies of my earlier ; statement , including the changes I made as I addressed you .) i 1 . Life safety : a. Fire hazard i The six houses along the lakeshore are already closely spaced . ( Just 20- 22 feet separate the Jonson"s house from Mrs . Valenza "s .) The removal of a cottage--once a boat house-- from this space was a blessing to the entire neighborhood for it removed a significant hazard . There is no road access to these homes . To reach a fire, firemen would have to carry thein equipment down long , steep steps from East Shore Drive, cross the railroad tracks, and then go down some more steps . If the train were passing, fire could race from one house to the next before the firemen could reach it . b . Highway safety People pulling out of the small roadside parking area are already at some risk from fast cars and trucks coming from the north, around a slight curve . More people would be added to an already densely packed neighborhood, and more cars would be pulling out onto E . Shore Dr . The Chamber of Commerce will be generating more traffic as well . 2 . Parking problems Mrs . Valenza, the Jonsons, and residents of 5 other houses share 7 parking spaces along the road . Once the Jonsons tenants moved in, where would everyone park? 3. Environmental and aesthetic impacts a. Lakeshore The lake shore is already crowded in this area . Adding another cottage would be unsightly from the lake as well as the rr bed . Moreover , tenants are often less careful than homeowners about where they throw trash . If this cottage is built , we can expect more debris in the lake . b. Septic system Will the septic system be adequate to protect the lake from pollu- tion? There is some evidence that the Jonsons present system is inadequate . c . The view from Mrs . Valenza 0s home would be diminished . 4 . Impact on neighborhood character Adding the noise, traffic , and litter of tenants in the cramped space between the houses would have a significant negative impact on this small, quiet , tightly- packed neighborhood, made up at least in part of several elderly ladies . The greatest impact , of course , would be on Mrs . Valenza and her mother , both of whom are unwell and already under a lot of stress. 5 . Economic impact It is likely that the presence of a cottage in this space would lower the value of Mrs . Valenza �s property . The Jonsons can hardly plead economic hardship in seeking this variance . • Considering all the negative impacts that would result , I hope that you will turn down the variance, as you wisely did for their earlier plan . Yf; i ,ct��s EY�bt tX iLt�. �'J � ` MOON :t r 11 f -LTC Lo OL n t n... .: m� . 1._i^bl a •� r � W �'r�..:.t aCi � + �.. O . or%. +.. " ,20 , ? �. tom,-�--�f.. J�`;.��*-C..c... , �,�'t .t�7'L !r �-s� • L ;:..L�_r"�..c.,e'i L �L� f'r\.�--V�' '`" ,S'tv�.s� - o� c/y ..tFtic bZLT 1 J. • ; at., r.r i^.l . l..d,% /., �tr•�, �S .P..r�LC}' 4 '1 J -""-i�S' �i .:1... !? -rf•.A7"-�.QJ L Cl Q:1R. _ ttC _l drr tt ¢ � tQJ r a^vYru}rR� . b r y�� (�;�ZLIZ CL. ..l..i �.-l.� 'l.J�-!-.�`m-�..+.�2".'Y "�� -�?Jf:X.'L�i �L�.Cz.�✓ •...� Q,' �'Y'4.^..�..C.�t�-°i�J •. � . - -- - 'X - - ^�'—C��' t�nl� RJ..e,Yv;�,.a.e.� cn.n.e.� he,a.�_8wt+-,�-�-�.n�.e 'CPta•�. �•e- a�..ccL c.�.a.a.� — - - . �_ _ 1 , _ ..... �'� •� t� 1'�7' ..Q.'Lea...�.t�1.L� O•'L tr.�. �� � '�'E_—"- No � t?u� Co+ t.s+ti; � • �.o CAS. / ��. to-e ssc� rr� rltR � nvL. � .c �.�. _ _ _ _ �� �.rv_Fa.u✓ ,JvaC,L.ct.,. 'Ylt,.��.v,�� ~�qi �---.__ � � —.-- �.�N V'u�.vG"�V LJ�'L4'•rL"' --- - "' .t�.�:�nJ�s��'-e�•r_-rl �✓ f .J'.-E.M.�'ti.•D% �- . ' ::1�-�•-vt! ��iv."R,�.:y� �.�,rry��etxr.s..�.+.G7d-►Yr l.w"�..,�9ti... .. .r. .-._.... ---- - -- . _—_. _ •��i.a� ..4_Isr rr�....;�svy,�,•r. -- - v�. , "��. 0 -1G�..Q�; ��J ,lvotrrn.er.� �i►+v�e�r .d..«►'1.��...+ ,.�r..�i�7 '' _--- — - Lj �a.a,.�rti..a �;:e�:'P.�p.d-, •.�F�.�u� J?.c�r�:�,.. .:t.�.� �,...e��. ,.�.R.Q.d_ � , Ad 1� -- ••�— � � �•_—__s—._..._+..V V1 _ ._._ .. .-_ .. .moi..—�..,. AA1 ,• -�— - - _ - - — . ._ _ � ----- 1.._. .___._ --_�l�`3L�ft'�s"`,'. p_�T'Q7:.�.0'SL'L�•�"��+ 'rGL:�1'�:.taa '- _ _ _ . _ . ��yy LL �11a.�• a/,,n���.r �Y�� ��� -��..C_��'L'lq:.�/' ,�J'r�i Js ...�STfv 1...� �+�-.W�! '�,�/R.�� S -,, � , ,, > cnra�..szj-*-n`a� .J�D�-�. -e�- �a�-�^-' r^-s-•�.P�.Rs-d'2..D��r: "�:c.�.E ;i,�s�%�.} � �•. - � �.crne�.r r..QA= � •�-�-t..cJ .w-�.r..G�jZ.�e�.�._a_n.� ' t7.,� ,dQ,y-.`.�...a.. -- awn � r:r' _. . . .. . . - - . �j �1L.Tlr•L h'Ll...:i -.l',/�.1/ �f ' �+�.v`Lr�3'Q�1-LS7lf�.C�'/ (•f'�a^._l,.�t�'�rb2�•r"G� C`J'h.� cc.1L1'�/^'�'� �J�✓ ' .- - q �� yY a �_,;�� `, � •t$,.¢� Jcsr.2:.srL _�v.=-r`�.:..�.�.�. ..0- �u LP'ti��.n.�.� �.� c�...r�� -�Cv � rc -: .•; �{ w JA'C•�3dA�� 4:.� _.i�r_LN•rC. . •, :�,1-.-r•�.. ��e` ��r pst_k..�.. C�.C'��-a�. 'L.�"19� f'(_ i'2.;'± La.•P�..1Jf.':'.1,/ •'.1:.-^i..1' t1—'�1'i� • '�I�..l�i" �_��0.1v'T.fr.+� �ti`�' � • �_ _ll.<%.L:i�iL��� � r.i-E.t_JV '�L �`'SY'(l`J`/ ��--�� ..I.TYl..- �•�11.. fhltl���r ��S'y'J�-� 7 a - - - ._ �`� rr• .tu �.r�'•C�.� �C _�..!_� i ._ L-�- .-f '..�$ �•�!`,,,, _ cT'C _t3l C.11cfaJ %�.l! _ _ • -��llt..lrlLJ d ^ —. ( � '.� ►'�,�� �-S'1..�,p•' ;c.s.-._,r �3'1.� n� tr}'ZR.n. Q,,t, . V..�.B� .:lmc�l� • "Lw U^� �. ht.1'�f».� tip C �. �dj - ti Z. L. 00, ) CUrCCAAA tA CL .., �. ` i • I F � I 4 - j..._-�._.. .�. e wr_r___...r_•.r. - +M. err Imo- _. «_ - . . n • ?r• — . . . _ � r - _ _....._.-w.. - —r_rr,_wi+.._.. ` J••,. r&L.wr_M: • _. _ . _ _ _.._ _ . . . s .,rwre-y :I�CarC�,w-i COY4,% ^ `4 . t T... '. . _ • # $ �:� .sem :�.-a-.�... ..�_�. .a—'�::.::, �. � ,c�.� -t.A��.c�� ' ir-,, cs'wU , "�M+6 71 -7:7 _ -- - - is C L 'ba — i. :;�;.: ' ._ . _. ___ � �� . �,3�"w�- 't.�3.1 ��ti.�„1Z'o���.... ..,1_.�_•fG���✓�-. _ '�� _ !�1n� .^_.�.a�"..RJ'�-�.d.r . . _ . . . . , ibqp� ,r , .�.,, j , � 'ik.A+r'KaJ-� �vorrv-Cr 7-�-�'�-atr�z, -��-�rT.1-�-• ' . ._. ---- - _ . _� . .� - - _�_ �� �+a•.a.i r" ..�'�,•'L•el.Idrr�.�/ C�t��'� .. '..�.(.. "'_ ' `�' '�sL.� �.{$G�GF �L.t'S`�L V��•` _ ..O-�J'e1Y\- , ; ' •..•_. .1 ..: �_'v VL-�.�1.,.u-.•�If/ l ..'��'A -�...f'�•.L✓ (�r-r lta_,J�,.- •- :? n �._J�.-� - - �J!% �_C-L' s-ft1.1J „jL,��-`p' � 'C.��t ':, �..% •, ! •; . -7 -��' r-� :j,,.r-�..1 I; ., t- .�_C_L....F:.'��.5 rr`'•�hV - -- - - - ..Llr1. P �C .l � b 1 Y �' J 4�-Q._CQ _ � G{� / r\ S ���- .ted tr • 1J E� a Com ./ G t7 i bbb rZ -- — — . __ __ . _ . .J_ _ f1.r•3'►''bibb", � . :'e„'-` ' �t� _ . _.. �_•_ _.. � t�"' _�"�''�- � r`�'-`��R�'� G<.r�� t,�.,-a-ta.Jt.�. ..a.�r•c)...u�1.t� . -- - bb; _ -tr — _ - id MMF —• —_.. .._ —. .._._- - Nowilmob Jbi— r• — — _ _ .i •raid1.0 ' hi fi � Pat 5zr 9491 V FIRST ITHACA CHINESE CHRISTIAN CHURCH • to : Titfi PASTOR : DAVID WONG March 16 , 1989 Plannning Board and Zoning Board ' of Appeals Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca , NY 14850 Dear Sirs : We recently purchased the house and property at 1462 Slaterville Road , Ithaca , NY , with the intent to use the structure as a place of worship . The building has a large ( 27 ' x 271 ) family room which would need little modification for use as a sanctuary for our current congregation of 30 , and would be suitable until the congregation exceeded 50 people . There are also three bedrooms suitable for use as • Sunday school classrooms or meeting rooms , plus kitchen and dining room areas . The property includes a parking lot with space for at least eleven cars , which we plan to expand as soon as the ground thaws . We also propose to repaint the current sign with the name of the church and plant a few shrubs to define and partially screen the parking lot . The property is in an R- 15 district bounded by a multiple use structure ( Video Sound and two apartments ) and a vacant lot . Residential homes across the street have a 25 ' setback . We hope that you will permit this use of the property ; a denial of permission would force us to sell it , as we have no other use for the building . Sinc rely , G ald A . Rau c urch Secretary MAILING ADDRESS : 904 E . STATE STREET ITHACA . NEW YORK 14850 • USA 9 TEL. (607 ) 273-2170 14 . 16.4 (2187) — Text 12 PROJECT I. D. NUMBER 617 . 21 SEQR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM • For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR 2 . PROJECT NAME � r 3 . PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality o , , o � S E\ �Lcci County 4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New 13 Expansion Modificationlalleration 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: LI C `> 2� \ / '7a '_S '. \ �.W- Z•x,i � � � .-n om, c + �' �� 6 - CAI , u 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially _ I . Z acres Ultimately 1 . Z acres 8 . WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Yes ❑ No It No, describe briefly , • 9 . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ® Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/Forest/Open space ❑ Other Describe: / l (-\ c\ 1� .�. �.. � U �"�V F-. c � '. � - '(�' l .._ \ \ low ���m \ �j �� ...� .•. � . � �'.,- - «.._ .��./ 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING , NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ❑ Yes No If yes, list agency(s) and permlVapprovals 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes 3 No If yes, list agency name and permit/approval 12 . AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Yes © No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AppllcanVsponsor name;, - C) t ' d Com • . _ � r4 Lc < Date: s = LI /y v Signature: If the action Is in the Coastal Area , and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form betore proceeding with this assessment fXN1 /31 r f 9 OVER 1 TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $40 . 010 • 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED , Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH ( 601 ) 213 - 1747 CHECK - (210) ZONING : � 5 A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been denied permission to \ ���. � V` r� at 1 Ll !, t _ Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . Z - Zz . 5 as shown on the accompanying application and /or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the Issuance of such permit would be in violation of , • Article ( s ) Sections ) II , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and / or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) • Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : Signature of Appel last / Agent : �XIY1917 y �Oate . • n P v. Q 10 y 40 N 1 I b i g J ^J✓ EA r V S _ Z : = Hb s r f I^ r rFl 9yy 1 on 0 - mLa t N ' Y SES � F I i C N r S n ' • s 'do • / Xrn v r a• Irl / I \ ' W v N Y CP p •( N 11 •Q I [ W V v I V �f RI O J11 O 4 J y Os N p 4430 !>r T F t 2S ' + i Y � � I -i 1 • i r 1 � 1 • 'I a 1 80 I Lo s OO 0. N Z b A m Y v cp N O r l O i �Ay A30 ? < u 9 C o First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church - 1 - 1462 Slaterville Road Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , March 21 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church 1462 - Slaterville Road Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , March 21 , 1989 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration -of . a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph - 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning . Ordinance , fdor the conversion of an existing residence into a place of worship for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church , proposed to be located at 1462 Slaterville Road , on Town of Ithaca -Tax . Parcel . No . . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 3 , 1 . 22 ± acres , Residence District R- 15 , 2 . Thisis an Unlisted action fo.r . which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively . determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . •, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency ini coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing , on March 21 , 1989 , has reviewed the proposed site plan ; .. environmental assessment form and review , and other submis. sions . related to this proposal . 4 . The Town Planning Department has . recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : i . 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 action . 2 . That the Planning -Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for . the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing - and probable future - character of the • neighborhood will not be adversely affected . First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church - 2 - 1462 Slaterville Road Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board , March 21 , 1989 c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval for the proposed conversion of an existing residence into a place of worship for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church be approved , subject to the following conditions . i . That the parking spaces as shown on the site plan be completed by December 31 , 1989 . ii . That any outdoor lighting be downcast . ill * That the landscaping in front . and. - in back . of the Church be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Planner . Aye - Grigorov ., Kenerson , Les : er , . Miller , -: Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , - Town of Ithaca Planning Board . March 22 , 1989 . .'� N / A!3 / T /o V • UV 1 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 213- 1747 CHECK ZONING : j? A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithada, New York Having been denied permission to construct a two familv dwelling unit at 829 Taugaannock Blvd . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - - 38 as shown on the accompanying application and/or , plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of . Article ( s ) IV , Section ( s ) 14 , 152 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and , in support of the Appeal , - affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows : (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) Signature of Owner/Appellant . Date . Signature of Appellant / Agent : Date : • The proposed structure is designed to replace a previously existing structure which was destroyed by fire in 1988 . That previous structure included two residential units , one three bedroom and one two bedroom . Its footprint was within 5 ' 0 " of the southern boundary of the lot and 14 ' 0 " of the northern boundary . Two thirds of that structure existed within that area of the lot taken over by New York State in 19 as part of a state highway right of way . On Side Yard Set Backs The ' proposed , new structure is designed to be entirely within the lot as redefined . While the lot varies between sixty two and seventy feet is width the new structure is designed and positioned to afford ' a 12 ' 0 " south side yard - and between an 11 ' 0 " and 15 ' 0 " north side yard . (Again the previous structure had a 5 ' 0 " south side . yard and an 11 ' 0 " north side •yard . ) On Front Yard Set Back The lot is extremely steep as it descends from Rte . 89 to the lake ' s edge . The previous structure existed adjacent to Rte . 89 . The proposed new structure is withdrawn from existing Rte . 89 by approximately 50 ' 0 " and from the N . Y . S . taking line • from 13 ' 0 " to 7 ' 0 " . Removing the structure further from the highway taking line would cause considerable hardship of access since it would increase what is already a two storyl . descent from the road ' s edge to the house entry . On Lot Size The lot has irregular boundaries however at most it is 71 feet deep by 70 feet wide of buildable area , or 87 feet deep by 70 feet wide including the unbuildable lake edge . While it does not approach the lot size currently required by the zoning ordinance this lot was inhabited by a residential structure with a 1400 square foot footprint which was built before the present ordinance was adopted . The lot size is similar to others in the immediate vicinity and subdivided during the same period . On Lot Coverage The proposed replacement structure would have a footprint of 1528 square feet on a total lot size of 5544 square feet . While the house is compact , the historically determined limitations of the existing plot ( similar to others in the district ) combined with the N . Y . S . highway right -of -way instituted in 19 make a 20 % lot coverage requirement extremely difficult . Proposed coverage is approximately 33 % if a first story •wood decl: is included with building • footprint ( lot calculated to high water line ) . . INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN : 1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure ( s) or 2 . Distance of structures from : or addition ( s ) . a . Road , 5 . Nanes of neighbors hho bound lot . • b . Both gide lot lines , 6 . Setback of nelghbrors . c . Rear of lot . 7 . Street name and number , 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures In contrasting lines . i 10 1 gnature of Owner/Appellant : Date . Signature of Appellant / Agent : Date : APk/NG SN0Ul10ef TA U6 P14NNOCK f VD (NY�'9 •--� -- FO I T HACA GDGf OF do yE ,►I [NT SNa.3uaEl� PARKING TEF /' i TIASER WAIL rdRn16yQ PRopeRT( L //y`c $LAB GoNcRETE SLAB Ml pt '-�O Q K/,yam h1lN�A y c UQ 3W oQ � as � o o0 v N dp <02 ' j MIz m ll �� LA AIDS of PS ( F� 9AvlD 8, dorvL3 ey ;� IGA 50,QYEY MAP • STE6 / r � SfZ � '�p � F' < ' 1 1 4 OF A pWEL1. /1v6 AT 929 TAI�UHANrUG�K8L1/D,CNY89� t.sy` TOWN OF ITNACA, TUMPK/ntS Co �~ SCALE 1 "= 20 ' ?REPAREa gY JULY 9, 19 ) Rt SotHiml6l)Eg Na$A�E.. $ LLS ' O 'f37SO • /?ESlJ2yE'/ED F�t3, ZylgP9 )fX #11317- Ae// TAUGHANNOCK BLVD ( N Y 89 TO ITHACA SHOULDER I - ARKINO I SEEP ' SLOPE I ) I i r� rtMerz_ fkor=�� � irvc FOUNDATIONS _ . .. ..-.--- . .. . . ._ _ . .. .. _ OF PREVIOUS 4�1 77 41 ��- HOUSE - LP•aw (F) X2,_ 0,• _ coNC • N�nl W 1� _ --- =a \4 i �K� HSN�V4Y r FOOTPRINT OF, I E Y HOOUSE PLAN �, ul t 3W It00 o c�"v 1QSlF� FARCE !_ 25 . 2438 STeef pll/ LiniE pF DEGeC Enve �F cLl r l Ile YVGA KE PLOT PLAN OF PRUP( GED BC )WLSBY . RESIDENCE SCALE ; I " = 20 - 0 ' PREPARED BY V , MULCAHY R . A . N .Y. S . 1 I ; c TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 40 . 00 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca, New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273 - 1147 CHECK is ZONING : APPEAL For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the ; Town of Ithaca, New York Having been denied permission to :; ; ,/, - . - - �i4 .• ' r r / a L �.' Yom. la 1 ,• f/f ` i 164,03 / 5;� y tN i S 1 r` 1% Wf ( ` r'4 / 3.L4 at r ! L'�'�?/ -r �-�,' !1a <4') 0 \ c ,-l� ? - / 3 A ;; /�; Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . ?j 1 L as shown on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents , for the stated reason that the issuance of such permit would be in violation of . Article ( s ). Section ( s ) 4144 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Appeal from such denial and, in support of the Appeal , affirms that strict observance of the Zoning Ordinance would impose PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/ or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows . (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) C nn 4A\k + Ik am �+ �t �.� ham. , I d rN f ems4-e _5 Signature of Owner/Appel l ant : I O. Date : Signature of Appellant / Agent . Date : fx/-1 16 / 7' � � 65 A/ rENCE �, o OF iTH�9 rA 3 ? - ? -2 . y 526 3vz) zoo tvo<< o gr • PpcE LANDS ps' 8 E L01) &, kbBE�r a�ANc/N/ 4 G\ '�d 0 eOA17A1NS i o m 1 of 6. A4cQEs t h � � M ry J � Ivim zz p o J � V e � ,R � s ) 33k /V 26 P • �0, SUR YE y /YIA OF A 10r ON " � ;'�'" �• . � ELM/RSV RD, (NYl3-311X) 9 a� � N/N, :! Of lrNACA7V1%7AK/NS Co . NF yV YORK • „ • „ PREPARED r3Y �CA�c l " yo ' NJWARI� R. ScNL /EpEQ AVG , Z2 /988 N , Y• S • /�• E• d !. S. Dy3780 � � / 13 / �. cannon Kecreatlort dnQ apa 01 Luedca '1WU - LUt_ QLuj A vi51vwi - 1 - Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , March 7 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca Two -Lot Subdivision Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive . Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , March 7 , 1989 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : i . This action is the Consideration -of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of . a 2 . 0. 16 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel -Nos 6 = 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 88 . 73 ± acres total , located on Elmira Road . ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) - approximately 900 feet south of its intersection with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13A ) . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . 3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . M . • THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca Two -Lot Subdivision Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , March 7 , 1989 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller : WHEREAS : i . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the • proposed subdivision of a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 88 . 73 ± acres total , located on Elmira Road ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its EX T 13A l: annoii ano tipa of -L ciiaca .Lwo - Lot 5uua .ivision - 2 - Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Final Subdivision Approval Planning Board , March 7 , 1989 • intersection with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13A ) . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on March 7 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 7 , 1989 , has reviewed the proposed plat plane and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminaryand - Final Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will . result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with the following conditions . a . That any future subdivision - .proposals for the remaining portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 reflect an overall plan for use ofthe parcel , including future access to the interior of the parcel . b . That any future subdivision of. the . remaining portion of said Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 include the consideration of the dedication of land for public park and open space purposes pursuant to Article IV , Section 22 , of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations . c . That , before the subdivision map is signed by the Chairman of the Planning Board , there be supplied a written request from the current owners of the property ( Earland and Robert Mancini ) specifically requesting the subdivision and agreeing to the conditions set forth in paragraphs a . and b . above . Aye One May , Grigorov , Langhans, Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . • Nancy M . 7Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , March 10 , 1989 . EXff / � i7 / 3 � I% �- i • SEE MAP 32 I ;I C) 'r AX MAP ' FA ;Zczi. s � - 33 - 3 9R . IIA C . CAL . II50' I 1 . 2 I86 . 69 AC . CAL . 2 3` • m 79p � • F. ie\ '' 2 , e 2 AC - � ` O j .'� .i � � I .5 A\.• s� CD ' m 1 . 1 CD , \ - 2e m I 2 .1 zz 1 A61C v co 2 . 4 : : 9 I � i35 3 .41 2 3 AC75 I 5 . G N °s�� 66 oP� PROPOSED SUBDIVISION N 3 .42 2 . i AC . h\° 3 ° 175 � 4 JJ Oy 51 z p N � > 1 . 86 \ V \QC �pO/ IIII N / 6 / N X / 5 . I N 4 AC CAL o yov ' _ fxogl 13 i T 1314 zz �. 3 � � ^ 7 �.� Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca I - 1 - Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Site Plan Approval Planning Board , April 4 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Site Plan Approval Planning Board , April 4 , 1989 MOTION by Mr . Robert Ken erson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 5 , 000 square foot commercial building , with parking and outdoor display , for Cannon . Recreation and Spa of Ithaca , proposed to be located on a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel proposed to be subdivided from Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , located on Elmira Road ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its intersection with Five Mile Drive ( N9Y . S . Rt . 13A ) , for which Preliminary Subdivision Approval , with conditions , was granted by the Planning Board on March 7 , 1989 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is : legislatively determined .. to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . 3 . The Town Planning Department. . ha's recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , make . and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance for this action . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans, May , Baker , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Site Plan Approval Planning Board , April 4 , 1989 MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : . WHEREAS : Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca - 2 - Elmira Road , 900 Feet South of Five Mile Drive Site Plan Approval Planning Board , April 4 , 1989 1 . This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for a proposed 5 , 000 square foot commercial building , with parking and . outdoor display , for Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca , proposed to be located on a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel proposed to be subdivided from Parcel. No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , located on Elmira Road ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its intersection with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . . Rt . 13A ) , for which Preliminary - Subdivision Approval , with conditions , was granted by the - Planning Board on March 7 , 1989 . 2 . This ' is an 'Unlisted action for which ,the Town of Ithaca Planning y ` Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental ' review , has , on April 4 ; 1989 , ' made a negative , determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public He on April 4 , 1989 , has reviewed the Short Environmental Assessment Form , site plan , and other application submissions . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant approval to . mthe site plan as proposed , with the following conditions : i . The grant of any necessary . variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals . 2 . Approval of driveway entrance location and design by New York State Department of Transportation . 3 . Approval of final landscape plans by Town Planning staff . 4 . That there be no additional buildings approved for the site without full, consideration of the provision of a second means of access into the site . Aye - Grigorov , Langhans , May , Baker , Ken erson , Miller , Smith . Nay - Lesser . CARRIED . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board , April 6 , 1989 . PROJECT I.D. NUMBER $17.21 SEOR Appendix C State Environmental Ouality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only • PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR �j 2, PROJECT NAME v r (A1 ' ► n XQ n��l l ��: n npt /'V�� r 3. PROJECT LOCATION: . 1, 0 $ m i r , JWL 0, oqcounty` 4. PRMU LOCATKIN (Brest address and road irftreselticinso paii6ml laednwitg, oto., or p0rlda wrap) r , R A (N `1 13 - 3 `t � arwNcir\ I 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: New _ ❑ Expansion ❑ Modification/alteration. 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Vz 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND FFECTED: Initially acres Ultimately acres Be WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? 1 t ❑ Yes �y 5 No If No. describe briefly JJ L• y l7 r\ 1 �� C. `'\✓l i��� �, r •�l �, .S " ". L—i_ 'r.a IJ � 1 : . ' • g. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑ Raldsntlal ❑ Industrial Commercial C3oratl Agriculture ❑ ParlVFOpen space ' D Other Describe: N . xt dv , r 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL. STATE OR LOCAL)? ❑ Yea No If yes, list agency(s) and permlVapprovals 11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑ Yes (� No If yea, list agency name and paarltlapprwat 12. AS A .RESULT OF PROPOSED ACnON WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REOWRE MODIFICATION? ❑ Yes No CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATI011 PROVIDED ADM IB TIME TO THE ew OF W KNOWLEM Aps usponaor i ! kA AA If the action is In the Coastal Arnot and you are a stats agemyr complete the 1 • Coastal AssesamsM Fonn More proceeding with this assessment OVER Eyl / C . l 7- � � PART H — EiNVIRONMkNTAL A55r .66111aCih1 ( iv t7e rN %iwtswyr A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I TM14ESMOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617. 127 It yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. El Yes KIN. Action is Unlisted . B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE= COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617,6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another Involved agency. Planning Board ; LpYes No Action will receive coordinated review C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quallty or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: See attached . C2. Assthheft agrkViturs6 arohasobglcal, historic, or othifr natural or Oultural reWROM Of rxtermtwllty Of nMghIMMO d ChIMtsrf explain brl6fly See attached . C3: Vegetation or fauna, fish, sbetifish or wildllle spaciss, slgnifioant habitats, or threatened or endangered spseiee? Explain tirfefty: See attached . 04. A community's existing plana or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or Intensity of use of land or' other natural resources? Explain briefly. See attached . C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly, See attached . 06. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In C1 •C5? Explain briefly. See attached , CT. Other Impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. G I i .. I D, tS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO t3E, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE EMARONMENTAL IMPACTS? C3 Yes MNo If Yes, explain briefly None expected . PART III - DETIERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be Completed by Agency) i IAIiTRUCTM& For each advems effect identified above, detwmine whottw it Is softest, carpe, importantor otdwwiss eWdfkwvL Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (U setting p.eo turban Of Mr* N1 prChahIlity of orowrfnp; (o) duration; (d) -61 Irreversibility; (s) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If i»Cessary; add SKNIUNOUG or rslsrtfatoe oupportiflp mtltterlals. Elfusu s that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all t'f1{etrant adverse IRipecle have been idenlifled ford adequately addressed. Check this box If you have Identified one or more poteMialhf hwp or significant adverse Impacts which #AAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF aftd/or prepare a positive declaration. i Check this box It you have determined, based on the . kdorllltatlart And analyeJa above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT role in any s10 INcim t ed - son wMilowiseaM fgalob AND provide on attachments as neceseary, the reasons supporting tib detsretifatiott: Site Plan Approval -- Planning Board ; any required variances -- Zoning Board of Appeals . Name o L Apncy f'LAn:N /A.' Cq �3GA ,C'D rrnt or y ems o Responsi c UMcer in Lea � -ot Responsible wicer tenetum o afpons' Te Kar in Load Aeency ' Sgnafykrat Pi sererlif di ier�rom respoftsible offbCor) ® (HENRY '440AI) .rr EAF PART II : Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca Planning Board , April 4 , 1989 Zoning Board of Appeals , April 12 , 1989 Cl . No significant adverse effects expected . Action is the proposed construction of a 5 , 000 - square - foot commercial building for firm specializing in sales of swimming pool and spa equipment . No adverse impacts to groundwater quality or quantity are • anticipated . Proposed facility will have on - site water and sewage disposal systems . Proposed sewage disposal system will be ' subject to approval by the Tompkins County Health Department . Traffic expected, to be - generated by - the proposed facility , based on the proposed use , is not expected to ' be significant . Although specific trip • generation data are not available for such facilities, the daily traffic volume - is not expected to exceed 200 trips per day , or that of a specialty retail center . This additional traffic is considered to be within the capacity of adjacent roads . Approval by the New York State Department of Transportation will be required for the proposed entrance onto Route 13 , C2 . Proposed action will result in the loss of 2 ± acres of actively farmed land , however , . . soils on the site are not prime agricultural soils . The reduction in available agricultural land . as a result of the proposed action is not expected to have a significant impact - on the quantity of agricultural lands within the Town of Ithaca . C3 . None known to exist on site . C4 . No significant adverse impacts anticipated . Proposed facility is considered to be a permitted use in a Light Industrial District . Variances to required minimum yard depths for • front and rear yards are in line with others grantedto other commercial operations in the vicinity fo the proposed facility . The proposed facility is expected to increase the need for the public water and sewer services which are currently under consideration by the Town of Ithaca . A possible future widening of N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ( Elmira Road ) is not expected to be hindered by the proposed development due to the location of proposed building and parking areas . C5 . Some additional development on the site is possible , however , site size limits the scale of any additional development . No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of future on - site expansion . C6 . Proposed action represents another incremental expansion of commercial development along the Elmira Road corridor , and further points out the need for ' comprehensive evaluation of existing and future land use along the corridor . rt►r ' VAAlk 11 - - cannon recreation h spa - L - EAF PART III : Determination of Significance A negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the proposed Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca development because of its relatively small scale and the foregoing analysis of potential impacts . Reviewer : George R . Frantz , Assistant Town Planner Review Date : March 31 , 1989 GRF / nf _ _ a �r` .� •w1 y yA�fF, 6M Ms. - J h 7 •L Ms. 1t w _w, , . _ _ _ . - _ � .LL a . .N.� .. . _ .. . _ J _. � .• • . • ._. - .�. . a . . _ _ ..: ffq TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING k. M. ` yf t BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, WED. �na xis ; • eRrr� =J ��� di H- i V - c APRIL l2, 19897P. M. s , . ._mss, _ By rection of the Chairman _ - of the Zoning Board of Ap- peals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings - M. ` will be held by the Zoning . �' L �- L Board of Appeals of the Town 71- ~� �` of Ithaca on Wednesday, April M._ 120 1989, in Town Halls 12T . VIM i' —� East Seneca Street, be1L' a C= :LIv !�'Cl3: aC�OS !S Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca , N. Y. r COM- K , ..= MENCING AT 7 :00 P. M. , on _. r1� iE1'>ft._t t {: 7md . itham, cpupty ari ' rate tiOrMidd &Md.- the following matters. ADJOURNED APPEAL '(from 1 it + - November 30, 1988) of Ivor . . nts �, ,. - _-. ono Appel AWL s, A:Mi C --. ._. ._. .._. +. ..... ._ and Janet J the h a 3 �:�i5.. .. - - -•---�-- -� requesting the ut rization Mf IL - - k . . s• F+ ►1 y�' ,r ' ':- w- ,ea . _, . : MMM of the Zoning Board of Ap- ' Ti= h . . . .- . Sec 53b1� ne%%6 �J & �lwia LDa p12Z3 � _ 15 under 7 Article of llthaca pea hon 4 0 ,�. « Zoning Ordinance, for the ry, • = r- '-"` ?a "' - � construction of a single story, _tea_ . mt. f € L f �c$ th L' ix'.2]-exE4 f. trt7� �' single family dwetlin at 9348 r . -- , - f East Shore Drive, Town of Itha- , _ z--� - - — - • - "�" - L . - MMM M . _ ca Tax Parcel No. & 18-5-9, ,t Residence District - 15. Said Parcel of land is nonn-conform- MM ing in size and the dwelling proposed for reconstruction - .+ 1 \ l 111 ] _. — _w—.,__--- was non-conforming in _.Yard 1 setbacks , howeJer , said dwelling is proposed to e o _ � . �; .— ----_. . . . ._. . _ . .-- -- --.._.._..�_ • _» --- - - ..... ... toted within the some foot- . print of said previously exist- -M xist- " 9 family non-conforming single story, single family . r_ da e that the previouslyexi f T dwell�ngalhosonbeenfo ban I Should it e the Qty CLQ o .r . ._ . �'` ` _.. . . . .. l� 1 g g _ � :. •• - - - cloned s a use int a To wn of - - Ithaca for more than one year, - -- - -- - - -- - - - - _- . _ . _ .. the Appellant variancehaentered a ` requestArticle I . _ . � .� - .� :+ r bptiM. _ � +. + s •_ : _ CIEVY.. - Section 53, offthe Town Xof Ithaca Zoning Ordinance- &M, t . - EAL of � Chine e Christian Chutrch, A Ithaca x1 � pellant, Gerald Rau , Agent, requesting Special Approval _ . _ . under Article IV, Section 31 , f the ca Zon ZoningOrdinance, for 14U :a� sf tt�✓ LsC- of �he conversion ofan • -- -- = - residence located at 1462 Sla- t I Road into a lac of . . .' ervi le oa n o place 1 . worship, Town of Ithaca Tax �- -- - y Parcel No. 6-58-2-22. 3, Resi- ��Ot3fy QUbIIC, Stcie of NBrN YOfIC dente District R- 15. The Town of Ithaca Planning Baord, on NO, 465A410 + March 21 , 1989, recommend- proval ed that In Tof pkin5 County _ e gratnted , susuch bjectltopertain — - - Comr isslon expires May 3i 19 . 1 , . . . . - - - conditions. _ MMM APPEAL of David B. Bowlsby, " _ Appellant, requesting authori- � , - zotion , under Article XII , Sec- ` : n 54, Oof rdthe Town of Ithaca Zoningcow inonc , o the - placement, extension, and re- - - - permit the constructior5 of 6 location a# an existing le3e- non al retail store with a front yard non-conforming building de- setback of .less than 150 feet stroyed by fire at 829 Toug- " and a reor yard setback of less honnock Blvd . , Town of Ithaca .Js ;,, ,. than 50 feet. Said retail store Tax Parcel No . 6-25-2-38, Resi - - . ' ". . is to be located in a Light In- - dente District R- 15- Said build _. ._, _ - us al istrict on a Elmira ng, riot to its destruction had d tri D th ` Road approximately 900 feet a south side yard setback °f 5l south of its intersection with feet and o north side yard set- Five Mile Drive, on a portion back of 11 feet, with a front ! ' a Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel and setback extending into . No. 6-33-3.2. 2. the highway right of way. The j Said Zoning Board of Appeals replacement building is pro- - - will at said times 7 :00 M. posed with a south side yard I and said place , hear all per- setback of 12 feet and a north ' sons in support of such matters __. side yard setback of between 1; _. or objections thereto. Persons 11 feet and 15 feet, with a r may appear by agent or in - front yard setback from the _ person_ highway right of way line of Andrew S. Frost between 7 feet and 13 feet. - - Building Inspector/ APPEAL of Cannon Recreation - - Zoning Enforcement Officer ' and Spa of Ithaca , David Ax- �97 Town of Ithaca enfeld, Agent, Earland and 273- 1747 Robert Mancini , current land- April 7, 1989 j owners, requesting variance • of the requirements of Article Vlll , Section 44, of the Town ofl Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to - _ . , - . . - _ - - • - • - permit the construction of a retail store with a front yard setback of less than 150 fa r yeet and ^reaord setback of less