Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-09-21 FUM TOWN OF ITHACA Date D^ •o�nois /,�� / 9�9 Cie Z&&-�ol Town of Ithaca 1 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 21 , 1989 PRESENT . Chairman Aron , Edward King , Edward Austen , Eva Hoffmann , Building Inspector/ Zoning Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney John Barney . ABSENT : Joan Reuning . OTHERS PRESENT : Nick Barra , Robert Hines , Esq . , Eugene Corbett , Cindy Ferguson , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Slawomir Grunberg , Elizabeth Blackmer , Florence Wrisley , John Whitcomb , Stephen Sackett . 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 the same were in order . The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following . RE-APPEAL OF NICHOLAS J . BARRA , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT A TWO - FAMILY HOUSE HAVING THE FLOOR AREA OF EACH DWELLING UNIT OF EQUAL SIZE , LOCATED AT 212 EAST KING ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 44 - 1 - 4 . 40 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT A SECOND DWELLING UNIT NOT EXCEED 50 % OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY UNIT UNLESS THE SECOND UNIT IS LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN A BASEMENT . Chairman Aron read from the Minutes of the August 23 , 1989 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting when Mr . Barra was denied his request for a variance . He asked Mr . Barra to address the Board and to state his reasons for the re -hearing and to tell the Board if he has any new information on the request for a variance . Mr . Barra explained what had happened previously at the other Board meetings . For clarification , Mr . King explained that it was the feeling of the Board that any correction to this situation should try to accomplish whatever he is going to accomplish within the residential space that is now in the building , not by expanding it and making a bad situation worse . • Mr . Barra ' s proposal was to expand into the garage , thereby losing a parking space and increasing the total residential capacity of the house and he needed a variance in the side yard for that garage because it comes within the proper distance for a Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 garage , but not for a dwelling . Thus , it was the feeling of the Board that Mr . Barra should come back with a request to approve this as a two - family dwelling by somehow utilizing this existing residential space , either diminishing it to try to bring one part down to less than 100 percent of the other , preferably down to the 50 percent that the law requires , but that seems to be a difficult thing to do . However , at least by not expanding the dwelling space . Discussion followed on the height of the building and the reasons for it being such a tall building . Mr . Frost , for clarification , referred to the drawings of the project and explained what changes Mr . Barra had proposed at the last meeting to bring the house in conformance with the law . In answer to Chairman Aron ' s question of how this problem all came about , Mr . Frost stated that the original plan , which was in front of the Board , was part of the building permit application . Looking at the elevation sketches , the Board will see that the finished grade that was proposed is just below the windows . The building permit was issued based on those plans . Mr . Frost explained that in doing a framing inspection , ( which occurs after the foundation goes in for the building ) , he noticed that the first floor was much higher than the original plan and that is when all this started . Mr . Frost said that when the Barras made the change in the grade , he is not sure that they ( Barras ) realized that they were violating the Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Aron asked if Mr . Barra had been advised as to that . Mr . Frost said they were advised in a letter dated October 20 , 1988 , which followed the framing inspection , when he first became aware of the problem . Mr . Frost said the original plans were prepared and stamped by Larry Fabbroni , who is well aware of the zoning regulations . Mr . Frost said that he is sure that when Mr . Fabbroni proposed a grade he was thinking in terms of the Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Frost if he understands correctly that Mr . Barra made the change in the grade without having notified the Building Department . Mr . Frost responded , that is correct . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Barra if he was aware that he was • building a structure that was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance . He said the plans are different from the picture that Mr . Barra is presenting to the Board . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Mr . Barra stated that the reason for the change in the elevation is because as they were bulldozing , they found water . The reason the whole situation came up is because they did not want a basement apartment with water problems . Mr . Barra said that Atty . Hines can verify there is water laying there , even now . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Barra if he shouldn ' t have called the Building Inspector and explained that he was having a water problem at that time . Mr . Barra said that he agrees with Chairman Aron but this was their first house and they did not know the law . He stated that they made a big mistake . Chairman Aron stated that Mr . Barra inflicted the problem himself because there are ways to get water away from houses . Ms . Hoffmann asked Mr . Barra at what point did Atty . Hines see the water in the basement . Mr . Barra responded it was after the house was built . Atty . Hines interjected that he got into this matter very late in the game . He stated that he went into the crawl space to verify for himself that there was the problem • that Mr . Barra described . Mr . King stated that it might be helpful to know if Mr . Frost put anything on the building permit when Mr . Barra was given the permit . Did it indicate in any way that he was trying to come under an exception ; that he must maintain the elevation that he proposed in order to justify a second apartment 100 % the size of the first ? Mr . Frost replied that he would say , probably not . It is a given by administrative procedure that when a person gets a building permit , the building permit is based on plans that are submitted . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . Slade Kennedy , 227 East King Road , addressed the Board . He wished to express his frustration and disappointment about this whole situation that has come about . He stated that the solution of utilizing the garage space for living area is even worse than what was proposed when the matter first came before the Board . He said that was a bad suggestion . Mr . Kennedy remarked that personally he cannot offer a solution that he thinks is a better way to go . He doesn ' t really believe that . the house should exist in his neighborhood as an apartment house because it is not a proper usage of the R- 15 zoning . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Eugene Corbett , 221 East King Road , stated that his concerns are that there will not be any parking space if the house is allowed to be a two - family dwelling . Mr . Corbett said that Mr . Barra did bring this upon himself . He also said that Mr . Barra does not live in the neighborhood - he never has and does not plan to . John Whitcomb , 233 Troy Road , stated that as a resident of the neighborhood , he is deeply distressed that a speculator would be able to come into the neighborhood and build a home that is out of character with the neighborhood , who has very little consideration of his neighbors in terms of protecting their views and so on and then to add insult to injury , wants to turn it into a duplex for rental purposes . Mr . Whitcomb stated that he came by there recently and he counted seven cars in the driveway of that home and supposedly there is only one family living there at this time . How many cars will the neighbors be able to count there if we turn this into a two - family dwelling with equal floor space ? He asked the Board how this plan that is being submitted tonight differs from • the original plan . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Barra to respond to Mr . Whitcomb ' s question . Mr . Barra responded that the original plans did not include the garage as living quarters but after the variance request was turned down , they included the garage and the living room space upstairs to meet the Code , which they felt was a fair solution . Mr . Barra said that he and Mr . Frost looked at it and came up with all the possibilities that they could for a solution to the problem to meet the Code . Mr . Frost interjected that although he and Mr . Barra did meet at the house to come up with possible solutions , ultimately Mr . Barra was directed to contact an engineer or architect to look into the situation , without Mr . Frost providing that direction , and that is why Mr . Fabbroni came back into the picture with the proposal that was presented at the last Board meeting . Mr . Whitcomb stated that , in his opinion , one of the better solutions for the matter , to protect property values in the neighborhood , would be to maintain it as a single family home , the way it is now . Florence Wrisley , corner of East King and Troy Roads , stated • her objection to the house being a two - family dwelling . Elizabeth Blackmer , 212 Troy Road , stated that she also objects to the house being a two - family dwelling . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Atty . Hines stated for clarification that you can have a two - family unit in this particular zone . Atty . Hines agreed that the house is higher than it would have been if Mr . Barra had dug the basement properly . He said the Board is probably correct that the fact that Mr . Barra dug incorrectly because of water is not of any particular concern to the Board because Mr . Barra did not do things correctly - he went ahead and built it and spent the money and he now has a two - family dwelling for whatever reason which does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance . Atty . Hines stated that the neighbors have talked about too many cars being there and so on but the fact is that the most that the neighbors can really objectively point to is the fact that the building is somewhat larger and higher than possibly , it should be . Atty . Hines said that when Mr . Barra asks for a variance , the decision of the Board should be tempered in the heat of whatever it is that is wrong essentially , and Atty . Hines does not think that what ' s wrong is that grievance . The house is not that offensive . Mr . King asked Mr . Barra and Atty . Hines to what extent have they really examined the possibility of reducing the size of the second apartment , consequently enlarging the size the first , within the living space that Mr . Barra has there now - without increasing out into the garage or any place else . Mr . Barra responded that Mr . Fabbroni and he went through all that and Mr . Frost verified it . He stated that they found no possible way of doing it and making it useful by cutting it up . Mr . Barra said they could not find a solution - this was the only solution that they could find . Mr . King asked Mr . Barra if his solution is to take the second floor front room and incorporate that by a new interior stairway into the downstairs apartment . Mr . King said that if Mr . Barra just incorporated that one large living room upstairs into the downstairs apartment , he would at least have two apartments of different size , even though the second would still be greater than 50 % the size of the first . Mr . Barra remarked that that could be done with modifications . Mr . King , for clarification , said that if that one room is incorporated , Mr . Barra will get a second floor apartment that is then 80 % the size of the first one . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Mr . Frost referred to the floor plan maps that are before the Board and explained that the map that is marked " foundation plan " is actually the first floor plan ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 1 ) and the map that is marked " 1st floor plan " is actually the second floor ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 2 ) . Discussion followed on dimensions of the two apartments and Ms . Hoffmann stated that in looking at the plans she would like to suggest to Mr . Barra that he could turn the western part of the lower floor ( the floor on the foundation plan ) , into a small one bedroom apartment . She suggested that the smaller room facing the road could be the bedroom , the larger one on the western side facing back could be the living room ; then there would be a bathroom and a kitchen . The utility room shown on this floor could be part of the upstairs apartment and so would the living - dining area on the eastern part . Ms . Hoffmann said that way one would surely not have the smaller apartment be bigger than 500 of the floor area of the other apartment . Ms . Hoffmann also stated that in looking at the plans as they were originally supposed to be , there would have been access • through a sliding glass door into the larger room that could be the living room and there is a small back door to the kitchen . Those are not there now because the whole house has been raised up but perhaps Mr . Barra could add at least a kitchen door with some steps at the back . Otherwise access could be through the main entry , which is sort of situated between the two floors ( the entry off the street side ) . Ms . Hoffmann commented that is essentially her suggestion . Mr . Barra would then have the possibility of a family living in the larger apartment - they could use the downstairs living - dining area as a recreation room or something like that ; the utility room they would certainly need , and the upstairs would be a three bedroom apartment , and then they would have the smaller apartment to rent out to a single person or to a couple . That would seem , to her , to be compatible with this area of R- 15 zoning . Chairman Aron said that Ms . Hoffmann ' s suggestions seem plausible . Mr . Barra said that in regard to Ms . Hoffmann ' s suggestion , the house the way she proposed would not be possible to keep . You could not possibly get sufficient rental out of such a plan to meet the mortgage payment . Mr . Barra remarked that the house would be way too big with Ms . Hoffmann ' s plan . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she has not seen or heard from Mr . Barra that he has any proof that that would be so in any of the meetings that she has been to . She asked Mr . Barra if he has any proof that that is the case . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Mr . Barra responded that it is necessary to divide the house so you would have about equal rental on the top and bottom and if you rent the downstairs with half of the upstairs , you could not get enough rent to make the mortgage . Ms . Hoffmann stated to Mr . Barra that many other people around Town do this and they manage . Mr . Barra replied that maybe they do not have the size mortgage that he does . Ms . Hoffmann said that she has checked out the other houses along this section of East King Road and there are several of them that are large , about the same size as Mr . Barra ' s house and several of them are single family homes . Mr . Barra responded that it is just too much house for anyone to have as a single family home . He said that if Ms . Hoffmann went farther up East King Road , she would find that they are two family homes . Ms . Hoffmann said that is right , but the houses that are closest to Mr . Barra are single family on both sides of his • house . Mr . Barra said that area is zoned for two families . That is why they bought that lot . Ms . Hoffmann replied that if a house is built in certain way , you can have a two family home in an area like that . Mr . Austen commented that he does not think the Board is here to design the house for Mr . Barra . He believes it is up to Mr . Barra to bring the Board a set of plans to look at and either say yes or no on it for a variance or Mr . Barra should re - design this so that it will meet Code or come close enough to it so the Board can see fit to grant him a variance for the house . Further discussion followed on the dimensions of the two apartments proposed and how the house could be changed to meet Code . Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Barra if it is his intention to own the building and rent both apartments out . Mr . Barra responded , right now , yes . Town Attorney Barney asked if he is intending to rent to students , single people , or groups of single people . Mr . Barra replied , married people , responsible people . He said that it is an expensive house and he wants to get the right people in there who will take care of it . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Ms . Hoffmann asked if it would be possible to get a floor plan showing what the rooms are going to be used for after he has re - organized the rooms . She would like to be assured there will not be too many bedrooms in the house . Mr . King suggested that the Board adjourn this matter and have Mr . Barra come back in with a specifically detailed plan for the Board to review . At that time the Board will discuss it further and decide whether or not a variance will be granted . Town Attorney Barney stated that if the Board consents to having Mr . Barra come back in with a modified application , there will need to be a re -hearing for public comment . Chairman Aron stated that if Mr . Barra ' s application comes to a vote he will vote against it because the Board has before it an identical request of what was before the Board before ( and denied ) . He stated that he feels the problem has been self - created . He feels there has not been enough research done by the developer and the Board should not re - design the property to fit Mr . Barra ' s needs . Ms . Hoffmann stated that essentially that is how she also feels because what the Board has been given for this hearing is exactly the same . That is why she would like to see a plan of the changes being proposed . Mr . King said that this is not the first case that the Board has seen where a developer changed the construction after running into water . He referred to the case that was on the Slaterville Road . Mr . King thinks that the Board needs to have the Zoning Officer propose certain rules and procedures that will be followed in the future whenever a plan like this comes across his desk , where a second apartment is going to try to fit within the exception , being built entirely within the basement area . Mr . King said that it occurs to him in reading all this that the very first thing that should be done on a plan like this is maybe to send a form letter to the applicant saying ' do you realize that you are trying to come within this exception and I therefore require you to have drillings made at the site to find out if you are going to get into water and whether you have to modify this plan ' . Town Attorney Barney stated that in all due respect , that is asking too much of the Town ' s Zoning Officer . He said the Town has rules and regulations and the rules are pretty clearly spelled out . Town Attorney Barney said that we have to assume ® Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 that when a person submits a plan , they will build it according to the plan . Further discussion followed regarding the procedure for obtaining a building permit . Atty . Hines asked the Board if Mr . Barra should withdraw his application and come back in with a revised proposal . Chairman Aron stated that he will vote against it the way that it has been presented to the Board . He said that if Mr . Barra comes in with proper plans with dimensions , the proper footprint and elevation drawings as well as floor plan drawings showing the Board exactly where things are going to go , then he can re - apply to this Board and the Board will look at it again . Atty . Hines formally asked the Board to withdraw the application that was presented to them tonight . Chairman Aron declared the Barra matter withdrawn by the applicant . The next Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF SLAWOMIR GRUNBERG , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/ LOT LOCATED AT 1156 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 36 - 1 - 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SAID EXTENSION PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTSIDE WOOD DECK ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE , WITH THE DECK PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED 18 . 75 + OR - FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE PROPERTY LINE , 40 FEET BEING REQUIRED . SAID BUILDING/ LOT IS NON-CONFORMING SINCE THE WIDTH AT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS 100 FEET , 150 FEET BEING REQUIRED ; THE FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IS 22 . 5 + OR - FEET , 30 FEET BEING REQUIRED , AND THE EXISTING SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK IS 22 . 5 + OR - FEET , 40 FEET BEING REQUIRED . Mr . Grunberg appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron stated that the deck has already been built . He asked Mr . Grunberg if he had gotten a building permit to construct the deck and if he knew that a building permit was required for the construction . He also asked Mr . Grunberg if he built the deck himself . Mr . Grunberg replied that he did not get a building permit as he did not know that he had to . He and a friend built the deck themselves . Mr . Grunberg explained that he learned about Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 the need for a building permit when he called the Town offices about electricity hook ups for the house . In answer to Chairman Aron ' s question , Mr . Grunberg said that he purchased the house 3 months ago and he has not been living there . The house is empty . He intends to sell the house . Mr . Grunberg explained that the original porch was on the front of the house on the side of the road . He said that the house was in very bad condition . On the other side of the house there was a very small porch , which he decided not to have . Instead , it was decided to have a deck . He stated that he also removed the garage , which was very bad looking , and sided the house . Mr . Frost , for clarification , stated that 2 or 3 years ago , Tower Taxi owned this property . He referred to the survey map , amended and dated June 9 , 1989 by T . G . Miller Associates , P . C . , that the Board had before them ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 3 ) , and explained Mr . Grunberg ' s need for the variance that is being requested . Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared before the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she is bothered by the fact that this is all done by the time the Board gets to give an opinion on it . Mr . Grunberg explained that he lives in Spencer and he was not familiar with the Zoning Ordinance and regulations for the Town of Ithaca . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Grunberg if 'he bought the property through a real estate agent . Mr . Grunberg replied no , he bought It direct from the owner . Mr . King commented that he saw this property when Tower Taxi owned it and what Mr . Grunberg has done to it is most certainly a great improvement over what was there previously . Mr . Austen made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals approve and hereby does approve the extension of a non - conforming use for the addition of the porch on south side • of the house and that the Board grants a variance for 11 feet + or - for the south side yard , with the following findings . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 10 it brings the house into the character of the neighborhood . 2 * it promotes the health , safety and morals of the general community . 3 . it is in harmony with the general amenities of the area . 4e the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use . 5 * the proposed use and location and design of the structure is consistent with the character of the district in which it is located . 6e the proposed addition is not detrimental to the general amenities or the neighborhood character in an amount sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants . 7 * the proposed access and egress of the structure at issue is safely designed . 8e the general effect of the proposed use on the community as a whole , including such items as traffic load on public streets and load on water and sewer system is not detrimental to the health , safety , and general welfare of the community . 90 no one appeared before the Board in opposition to the proposed porch . 100 by the deck coming around onto the west side of the house , it adds to the useability and value of the house . 11 * this property is adjacent to La Tourelle , which is a Special Land Use District for a Country Inn , so it is not exactly residential . Mr . King seconded the motion . The voting on the motion was as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Hoffmann , Aron . Nays - None . The last Appeal on the Agenda was the following . APPEAL OF NAN CHUNG CHANG , APPELLANT , SCOTTY LIN , PREFERRED PROPERTIES , INC . , ATTORNEY- IN-FACT , STEPHEN E . SACKETT , AGENT FOR MS . LIN , REQUESTING AREA VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE III , SECTIONS 7 AND 9 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF • LAND LOCATED AT 181 KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 -4 - 20 AND - 21 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 9 . THE SUBDIVISION OF TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -54 -4 -20 WAS APPROVED FOR SUBDIVISION AND CONSOLIDATION WITH TAX ® Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 PARCELS NO . 6 - 54 -4 - 21 AND - 19 BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON JULY 5 , 1988 . SAID PROPOSED SUBDIVISION RESULTS IN A TOTAL LOT AREA OF 81655 + OR - SQ . FT . , 9 , 000 SQ . FT . BEING REQUIRED ; A FRONT YARD WIDTH AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 72 + OR - FEET , 75 FEET BEING REQUIRED ; A WEST SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 11 . 7 + OR - FEET , 20 FEET BEING REQUIRED , AND A REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 47 . 5 + OR - FEET , 50 FEET BEING REQUIRED . IN ADDITION THE PROPERTY SURVEY MAP , DATED APRIL 20 , 1989 , SHOWS THE EXISTING FRONT YARD BUILDING SETBACK TO BE 20 . 9 + OR - FEET , 25 FEET BEING REQUIRED . Mr . Stephen E . Sackett addressed the Board . He explained that he used John S . MacNeill , Jr . , P . C . as the surveyor for the property . Some surveying has been done in the area by T . G . Miller Associates and he understands that Miller is in possession of the Crandall notes which was the original Ithaca Land Company survey of the area . Mr . Sackett gave background information on the property in question . He said that he and his wife originally owned three • adjacent 50 - foot lots numbered 213 , 214 and 215 on Kendall Avenue . He said that he built the house on lot 215 and sold it to Mr . Winship . When he sold it , they subdivided the lot between and' included half of the frontage with Mr . Winship ' s lot and retained the other half and combined it with 213 . This resulted in two lots which were now 75 ' by 1201 . Later , they built a house on the remaining lot and they have since sold that to Nan Chung Chang . Mr . Sackett explained that what has happened is due to the existence of another survey which was done by the neighbor over to the west ( at 177 Kendall Avenue ) . He had Miller do his survey and as part of the survey , Mr . Miller went up Kendall Avenue and started locating pipes . At this time , Mr . Sackett was trying to sell the house and Mr . Winship filed an affidavit that Mr . Sackett had failed to give him 75 foot of frontage , as the deed indicated . As a result of that , Mr . Sackett was forced to put money into escrow to guarantee a solution to the problem and at the same time to produce a boundary line agreement which fell through for various reasons . Mr . Sackett said that his next approach was to simply subdivide this property and move off the land which was in dispute . What that does is leave a small sliver of land " here " ( referring to map he was holding , and which is attached hereto as Exhibit # 4 ) . Mr . Sackett explained that the effect of that is to reduce the size of " this " lot in area below that which is required by zoning , and also , as a result of a correction to the original survey , the distance to the road has been changed . Mr . ® Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Sackett explained that when they originally built there , it had the proper 25 foot setback . By the change , it increased the frontage " here " which is the subject of one of the variances . Mr . Sackett said that he is referring to former lots 213 and 214 . Mr . King asked Mr . Sackett for the house number . Mr . Sackett replied that it is 181 . Chairman Aron read a letter to the Board , from Michael Winship , dated September 15 , 1989 and attached hereto as Exhibit # 5 . Chairman Aron stated that there appears to be a conflict of mismeasurements between two surveyors , one is MacNeill and the other is Miller Associates . He asked Mr . Sackett if he has ever sought legal advice to have this matter resolved , rather than coming before this Board . Mr . Sackett responded , yes , there have been many attempts to resolve this , one of which was to try to produce a neighborhood boundary line agreement between several parties . • In reference to the letter from Mr . Winship , Mr . Sackett stated that first of all , there has been no contest made against Mr . Winship ' s boundaries as conveyed by him . The survey that was done by Miller was done on a neighbor ' s lot and Mr . Winship has inferred from the existence of that survey that the survey Mr . Sackett gave him is wrong . Mr . Winship has not had his lot re - surveyed or tried to get a different professional opinion as to whether the survey is correct . Mr . Sackett explained that Mr . Winship has not brought any legal action against him whatsoever and the only formal documentation on this has been his affidavit which says nothing about any remedies except that Mr . Sackett should be giving him sufficient frontage so he has 75 feet of frontage on the lot that- was sold to him . Chairman Aron entered Mr . Winship ' s affidavit ( dated February 28 , 1989 ) into the record and it is attached hereto as Exhibit # 6 . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was offended by the process that Mr . Winship used regarding this affidavit because when Mr . Sackett went to sell the adjacent lot , Mr . Winship ran off and had an affidavit prepared and filed to mess up a sale for Mr . Sackett . Town Attorney Barney went on to explain that Mr . Winship is attempting to use his affidavit as a mechanism to • mess up the other sale so he can force Mr . Sackett to do something to correct the problem Mr . Winship thinks may exist but to this day we do not have two conflicting surveys of Mr . Winship ' s lot . In Mr . Winship ' s affidavit , in the last Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 paragraph , he complains , basically , that he did not get 75 feet of frontage . What Mr . Sackett is trying to do by re - subdividing , is to give Mr . Winship 75 feet of frontage . Town Attorney Barney stated that as far as he is concerned , Mr . Winship cannot complain any more - if he has some other problem , he should go take care of it himself . Chairman Aron read from the affidavit regarding the frontage issue of Mr . Winship ' s claim and he asked Mr . Sackett if he had complied with the frontage that he was supposed to give to Mr . Winship . Mr . Sackett said , yes he did . In fact , if the Board accepts the MacNeill Survey , there is actually 75 . 1 feet of frontage on the lot that Mr . Winship purchased . Mr . Sackett went on to say that if you look on the map , you ' ll note that over " here " on the easterly side of the Winship lot is a stake which was set by MacNeill and about six feet from that is a pipe found by Miller . Mr . Winship has preferred this point to the one that Mr . Sackett gave him in claiming that Mr . Sackett owes him more frontage . Further discussion followed on the pipes shown on the map that was presented to the Board . Mr . Sackett stated that Mr . Winship has come up with the conclusion that he has about 69 feet of frontage and Mr . Sackett had promised him 75 feet of frontage . The idea behind the subdivision is to do two things . To measure 75 foot of frontage from " this " point and also to move within any contestable boundary based upon a survey as Miller might do , though such a survey has never been done . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sackett if what he is saying is that he will give Mr . Winship 8 . 3 feet on the top and 6 feet on the bottom . Mr . Sackett replied that is correct . Chairman Aron asked what size that would bring lot 181 into . Mr . Sackett responded that it would become about 8 , 630 square feet . Mr . Sackett explained that he succeeded in selling that property and Nan Chung Chang is the owner now . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sackett how Mr . Chang feels about losing that land and giving it to Mr . Winship . Does Mr . Sackett have an agreement regarding that ? Mr . Sackett stated that the agreement at the time of closing was that he produce either a boundary line agreement or that he correct the boundaries so that there can be no challenge to the property ( 181 Kendall , the Chang property ) . Mr . Sackett explained that Mr . Chang is an absentee landlord living in Taiwan . He presented a paper signed by Scotty Lin , Attorney - in - fact for Nan Chung Chang , dated September 8 , 1989 , Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 which was read into the record by Chairman Aron ( attached hereto as Exhibit # 7 . ) Chairman Aron opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Aron closed the public hearing . Mr . Frost , for clarification , explained that no matter what the Board decides , part of this Appeal is dealing with the front yard set back deficiency which is different from what originally the house was supposed to be built on . Mr . Frost wished to make clear that no matter how the Board deals with this , there is a second appeal here and that is the fact that now we went from a 25 - foot front yard to a 20 . 9 - foot front yard set back . What else happens here is , by diminishing the front yard width of this lot ( # 181 Kendall Avenue ) from 75 feet to 72 feet , we cannot now inscribe a rectangle based on our current Zoning Ordinance . He went on to explain the amendment that is now in effect and the footages that are required under it . Mr . Austen asked at this point which survey is the Board supposed to be looking at . Mr . Sackett said there has only ever been one survey done on these lots since he has owned them and that is the survey done by MacNeill . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sackett , for the record , if he is in possession of the Miller Associates survey . Mr . Sackett replied that he is not aware that there is just one survey . He does have a Town Plan Map which he believes was done by Miller . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sackett what survey map is he operating on . Mr . Sackett replied , the MacNeill survey , and in fact the largest number of properties that have been surveyed in that area , have been done by MacNeill in recent times . Mr . Sackett stated that the fact that he was able to get 5 landowners to agree that they would sign a boundary line agreement based on MacNeill ' s survey indicates that it is well accepted in the area . Chairman Aron asked Mr . Sackett if he is saying he got the agreement . Mr . Sackett said no , they did not get the agreement because there were technical problems . Chairman Aron stated that the problem , as it he sees it , is , assuming that this Board sees fit to grant the variances necessary at this point for that parcel , what is going to happen with the other parcels then ? They will all be going by other surveys . • Mr . Sackett replied that 181 Kendall Avenue is wholly enclosed within the area agreed upon by both surveyors . ® Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 Town Attorney Barney explained that by surrendering the 6 feet , you create a situation where the easterly lot line purports with the Miller survey even though MacNeill would move it 6 feet farther east . The westerly lot line purports with the MacNeill survey which is 6 feet east from where Miller would put it ) so you now have a lot which meets the requirements no matter which survey you go by . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she feels very uncomfortable with not knowing what line to go by , really . Mr . King said that he thinks the Board has to accept Mr . Sackett ' s map . Town Attorney Barney said that the issue here really is , is there a practical difficulty which gives rise for the need for a variance ? The analysis , in his mind , is that you have two surveyors and he has talked to both of them and they are both firm in their conviction that they are equally right . Town Attorney Barney said that he does not know which is right but he cannot fault Mr . Sackett for saying that after he sold the property based upon a survey that he believed to be correct , some other surveyor came along and said that the first surveyor was in • error , so that is the practical difficulty , but it is not one that has been self - created . Chairman Aron stated that first of all , the Board has to determine which survey , since none of the surveyors are at the meeting , the Board is going to accept . Town Attorney Barney stated that he does not think the Board has a choice - they have to take the MacNeill survey which is before the Board . Chairman Aron declared for the record that the Board is looking at the matter by the survey made by John S . MacNeill on September 19 , 1989 . Mr . King added that the record should show that the map was twice revised , the second revision being September 19 , 1989 and that being entitled " A Re - subdivision of lots 213 , 214 , and 215 . " Chairman Aron read from the Planning Board Minutes of September 19 , 1989 , in regard to this Appeal , which are attached hereto as Exhibit # 8 . Town Attorney Barney stated that Mr . Winship did appear at the Town Planning Board meeting and he inferred that he might not accept the deed for this 6 - foot parcel . The Planning Board did not want to leave this 6 - foot piece hanging in limbo . Thus , they are not about to grant a subdivision with a 6 - foot lot left in the middle of nowhere , so the reason for the third item in their resolution was to say either it becomes part of the Winship t ® Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 parcel by him accepting the deed or it remains with the Chang parcel . Mr . Sackett pointed out to the Board there is no other survey . There was a Crandall survey long ago . Mr . King questioned if Mr . Winship has a survey . Mr . Sackett replied no , he does not . Mr . Winship has the MacNeill survey . He has never had his lot re - surveyed . There has been no challenge to his boundaries based on any variant survey whatsoever . Mr . Winship has simply made this into a possible problem in the future and chosen the tactic of pressuring Mr . Sackett into solving the problem . A problem which , in fact , is not in existence at this point in time . Chairman Aron stated at this time that he would entertain a motion regarding the Appeal . Mr . King made the following motion . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the situation presented by Mr . Sackett indicates a discrepancy in surveys and an unintentional departure from the intent of equally dividing the lot numbered 214 between the two extreme parcels numbered 213 and 215 , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the proposed re - subdivision of the westerly portion to decrease the easterly side yard to 28 . 3 feet at the southeast corner of the porch , as indicated on the MacNeill original survey of May 17 , 1989 and re - subdivided on September 19 , 1989 , should be approved as , well as should the apparently actual setback of the house from the north line of Kendall Avenue , that being shown on the MacNeill survey as 20 . 91 feet at the southwest corner and 22 . 45 feet at the southeast corner of the house , rather than the 25 feet that was originally intended and thought to be there , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that this Board grant and hereby does grant these variances upon the same conditions and with the same findings made by the Planning Board in its report of September 19 , 1989 , namely : 1 * that the variances be conditioned upon the submission of a final survey map for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney ; 29 that the variance would countenance the retention of this roughly 6 - foot easterly parcel with either lots 213 and the west half of 214 , which is to say the property of 181 Kendall Avenue , • Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals September 21 , 1989 3 * that that strip between may be deeded to become part of the Winship property to the east , on which the house is designated as 185 Kendall Avenue ; With the following findings : 1 * no one appeared in opposition to this application , save for the submission of a letter from Mr . Winship & 2 * the proposal would not be detrimental to the general amenities or the neighborhood character or to the properties in the neighborhood nor would it , in general effect , ' pose any problems on the community as to traffic load or load on the public utilities , nor would it adversely affect the health , safety , morals and general welfare of the community in any way . Mr . Austen seconded the motion The voting on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Aron , Austen , King , Hoffmann . • Nays - None . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p . m . Respectfully Submitted , Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary EXHIBITS 1 - 8 aCched APPROVED . Henry Aron , Chairman Q WOO I MOD L - - - J C - C L - - - - I m II I J I x X11 I U La mol I r I I � al � I I JII �- I allw emb GOP I O .� Q 400 a fi I �WISDOM MEN0,40", I WOO 'OOO — — — . A . A 3 1 � GOP 8 �t' s8 Z I e W v + + aS :� ftj q �+ + xxxxxx4 � � s moQ • ` 4 iC Q INED •< /DYO WI► 0Sr1 — z 0 _ •o-.t .o- � u �o c� W MOM 00 Q Q Q y O � m :o O a a Z O Al 7,11a Q �` — rte i 41O L 65LP AA o-,a or y O O r F W Cd c t .9-,L .a. .9-d U � $ W � . s 9� A aR > j .] xxK LIU dxgxxxxf3 4 Q�4 OW � C . . tip �-- • s �uor,,. uz woo 4t 6 ° z4gi It 7ft ' JJ eP �iy ���E3 NcR J � �6 # aaar + 4 oc Jam° 9. o 4 1 .9 � � Y � Avow k Ila toot oil 22 a i� 097 .dye oypolootoot b too 44 woovoto' s SLI 3 y a� Y two tt i a 00 Vol. Oil ow d .` 'ti cn J` too ' O 0 to LAO gloot ul 0010 • U1 3 u see Motto {� 00 too 0 tillown to, 164044 111 . 'jA to 1 3 aIdo W S r s c _ o e c Q A O 01 M V � Y N W A C 01 ..� A W N N > O N O K Va O 3 �y d " 0J C At Q! ^ 444 ZZ Y O /� 4,11 w Q`4 r q 06 u L.0 '� 0! I W U. {y {{ALL W w �( J � NYY � IC Jj 117JJ� �• rtlp V q 0l 01 Im !. I h w (L + r 1' y CY CL 'm Sof lL - A . 7j0' Y dgo u .Lro+ ,c,o a 9 D >r 02 Q� r to: aL � � O � � t 0 so C .7 1s000 to. >% YYYY � O WOOD Q � 1 7 t = � � stow t � ¢ y fmo d V � L� � nG dA v L o 1, wvH A ,at ct' G o u o u #a< pit � fiIa'', � = �O � .sem LL1 Q 3 hNaouE .- w V LL VQ- A 0 ! CwgNp 2L � L � T11fA dulmoll roC0i •.• d OWNER* � N 0 r Y q N N s v � w . 3 s c v Q g to Q u � aaLiAaue r •.. .- L Y. q O 1. "SOr zai u g q P3 g W O C L 1 a, ro ^ O W4 41 u to w Y L " W LO( NN (HilV �1 A A N 7 �I ( � • ' '7 /� � t '. i IJ REFERENCES TO .►IKS ' SET SY NILLER ' AL046 KENDALL AVE . AND PENNSYLVANIA AVE , INDICATE DATA VOL" ON A WSWAVEY NAP SY T . G, NILLER, PC , DATED SEPT . 221 1911 , TITLES ' SURVEY NAP BNS911NG UNQKNNU .►CATIONS OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AND KENDALL AVENUE , . THOSE CORNERS HARKED HEREON ASA OFOUND PIPE ' INDICATE POINTS ALSO INCLUDED IN ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY( PERFORMED BY TNIi OFFICE FROM 1969 TO THE PRESENT . 2 . 1 THE SOUTHWEGTERLJ�LINE OF LANDS OF ' TNERN , INC. , (R . O. ) ' , ( THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE Of THE LOTS SHOWN MEREDN) WAS DETERMINED FROM A MATCH OF ACTUAL FIELD SURVEY DATA ( CONCRETE • MONUMENTS AND I40 PIPES FOUND AS SURVEYED BY THIS OFFICE ) AND INFORMATION 6MONN ON ANAP SY CARL CRANDALL „ DATED AU6. It 19586 AND TITLED ' A PORTION OF D . L. it W . RAILROAD LANDS - SOUTH HIM AT ITHACA, R. Y. ' . OUR SURVEY WORK INCLUDED POINTS ALONG • /- 3000 FT , OF THE AREA SHOUr CARL CRANOALL ' B NAP . 3 . 1 THE LOTS AND LOT WINGERS SHOWN MEREON ARE THE SANE AS ORIBIRALLY SHOWN ON A NAP BY CARL CRANDALL ,CE TIT15MINDANIE6 ' LABOR OF 1TMACA LAND CON►ANY ' AMD FILED IN TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK ' B OFFICE OM JULY 1Is" IN TOWN OF 1TNACA NAP BOOK ' F-2 ' AT ►AGE !A . 4. 1 THE LINES SNOWM DETWEEN THE ' ORIGINAL ' LOTS BROWN WERE DETERMINED U61NB DATA TAKEN FROM 0 ABOVE REFERENCED NAPS COMBINED WITH DATA FROM ACTUAL FIELD SUAVEYS PERFORMED BY THIS fICE. 5. 1 THE DINENSIONS SNGSN 1N PARENTHESES INDICATE DIMENSIONS SHOWN (OR IMPLIED ) ON THE NAP BY CRANDALL ( BEE NOT%' 31 . THE 'MEASURED ' DISTANCES BHONN INDICATE THE ACTUAL DISTANCES KNEEN THE NORTN"STERLY LINE OF KENDALL AVENUE AND THE 6OUTHNESTERLY LINE OF LARDS OF TNERN , INC . (R. O. Pr (FORMERLY THE D . I.. D W. RAILROAD ) - REFER TO ROTES I It 2 . A . l THE CURRENT OWNERS AND GEED REFERENCES SHOWN ON LOTS 0212 TMRU 4221 WERE TAKEN FROM TOMPKINS COUNTY TAB NAP INFORMATION ON ' NARCH 21 , 1909. GONE OF THE OTHER DATA ABOUT ' OWNERS AND DEEDS WAS TAKEN FROM THE NAP BY MILLER - SEE NOTE 1 . 4 7 . ) THE 67REET LINES SHOWN FOR KENDALL AVE. AND PENNSYLVANIA AVE. ARE AS SHUN ON THE NAP BY T . G. MILLER , PC IEEE ROTE I ) . THE LOCATION OF THE STREET LINES AS SHOWN HEREON 12 CONSISTANT WITH THE ' NECORD ' LOT DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE 1693 NAP BY CARL CRANDALL (SEE NOTE 3 ) FOR ALL OF THE LOTS BETWEEN KENDALL AND PENNSYLVANIA AVENUES , AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY DECREASE IN SIZE OF ANY OF THE LOTS OF RECORD BETWEEN THE TWO ROADS . ter, New y ' i I'M ENGINE:ER& -$URYEYORS� PLANK i .: y�� rug►! 4F los zd ��� `��i '/su 74 North West St et m•+ �� :: Kr*N D4t�1.:: 2 Homer, New York 13 .7 4(,0-e9 Lars `; Is �. s°si P 7 Z49 - 2 4 e r• •r• OF ISL L AVG AiS 4BiOwN'" MI�}I' y` kt ..Cdt i. N. v , •,Edue•tlo ♦ MRi iR/MY�►Ly Ftp AWB>!•;/� 1�Df AMAKA cion o1 o•ld ! « 41%co dltr • 340 ry porelon d/ ° 3 v (♦.E1.. LAtiO Cowl iuY ' iA0 vi tag•tY. aeoPt « dirdot•d D • lleorrod Pro ` } t.(0 rM11! 'w"ps to eb0' Y r or land vvgor-. [soh olcr.tion w»t C. [t� �LRK*i-•1�Idl . !M 1Kpp{ .� ` . ru.d. .d ted Wed d000 EMGto Mt •d ■ . ,,� no P+ertd•lo,yt oPdnl w .Y cr+ .«1 O} • 'tW111i 1Q6i6' - � •n[lMr or l•r.d prryor � c id •lcevrtton. J V� S9 Gn • . t : or os IIG: - n _ 8 ' zv �< M ` � S 1 • p to -S � , � J : �� of Z ••1 O v �' W � \ I.` va t .. /vlro� i88 t►�tr 5�•♦-"--- Iil+' � T. � � � . . C w+, Saw ro.oai �� •w.Ni) '•I d 1 N ( lam ' ID� LC>tp LLJ t v B L13Z RW40/ 664P small pp �< S �• x BIZ 101 p � '� p 'QQMOM Mf It110 +' ('cy ) dlnslvlM �ot+va+ 1 � f � >ivl+�lyy � � � u. ev Nor v1 a N Z . y 0691� r •A • rv ' f^Iv1•Ls , . V � ` A�1/-�/_ r I p . . • ana ., , 00ns7l 9QIi! ' � . MMMoI MMOO it MM -) 0. `IO SaG. "P .472% M „ lop - - - 7 , fllo3 Moo M`MlIL Q � � o � o Yto Q N 1 Moro. y � M Ch o J � t 11 ' � ,i311g a , Q aLv �N 1` x e s ? YY 1 V September 15 , 1989 , • Dear Zoning Board .of Appeals , I have just received notice - that you are holding a hearing next week concerning the conveyance of a strip of land between 181 Kendall Avenue and my property at 185 Kendall Avenue . The underlying problem which this . conveyance is meant to resolve is a conflict between surveys done by Miller and MacNeil . This proposed private transfer would not resolve this conflict because it leaves unresolved the differences between the two surveys and because it only concerns itself with one sideline , whereas the problem concerns both sidelines . The Miller survey indicates that on the sideline opposite to the one you are dealing with , my house , sold to me by Mr . Sackett , does not sit entirely within its • lot . Thus , by itself , a private conveyance of a three foot or so strip of land between 181 and 185 Kendall Avenue would deal with nothing fundamental , and I do not desire such a transfer . I will suggest to Mr . Sackett that he get in touch with me about this before the tuesday planning board meeting concerning this topic . I did not know about his proposed arrangement until I received the letters from the town announcing the meetings . • Yours truly , C Michael Winship 185 Kendall Avenue Ithaca , NY 14850 0 SEP 5 � � N 1434; ..� uuR 33 PAIS 500 ' AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK ) est .• . COUNTY 07 - TOMPKINS ) MICHAEL WINSHIP , being duly sworn , deposes '. and Pays as followst , 1 . Deponent is the owner , along with Eleanor Winship , of 1 premises 185 Kendall Avenue in the Town of . Ithaca , County of Tompkins and State of New York , pursuant to a deed of Stephen Be Sackett and Pamela E . Sackett dated July 7 , 1988 and recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Liber 637 of Deeds at Page t 790 . i 2 . The premises conveyd to deponent are more fully set 1 . forth on the survey attached to his deed and recorded on the same c date as said deed in Liber 637 of Deeds at Page 791 , : as prepared by John S . MacNeill , Jr . , L . S . 3 . Deponent has been informed that John S . MacNeill , , by R . James Stockwin , has subsequently re-surveyed said premises as net forth in a survey dated February 15 , 19 $ 9 , a copy of which is attached hereto and which survey , upon information and belief , has been filed with . the Tompkins County Clark Ia - Office . Drawer L , 132 4 . A survey has also been prepared by To- . . Go Miller by -Richard A . Slade , L . S . , dated October 19,, .; 10 88 . - and entitled "SURVEY MAP , NO . 177 , KENDALL AVENUE , TOWN -.Or., ZTHACA, , TOMP . CO . , at N . Y . " and filed in the Tompkins County Clerks Office on December . 16 , 1988 in Drawer L, # 86 . S . The said T . G . Miller survey , as prepared by Richard A . Slade , is referenced in the MacNeill survey Aated . rebruary 19 , 1989 and shows that the easterly line of Lot 212 is • ipproximately 1 .Mr.�.�IwAN�rw.r+Mr.�w..�... . . ,•. .. n. .. 502 5 . 6 feet westerly of the lot line as shown on the MacNeill survey . 6 . Deponent has been informed that . the Te G . Miller survey was based upon pipes found to have been set by ; . Carl Crandall as shown on a map dated June 121 1954 and recorded . in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office in Liber 459 of Deeds at Page 136 , 7 . At the time of the conveyance to the deponent of his premises by deed of Stephen E . Sackett and Pamela. E . Sackett , deponent was to receive 75 feet of road frontage , which road frontage was to be made up of 50 feet of premises formerly known as Lot 215 and 25 feet of premises known as Lot 214 . i 8 . As a result of the survey of Richard A . Slade , deponent has been informed that the MacNeill survey , along the road frontage , is incorrect by approximately 5 . 6 feet such that ' the dead from Sackett has conveyed , on the easterly line of deponent ' s ►� property a parcel with a road frontage of approximately 6 . 02 feet , ;v : which deponent has been informed was not owned by the Sacketts H ; pursuant to the survey of Richard A . : Slade , I 9 . That in order to obtain one-half of the road frontage 9 of Lot 214 , deponent ' s westerly line should extend westerly Y j o approximately 6 . 01 feet to premises owned by Pamela Sackett as set >1 `� r forth in the deed to Pamela Sackett dated September 24 , 1987 and recorded in Liber 630 of Deeds at Page 614 . 400Ci t a' � MICHAEL WINSHIP c o 8wo to before as this N C. i 28 a of F bru 1989 . R JAMES MILLER s cZ • NOWY Public, Stats of Now Yah QuallRedf to Tom kin County Conunlaston Expires � Mmh 30. \�\ w Est I�L�yIY .YIM1o1r September 9 , 1989 To whom it may concern : I , Scotty Lin , of 622 Cascadilla St . , Ithaca , New York , affirm that I am attorney- in- fact for Nan Chung Chang of 38 DA-Sing Street , Tiachiang , Taiwan , who is the owner of the property known as 181 Kendall Avenue , Ithaca , New York , hereafter referred to as the property , having been empowered by Power of Attorney . I also affirm that I am in agreement with the plan to subdivide the property in order to settle a boundary line dispute , also that Stephen E . Sackett of 110 Monroe St . , Ithaca , New York is authorized to act as my agent in the presentation- of _ said plan to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , the Town of Ithaca Board of Zoning appeals , and to engage in any and all activities necessary to present and implement said plan . L . S . �.�� � .. . �. _ . ._�. .. . Date < 1 67 Scott! l Lin Witness : S L . S . Date ZZ4F I POWER OFATTORNEY- Notice : The powers granted by ' this ' document'' ' ere broad and sweeping • They are defined ' in New York GsneraV.. Obligations - Law , Article 5 , Title 15,, sections ', 5 -;1503 , 0 which 'e :cpres � lly'o: permits the i use of any other or different :form `�of • • poVe'r' oV.attor hey desired by " : : the parties concerned , ' - `.+ { - : • • .. . Know All Men By These Presents , - -whictiare' ` intended ' to . constitute a GENERAL POWER OF ' ATTORNEY 'pursuant to ' Article 5 , ,� , s ' " ' - Title 15 of the New York General Obligation & Laws =: t .. .. That I , Nan Chungg Chang cif 38 Dashingg• •St . , Taichung , Taiwan do" hereby appoint .'Scotty -Lin , of . b2 Casc &&41a �St� •� , = Tthaca , • N . Y . :.. my attorney - in - fact TO ACT , r f In my name , place and stead in any way which ' I myself could do , if I were personally pLesent , with respect to the ' following matters as each of them is defined in Title 15 of Article 5 of the New York . General . Obligations Law to the extent . ., , that I am permitted by '. law to act through aa„ agent : ( Strike out and initial in' ' the • oppositevbox any one or - go more of the subdivisions as to which the . principal does NOT desire . ' ` . to give the agent authority . Such elimination -:'of any. one or more '" of subdivisions ( A ) to ' ( L ) inclusive, ahullautomatica.hly - ' • constitute an elimination also of subdivision ( M ) . .:= To strike out any subdivision the principal must o . draw a . line , .. through . the ; text" of ' that . subdivision ' AND write his initials inthe box` .oposite : . . . �. .iS , _ `F ; ` . 5:+. . F :3 +�� S '�i fly "&.7 �.- ,A - • I , ( A real estate transactions . . . . . . . . `.. . . . . . . . . • ( B ; chattel and goods transactions o . ` . . • • . . • • . ( C ) bond , share , and commodity transactions . . • • . • , . • . • . . . /�►'� . Y ---- D . banking transactions = -: • • • • � '•. • •t �� � !•ar • • • '0 : 9 :• • • ; r, � E business operating transactions : . . . . . . : . :` . . . . . . • • . . . F insurance transactions . : Flo ( G ) estate transactions . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . NO ( N claims and litigation . . . . . O . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • • • . • • . . • • • . NO ( I personal relationships and affairs �tl0 J benefits from military service . . . . . . . . `. . . . . .. . . . . . . . • NO K records , reports and statements . . . . ". . . .' .: . . . e . . . L full and unqualified -1 authoril % to my !"atforney ( a ) ''` in fact to delegate any or all of the '- foregoing powers to any person or persons whom my attorney All) fact shall select . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • [ N ( M ) all other matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • This power of attorney shall not by - affected by the 2 1 subsequent disability or incompetence of the principal . 1 To induce . any. • third party to act hereunder , I hereby agree that any third party : rocaiving• a duly executed copy or facsimile of this instrument may act her®under , and that revocation or termination hereof shall be ineffective as . to such third party unless and until actual ,: notice or knowledge of such revocation shall have been ieceivod , : by such third party , and I for myself and for my heirs , executors , .. legal representatives and assigns , hereby agree to indemnifyand hold harmless any such third party from ands against any and all claims that, -, may arise against such third party : by reason of such third party having relied on the provisions of this instrument . This power of attorney. shall expire : S.e ' eh� �► � ►' `� � , � 10 % "'' IN WITNESS HEREOF , I . have hereunto signed my name and affixed myl seal this day of Ap- 198 • t Nan Chung Chan � • -!� STATE OF 01� usl�S'Vi4 COUNTY OF r/ W' 4 s So } 1,N'c�t On the day of ARM 198 before me personally came Nan . Chung Chang , to me lnown , and known to aye to be the individual described in , and . who executed the foregoing instirWient , and he acknowledged to me that he execute the same . + otary Public _ _ 1' • R.O.C. ' Ta't : DL1tM 6#0" ion_ Tzu N0: Jq.r2!%.N0t1ry MO.. . i EK 0/ ' # 7 181 / 185 Kendall Avenue Subdivision - 1 - Portion of Parcels 54 - 4 - 20 & - 21 , 181 Kendall Avenue , to Parcel 54 - 4 - 19 , 185 Kendall Avenue Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals Planning Board , September 19 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : SEQR 181 / 185 Kendall Avenue Subdivision Portion of Parcels 54 - 4 - 20 & - 21 , 181 Kendall Avenue , to Parcel 54 - 4 - 19 , 185 Kendall Avenue Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals Planning Board , September 19 , 1989 MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed conveyance of an 855 ± sq . ft . portion of a lot known as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 20 and - 21 , 9 , 510 sq . ft . total , located at 181 Kendall Avenue, to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 19 , located at . 185 Kendall Avenue , Residence District R- 9 . 2 . The proposed subdivision is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead • Agency for environmental review . The Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as lead agency for environmental review of any lot non - conformity or variance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 19 , 1989 , has reviewed the application materials for the proposed subdivision , including survey map , marked Sheet 1B , Job No . 8902 - 021 , dated September 19 , 1989 , prepared by John S . MacNeill , Jr . , P . C . , entitled " Boundary Survey Map , Kendall Avenue Area , Lots # 213 thru 221 Along The North Side Of Kendall Ave . As Shown On Map By Carl Crandall , CE Titled ' Lands of the Ithaca Land Company ' And Filed In The Tompkins Co . Clerk ' s Office In Town of Ithaca Map Book F2 , Pg 54 , Town Of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for the proposed subdivision , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , May , Langhans , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . 181 / 185 Kendall Avenue Subdivision - 2 - ,Portion of Parcels 54 - 4 - 20 & - 21 , 181 Kendall Avenue , to Parcel 54 - 4 - 19 , 185 Kendall Avenue Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals Planning Board , September 19 , 1989 ADOPTED RESOLUTION : 181 / 185 Kendall Avenue Subdivision Portion of Parcels 54 - 4 - 20 & - 211 181 Kendall Avenue , to Parcel 54 - 4 - 19 , 185 Kendall Avenue Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals Planning Board , September 19 , 1989 MOTION by Mr . Stephen Smith , seconded by Mr . _Robert Miller : WHEREAS * 1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed conveyance of an 855 ± sq . ft . portion of a lot known as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 20 and - 21 , 9 , 510 sq . ft . total , located at 181 Kendall - Avenue , to Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 54 - 4 - 19 , located at 185 Kendall Avenue , Residence District R- 9 . 2 . The proposed subdivision is an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency . for environmental review , has , on September 19 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on September 19 , 1989 , has reviewed the application materials . for the proposed subdivision , including survey map , marked Sheet 1B , Job No . 8902 - 021 , dated September 19 , 1989 , prepared by John S . MacNeill , Jr . , P . C . , entitled " Boundary Survey Map , Kendall Avenue Area , Lots # 213 thru 221 Along The North Side Of Kendall Ave . As Shown On Map By Carl Crandall , CE Titled ' Lands of the Ithaca Land Company ' And Filed In The Tompkins Co . Clerk ' s Office In Town of Ithaca Map Book F2 , Pg 54 , Town Of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York " . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board . 2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals to the proposed subdivision of the lots numbered 213 and 214 on Kendall Avenue as presented , subject to the following conditions and requirements : a . Granting of any necessary authorization or variance by the • Zoning Board of Appeals for lot non - conformities or variances . 181 / 185 Kendall Avenue Subdivision - 3 - Portion of Parcels 54 - 4 - 20 & - 21 , 181 Kendall Avenue , • to Parcel 54 - 4 - 19 , 185 Kendall Avenue P-reliminary and Final Subdivision Approvals ® Planning Board , September 19 , 1989 b . Submission of a final survey map , for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Attorney , prior to the signing of the map by the Planning Board Chair and prior to the filing of said map i•n the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk , said map to be only of the two lots being subdivided and immediately adjacent parcels . c . Said six - foot parcel shall be annexed to either the Winship parcel on the east or retained as part of the Chang parcel on the west . Aye - Grigorov , Baker , May , Langhans , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY . Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , • Town of Ithaca Planning Board . September 20 , 1989 . r e 3'4. 16.1 (2187)— Text 12 • PROJECT I,D. NUMBER 817.21 SEOR Appendix C State Environmental Ouslity Review • SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant' or Project sponsor) 1 . APPLICANT ISPONSOR - - — - - - — — 2 . PROJECT NAME Ste hen a . -- Ageof K et n 4eL l v Lots J3 /W 1 Dint . _.� _2 . PROJECT LOCATION: - - - — Municipality rth C4. C CL (%tOWrl County Tom KI 4 . . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections.-prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) : ...- -- - > To� x Parcels 6 ♦ S `t4 - 0y - 19 ) - 2o, - al , VICI /11rY of KeJ1dC4 // 4veige. 5 . IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑ New ❑ Expansion Modlflcatlonlalteratlon 6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: % /Kv� lFcca � ren Of l�laF cQl .rte /16ro /) S [� volvincl above es bre Ser ori `Igou.n4' ary Sc,Lrve.Y Y*.L 1 KvwoAJC, 11 Aljenue ArecL by TOAs S . M4CIVeiI/� Tr. J )0 ( .. $Aee-f ! B . C) rlgtria ! P1 7 D� Tff►accc L.anc� CornlfJany u� aS Filed July 7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: _ ST FT AAW tt f iAal Sa.rve Initially acres Ultimately acres • q 2 i a" c ✓e S / n 4 c T' s 6 : W1PROPOSEtDvfACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? Yes II�J No If No, describe briefly Mrtiy 1egc,rire re ur ew 900rof! clG we(z/S . - All 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? 5Q Residential 14 Industrial ❑ Commercial Q Agriculture ❑ Park/Foresvopen space ❑ Other Describe: 10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL)? ® Yes ❑ N//��o It ea, list agency(s) and permitla provals Q h Zen « & 4 rdP10- nn l n.q N00. I"ck Ot.Pprovo. l 01 110.p. 4, f ICCI ! / Cgprovc4t. IS OL e Sfill to be � eo4trrrisne lit . ,- ' DOES-ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID' PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ' IBJ Yes ❑ No It yes, list agency name and pennit/app al 5L„ bJIulsio^ 7151t:• r per PlanIItNq 60CL7 4' 1105 Fitted lola-F . 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? - ® Yes No 0 .S � 4sc.rl kd hereltt, , - - I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Q ApplbanVsponsor name: f 1F. ' ` e. `^^C.r` E Date: Signature: If the action is in• the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 I� PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 817. 12? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. ❑ Yes ( o B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.8? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another Involved agency. X® Yes ❑ No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) Ct . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste productlon or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: - Not expected _given - the , small___ size_ of_the proposed_ modification - and the fact that both lots are developed . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural reaeuress; or community or neighborhood character) Explain brW.. Not expected , as stated above . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: None known that would be adversely impacted . C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly Proposed action may result in area nonconformities with respect to current zoning requirements , but no significant adverse impact is j exgegrt, d . o h, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. None known or expected given the size and type of the action . �C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In C1-05? Explain briefly. Not expected . a ' C7. Other impacts (Including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. Not expected . D. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, •CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? 13 Yes ONO If Yes, explain briefly No Controversy - is known or ,Expected with respect to potential adverse environmental impacts . PART III— DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIQN8: For each. adverse effect Identified above,determine whether Itis substantial, large, Important or othi n alas significant. ' Each effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting (i.e. urban or ruraq; (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) ' . Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain ayfficient detail to show thdt all relevant adverts Impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. ❑ Check this box if you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts which UAAY.. - - - --- - occur. Then proceed directly to the FLILL - EAF andfor prepare- a- positive doe tion. - RkCheck this box If you have determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting. documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any significant adverse environmental Impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: Town of Ithaca Planning Board for subdivision , Zoning Board of Name of Lead Agency A peals . .for . any variances oft authorizations . 10 vn . Plannina BoarO Cha r rint i Type Name o lesugnu a icg► alr Agency / itle o Responsible icer HenryAron , . B . . (gin ignat ore of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ignature Of reparer (it diff frornrespombdeKern Date At if 2 —:J - :. :�f.�':�4`v�•_� _`'.:5�: -`moi • -_ _:r — , _ ! _ � 'r� i _ � _ _ . _ .. . w . _ . _ . - __ TOWN T OF ITHACA ZONING _ BOARD OF APPEALS THEmo TNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS1 i� ( "� - OT T TA jTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 , X 1 g i V 1J 1 \ a i 1989 7 :00 P. M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Ap- peals NOTICE IS HEREBY ,r GIVEN that Public Hearings � :- , j•r � _ S Y.-.:� will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town Tax Parcel Na. 6-54-4-20 was of Ithaca on Thursday, Sen- approved for subdivision and • j , t • tember 21 , 1989, in Town Ha I , consolidation with Tax Parcels � a� tv : .. . .. . . 126 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST No. 6-54-4-21 and -19 b� the Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Planning Board on July 5, Side ), Ithaca, N . Y . , COM- ' 1988. Said proposed subdivi- LZ MENCING AT 7 :00 P. M. , ' on . sion results in a total lot area the following matters. of 8,655 lus/minus sq.- ft. , 9, - RE—APPEAL of -,Nicholas _J. 000, pped. sq. ft. being required; a Q �• {r _ _, — „ _, Barra, Appellant, . requesting front yard width at the maxi- variance from the require- - mum front yard setback of 72 . .. . ments of .�ed Article V Section 11 plus/min us #eet 75 feet e m dParagraph 2, of the Town of a west sideanquired;ta. kCA J."zN , L _ _ . . . _ . _ . . Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to building setback of 11 .7 plus- permit a two-family house /minus feet, 20 feet being re- � � L having the floor area of each quired, and a rear and build- _ - . . . _-: i`• � - s• L; •� .. u} ; '�; G: A . .1 ^^� t. r � !:_'1GZCC i t IL l^ dwelling unit of equal size, lo- ing setback of 47. 5 plus/minus - King Road, feet: 50 feet being required. . . .. - - : . ;: ' ... . ._ . . . .- �._ . .- - - -- '- '-- - - '- -- — . _ East ---- _ .._ ._ a Tax Parcel No h - J -- tate at _ ;: own of Irh t roper sur- R� ^ it' '+S v .• ^ 18 �tiC _ - - �• •--•- -- ---- ••-- ---• 6-44- 1 -4. 40, ResidenceDistrict . ve dated Arri1 201989, R- 15 Said Ordinance requires showsathe ' existin front yard �C thata second dwelling unit building setback gto be 20.9 Horexceed 50% of the floor plus/minus feet, 25 feet being - -- area of the primary unit unless required. ' '• : : ' . : the second unit is located en- Said Zoning Board of Appeals firely within a basement, will at said time, 7:00 . m. , .. ._ . ._ ._ . . _ ._ ____.. . . . ... __ , . _ — . ....._ .. . .. . _____ ...., ....- _• - - ------ -- • --••-,-_ _- - APPEAL of Slawomir Grun- and said place, hear all per- berg , authorization nlbyf the 9 or objectionsrthereto. Persons Appellant, requestinsons in orizotio a Board o _ S _ � : _ � tt' ` p _' '�• o -_ —. Appeals, under Article XII , may appear by agent or in Section 54, of the Town of person . - Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for he extension of non-con- Andrew S. Fiost GF L' . .- . _ _ C _ . . � ' Building Inspector/Zoning En- _ . �- . En- forming building/lot located Off _ :. ;,':Z . = at 1156 Danby Rood, Town of _. ...::._—.._ . Residence District R-30.6-36- 1 -5 Said S 273- 1747 n icer It PTown of Ithaca extension roposes the con- 989 u ono outside o0 epte 5, 1 _. .., . . _ __ . _. C:; , -•-. • -. � � -- �••• � �- �•- >T' `� � � - �� , teckt� attaChe to existing - - - _ GES 9 s d ' singl f ily residence, with - i e- am r de i the deck proposed to be lo- M1•r ' •.' J,� 1, t.. x��� T ^. toted 18. 75 plus/minus feet = --- property from th0e ser being required . Said building lotnis non-con - forming on con - . . . forming since the width at the -- front yard setback is 100 feet, _ " ' ' � • G".. r'i' t LL.'• > . •' 150 feet being required ; the - JEAN FORG . . front yard building setback _ = t from the road right of woy is . _: .-. Notary Pubilc;.. S a 'e of Ne YOr� 22. 5 plus/minus feet, 30 feet - - - - being required, and the exist 4165 10 setback is 22. 5 us - - Or1 � UnS :�OUnty . being rprequirt . NO ing south side building tt QUa � IiIOC� in T feet, PP eAllant, NScotthungn here ' • f an Comrnlsslon axp re$ M:ay 31, 19� APPEAL PP v :_:: .: tr::;: -•c- - . . .:,. _ ,_- .•---:-• • . '-.z:. .. -... .: .. . .. . . : : : .:. ._ .... ... _ .” __ . ' ."..: _ _ - - _ ' � ._ . . : _ ferred Properties, Inc. , Attor- ney- in-fact, ttar- - Hey in fact, Stephen E. Sack- ett , ack for Ms . Lin , , ' - er Age �. .:_ t , - requesting area variances _ ,� _•. _ - from the requirements of Arti- - •- " cle III , Sections 7 and 9, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi - nonce, with respect to the ro . ision of dp cared atose ub8lvKendall Avenue, - " - _ . Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. -- • - • -54-4- and -21 , Residence - -- 6 20 _ :: -. . ._ _. - ._ ._. . ..- _ _ _. . .. .. - - District - . Thew avis on o . D' R 9 bd ' ' ' f - -'