HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1989-11-15 FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
O TOWN OF ITHACA DateAL'(. k4, i,/U
01
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Clerk
NOVEMBER 15 , 1989
PRESENT : Chairman Henry Aron , Eva Hoffmann , Joan Reuning , Edward
Austen , John C . Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Andrew Frost
( Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) .
ALSO PRESENT : Shirley Valenza , Myrtle Whitcomb , Ivar Jonson , Attorney
Roger Sovocool , Glen Harrington .
Chairman Aron called the meeting to order at 7 : 21 p . m . and stated
that all posting , publication and notification of the Public Hearing
had been completed and that proper affidavits of same were in order .
At this time , Chairman Aron pointed out to the public present
that there would be a limited time tonight to decide on the Appeal
that is before the Board , adding that the meeting will be adjourned at
10 : 00 p . m . Chairman Aron , referring . to the Appeal notice , asked if
anyone had any questions as to the validity of the advertisement in
the newspaper , posting , or notification of the neighbors . Mrs .
Shirley Valenza , of 938 East Shore Drive , stated that she had an
objection as to the way the Notice was stated , in that there are many
• violations beyond the two deficiencies that were noted on the subject .
Chairman Aron responded that that would come out at the Public
Hearing . Chairman Aron stated that he was only asking the public if
there were any objections to , or agreement with , with the advertising
pertaining to the meeting tonight .
APPEAL OF IVAR AND JANET JONSON , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING MODIFICATION
OF THE TERMS OF SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS ON APRIL 12 , 1989 , FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
STORY , SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 934B EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA
TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 18 - 5 - 9 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID SPECIAL
APPROVAL AUTHORIZED A 12 - FOOT WIDE BUILDING WHEREAS THE BUILDING
CONSTRUCTED IS 12 FEET , 4 INCHES . FURTHERMORE , INFORMATION AND
MATERIAL PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANTS INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED
STRUCTURE WOULD NOT HAVE A " LOFT " OR ROOF " DORMERS " , HOWEVER , THE
BUILDING AS CONSTRUCTED HAS A LOFT AND TWO ROOF DORMERS .
At this point , Chairman Aron read aloud the Appeal Form ,
( attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ) . Chairman Aron indicated that Mr .
Jonson widened his building by four inches , and constructed two
dormers on the roof .
Attorney Roger Sovocool , Attorney for Ivar and Janet Jonson ,
addressed the Board and stated that the Building Inspector , Andrew
Frost , wrote to Mr . Jonson asking him to appear before the Board to
seek a modification of the approval before he could issue a
• Certificate of Occupancy . Attorney Sovocool noted that Mr /Mrs Jonson
are not asking that the approval be changed , because it is their
position that they are within the original permit , adding , if the
Zoning Board of Appeals - 2 - November 15 , 1989
Board feels it should be modified , then certainly they would accept
any modifications . Attorney Sovocool stated that he thought it could
be shown that the Appellants are within the intent of the original
permit . Attorney Sovocool remarked that , in order to save time and
get all the facts in front of the Board , Mr . Jonson has prepared a
statement in which he has tried to set forth the chronology of events ,
so that the Board will have the answer , he believed , to the two
questions ; namely the width of the building , and the mezzanine or loft
area . Chairman Aron asked Attorney Sovocool to give the Board the
highlights as to the importance of the width and lot , as well as the
dormers . At this point , Attorney Sovocool distributed copies of Mr .
Jonson ' s statement to the Board members , which is dated November 15 ,
1989 , ( attached hereto as Exhibit 2 ) . Attorney Sovocool commented
that he also has , if the Board wishes to have it to refresh their
recollections , the original survey map of the building before the
first building was torn down . Chairman Aron replied that the Board
has copies of the map , which was prepared by Howard R . Schlieder on
August 16 , 1985 . Continuing , Attorney Sovocool said that they also ,
of course , have the Building Permit , noting that the Board made the
motion and set forth the conditions . Attorney Sovocool remarked that
he has , in his possession , a letter addressed to Mr . Ivar Jonson , from
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , dated
September 5 , 1989 , and a further letter from Mr . Frost dated October
27 , 1989 , ( attached hereto as Exhibits 3 and 4 , respectively ) .
Attorney Sovocool distributed to members of the Board a letter
addressed to Mr . Jonson , from Om P . Gupta , dated November 14 , 1989 ,
[ attached hereto as Exhibit 5 . ] Attorney Sovocool also produced a
hand - written statement , addressed to To Whom It May Concern , from Glen
Harrington , undated , ( attached hereto as Exhibit 6 ) . Chairman Aron
read aloud , for the record , the letter from Om P . Gupta , dated
November 14 , 19891 ( Exhibit 5 ) . Chairman Aron then read aloud , for
the record , the hand -written statement from Glen Harrington , ( Exhibit
6 ) . At this point , Mr . Jonson offered that Mr . Harrington is a
contractor and is employed by him .
Attorney Roger Sovocool again approached the Board and stated
that he was speaking for Mr . Jonson and , based on conversations that
he has had with him , he would paraphrase some of the material in Mr .
Jonson ' s statement of November 15 , 1989 , ( Exhibit 2 ) . Attorney
Sovocool stated that Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning
Enforcement Officer , looked over the statement very carefully with Mr .
Jonson , Attorney Sovocool stated that Mr . Frost cautioned Mr . Jonson
to be sure and meet the matter in all respects and Mr . Jonson
responded that he would do so . At this point , Attorney Sovocool began
to paraphrase Mr . Jonson ' s statement , and referred to Item No . 3 in
the statement . Chairman Aron asked , for the record , about the
diameter of the concrete pilings . Attorney Sovocool responded that
they were 12 " in diameter pilings . Attorney Barney wondered how far
apart they were . Mr . Harrington offered that they were 10 feet apart .
Attorney Sovocool then proceeded to Item No . 4 . Chairman Aron asked
about the 12 - foot -wide foundation . Mr . Sovocool responded that it is
12 feet wide from outside edge to outside edge . At this time ,
Attorney Sovocool proceeded to Items No . 5 through 15 . Attorney
Sovocool stated that the framing is 2X6 construction . Attorney
Zoning Board of Appeals - 3 - November 15 , 1989
Sovocool said that when the plans were first submitted to the Board
there was no plan for a mezzanine or a loft area , which is apparent
from the examination of the plans . Attorney Sovocool stated that the
reason for that was because Mr . Jonson did not think he would have
enough room in order to get anything up above the height of the ground
floor , but as the detailed plans progressed Mr . Jonson found that he
would be able to put a small 10 ' X10 ' or 101X111 area halfway between
the ground floor and the ceiling , and still give enough room for
people to walk safely , and adequately , through the ground floor , and
allow some storage or other area up above .
Continuing , Attorney Sovocool stated that the original house that
was taken down also had some upper storage area , in that there was
some plywood across the beams that was suspended , and it was used for
storage . Chairman Aron asked about drawings for the loft , with
Attorney Sovocool answering that it was just a matter of doing it as
Mr . Jonson progressed . Attorney Sovocool noted that Building
Inspector Andrew Frost appeared on August 2 , 1989 , and there was a
discussion between Mr . Jonson and Mr . Frost about the matter , adding ,
Mr . Jonson ' s contention was that this was alright , as it did not
violate the Building Code , and he hoped that it would be approved by
the Building Inspector . Attorney Sovocool commented that the Building
Inspector examined it at the time , and , as Attorney Sovocool
understands it , he [ Mr . Frost ] approved the building . Attorney
Sovocool stated that other measurements were taken , carefully , by Mr .
• Frost , such as the deck in front of the building to be sure that the
deck was exactly right ; it was 9 ' by 10 ' , which was called for .
Attorney Sovocool stated that Mr . Frost also measured the building by
going to the top of the building , and dropping a line to be sure it
was absolutely no more than 15 feet high . Attorney Sovocool offered
that he did not know if Mr . Frost took , at that time , any other
measurements . Attorney Sovocool stated that Mr . Jonson continued to
frame the building , and finished framing the building . Attorney
Sovocool referred to the letter dated September 5 , 1989 , from Andrew
Frost , . ( Exhibit 3 ) , in which Mr . Frost states : " Although the exterior
non - combustible siding was not in place at the time of my August 30 ,
1989 inspection , you are proposing to use it , and the use of such
non - combustible siding on a building within 3 feet distance of a lot
line is permitted by the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and
Building Code . " Attorney Sovocool stated that Mr . Jonson then
proceeded to put the solid flat steel sheets of siding on the outside
of the building , commenting that Mr . Jonson also put in some , what he
[ Attorney Sovocool ] would call , corner decorations on each of the
corners of the building , as shown on attached photograph # 5 . Attorney
Sovocool stated that , according to Mr . Jonson , each of the wooden
corners adds about an inch to each side , commenting that those corner
posts could be removed . Mr . Jonson offered that the steel siding is
on the sides where the parking is located . Chairman Aron mentioned
that there are two different types of siding on the building , with Mr .
Jonson replying , yes . Attorney Sovocool again stated that the four
corner trim posts could be removed ; that would take off one - inch on
• either side of the building , if the Board felt that that was
necessary , adding that they are only on there for decoration which
adds to the overall appearance of the building . Attorney Sovocool
Zoning Board of Appeals - 4 - November 15 , 1989
then showed the Board photograph # 4 , which shows the building as it
faces the Lake . Chairman Aron asked if there was a cathedral ceiling .
Attorney Sovocool answered , yes . Attorney Sovocool offered that
photographs # 6 and # 7 are taken from the front of the building and
show the deck and the general appearance on the Lake side . Attorney
Sovocool then showed photograph # 8 which shows the mezzanine or loft
area . Attorney Sovocool again cited the letter from Andrew Frost
dated September 5 , 1989 , ( Exhibit 3 ) , in which Mr . Frost indicated
that he was not sure whether the Zoning Board of Appeals intended the
12 - foot maximum width to mean at the foundation walls or at the
outside finished exterior walls . Chairman Aron noted that Mr . Frost
stated : " I will not issue you a Town of Ithaca Certificate of
Occupancy until you reappear before the Zoning Board of Appeals for
either an approval of the as - built structure , or obtain a 411 ±
variance . " Attorney Sovocool stated that the Appellant does not find
any fault with Mr . Frost , as he did a very conscientious job , adding
that that is not the problem . Attorney Sovocool stated that the
problem is , he thought , in trying to put this together , that the
instructions that the Appellant has are rather limited , in other
words , the Board gave the power to the Building Inspector to determine
whether this use is in compliance with the square footage , the
distance , and all the construction requirements , commenting that the
Appellant thought Mr . Frost followed the matter . Attorney Sovocool
stated that he felt , as is the Appellant ' s position , that there really
is no need for modification , because Mr . Jonson has followed the
® Board ' s instructions . Attorney Sovocol commented that the only
question might be whether this building exceeds 12 feet in width ,
adding that he thought that is a question of interpretation as to
whether the Board is counting all the trim , the.. corner boards , the
stoops , or any other embellishments on the building . Attorney
Sovocool stated that it is true that , probably , steel siding to steel
siding , it is probably over an inch or 1 - 1 / 2 " on the size of the
building . Attorney Sovocool noted that the footprint of the building
though , as it - was built , as it was measured , as it was up , is exactly
12 feet wide , according to everything that is known about the
building . At this point , Attorney Sovocool presented Photograph # 9 ,
dated November 14 , 1989 , which shows the siding along the side of the
building .
Attorney Sovocool stated that he felt Mr . Jonson ' s statement and
the photographs fully explain any questions or position that he
[ Attorney Sovocool ] or Mr . Jonson might have .
Chairman Aron noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
anyone present wished to speak .
Mrs . Shirley Valenza , of 938 East Shore Drive , addressed the
Board and stated that she is an adjacent property owner . Mrs . Valenza
asked if she could view the Building Permit , the application for the
Permit , and the plans , as she has never seen them . Chairman Aron
pointed out to Mrs . Valenza that the Building Permit is made out to
• the owner of the property . Attorney Barney noted that it is public
record . Attorney Sovocool produced the Building Permit for Mrs .
Valenza , and the Board produced the plans for Mrs . Valenza to view .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 5 - November 15 , 1989
Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , stated
that the plans are what was submitted as part of the original
approval . Mr . Frost stated that the sketch he had received for the
Building Permit application was exactly the same , except , as noted in
his handwriting , the sketch showed a 14 - foot -wide building and ,
because the condition was 12 feet , the conversation with Mr . Jonson ,
before issuance of the permit , was that it would be 12 feet , which was
written in and initialed by Mr . Frost . Mrs . Valenza asked if there
were any plans for an up - to - date version of the building . Mr . Frost
responded that the presented plans are the plans under which the
Building Permit was issued , but modifications , such as the addition of
the loft , were not submitted on a formal plan . Mrs . Valenza wondered
how intelligent decisions could be made without such things as copies
of the two items that she has suggested . Mrs . Valenza stated that she
was the one that saw the 5 - 1 / 2 " X5 - 1 / 2 " improperly treated posts stuck
into the ground , using the labor and machinery of a company who is
supposed to be doing the sewage , even though it was at least halfway
into water at the most western part , toward the Lake . Mrs . Valenza
stated that she felt any citizen could have copies of the issue , may
check , and certainly one that is going to be placed so very close to a
person with such a very bad fire record , she certainly should have had
copies of the plans , as well as the Board , long before , in fact , at
the very beginning . Attorney Barney , directing his comment to Mrs .
Valenza , wondered if Mrs . Valenza had come to the Town Hall and asked
for those items . Mrs . Valenza responded that she did ask for the
plans and the Building Permit . Mr . Frost interjected that that
request was made via telephone by Mrs . Valenza ' s attorney . Mrs .
Valenza replied that that is right , but she came in to ask for it and
pick it up . Mr . Frost responded to Mrs . Valenza that she did not ask
him personally for the items . Mrs . Valenza replied , no , the secretary
blocked my way and stated that only Mr . Frost could give out that
information , adding that she was not allowed to see Mr . Frost ' s
assistant or anyone else , at which time she said she would be in the
next day to pick it up . Mrs . Valenza stated that she did not get them
for a full week , and with a rather ironic statement of Freedom Of
Information , and which the Town Clerk tore up , saying it is certainly
too late for that now , that should have been before . Attorney Barney
stated that he just wanted to be sure that , at some point , Mrs .
Valenza received all the papers she had requested . Mrs . Valenza said
that she got old papers ; nothing resembling the building that was
constructed . Chairman Aron stated that that is not what the Board is
talking about now , we are talking about the questions you have raised .
Mrs . Valenza said that she had received a kind of Building Permit that
talked as though the building were to accommodate regular normal
standards of building , and as though it had not been before the ZBA at
all . Attorney Barney noted that Mrs . Valenza did get a copy of the
Building Permit , the plans , and the items that she had requested .
Mrs . Valenza stated that neither one were remotely like what has been
constructed . Attorney Barney said that his concern was that Mrs .
Valenza received the documentation she had requested . Mrs . Valenza
stated that she had requested documentation of actually what was
• transpiring , not of what was tossed down . Attorney Barney stated that
the obligation of the Town is to provide Mrs . Valenza with a written
documentation . Mrs . Valenza stated that she felt it sounded very much
Zoning Board of Appeals - 6 - November 15 , 1989
like a person can just give you anything , and it would do . Mrs .
Valenza again stated that she received a kind of Building Permit ,
Mrs . Valenza stated that she had gone to Town Hall , offered to pay for
the items , and was given what happened to be submitted , but if a
person does not have a concrete plan , and if it is going to be changed
constantly to be something totally different from what it is , then why
is everyone wasting their time here . Attorney Barney stated that the
Board is not in a position to be answering questions of that nature .
Mrs . Valenza commented that her questions are some of the kinds of
questions that she would like to bring out . Mrs . Valenza stated that
she felt her freedom of information was violated , and the kind of
material that was given to her obscured the case on what was really
being done , adding that she believed what is being talked about is the
kind of building rather than its adherence to the law , and further
adding that she does not understand why Mr . Frost gave her a paper
that said the height would be according to the Town values when there
were definite limitations . Mrs . Valenza asked how high the building
is at its highest point from the tip of the rafter to the bottom of
the floor . Mr . Frost responded that the measurement was 14 ' 8 " from
the ridge to the underside of the foundation , which is on piers . Mrs .
Valenza asked Mr . Frost if he took the measurement . Mr . Frost
responded that he was there , but did not get up on the roof at that
time , there was a gentleman on the roof , and he was on the ground .
Mr . Frost stated that , actually , the roof was not on ; the ridge beam
was up at that time . Mrs . Valenza asked the Board to repeat in what
jurisdictions the Building Inspector was told he might make all the
decisions . Attorney Barney responded that the Board is here to accept
and listen to any reasons that you [ Ms . Valenza ] have for indicating
that the variance is not appropriate here ; the Board is not really in
an information producing situation , they are looking for people from
outside , from you [ Mrs . Valenza ] , and the Appellant to produce the
information so that they can make an informed decision . Attorney
Barney said that these types of questions , if you [ Ms . Valenza ] had
them , probably should have been addressed to the Town Building
Inspector sometime prior to tonight , adding , with respect to the last
question , however , there was a condition imposed in the ZBA
Resolution , dated April 12 , 1989 , ( Exhibit 7 , page 17 ) , which said
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 ; that was a specific authorization given
to the Building Inspector , there are others he has by virtue of his
office , but that is the one related to this particular matter . Mrs .
Valenza wondered if the specific ones are the height of the building .
Chairman Aron responded that the height of the building was determined
by the ZBA . Attorney Barney stated that the ZBA imposed several
conditions , and the language was basically saying that the Building
Inspector was the one who would determine whether the conditions were
met .
At this time , Mr . Frost stated that his interpretation of Item
No . 2 in the ZBA Resolution of April 12 , 1989 , ( Exhibit 7 , page 17 ) ,
• in his mind , and the way he approached the power that was given to
him , was that it was intended to deal with the distance set - back
requirements between buildings and property lines , and the
Zoning Board of Appeals - 7 - November 15 , 1989
combustibility of the exterior walls as related to Building Code ,
adding that that was the only approach he took in the power that was
granted to him : determining the construction relative to set - backs
between property lines and buildings , as outlined in the Building
Code . Chairman Aron stated that that was the intent of the Board .
( Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of April 12 , 1989 ,
attached hereto as Exhibit 7 . )
Mrs . Valenza wondered about the fact of a half- story above , or
the upper story that was added , adding that she wondered whose
function that was . Mrs . Valenza wondered if that was not clearly
spelled out at the meeting of April 12 , 1989 . Chairman Aron replied
that the Board would be addressing that issue themselves , and while
Mrs . Valenza was at the meeting . Mrs . Valenza stated that she would
also like to beg to differ that the building that was there before ,
and she has referred everyone many times to existing materials in the
Town files that were easily available and spelled out the exact
dimensions of the house - - the fact that it was six feet tall inside
and it had no upstairs - - she must differ as to what she has heard
here tonight . Mrs . Valenza stated that she would also like to say
that the discussion is about a 12 ' building and exceeding that . Mrs .
Valenza wondered why , and every expert that she has consulted about it
says , one measures from the rafters , not from the walls . Mrs . Valenza
stated that some of us have construction experience , adding that she
thought we are bound to agree to that .
At this point , Mrs . Valenza produced a photograph showing the
distance from rafter to rafter , commenting that she did not appreciate
very much at all trying , without the proper papers given to her , to
make sense of what was going on , and trying to do the things that the
Board is asking her to do , such as put in input when it was all so
secret of what it was to be . Mrs . Valenza then produced a photograph
showing the space between her rafters and Mr . Jonson ' s rafters . Mrs .
Valenza stated that , as one can see , the space is much less than a
yard ; more like 27 inches . Chairman Aron asked Mrs . Valenza if the
photographs could be kept for the record , with Mrs . Valenza answering ,
no , you may not , and stating that she had given pictures for the
record another time , and she was very much disappointed . . . . Mr . Frost
viewed the picture and returned it to Mrs . Valenza , Chairman Aron
noted that there would not be a record of the photograph ; only a
visual one . Continuing , Mrs . Valenza stated that the other pictures
she gave for the file , as well as documentation regarding Mr . Jonson ' s
original variance where he had asked for half of a story - - he told
the neighbors two bedrooms , and how it turned out to be a
five - bedroom , or a space with two lofts - - that was missing from the
files when she looked at them , and so were the pictures . Mrs . Valenza
stated that the Town is much more able to provide pictures ,
measurements , and dimensions than she was . Mrs . Valenza said that she
has very much trusted that the ZBA would see that those things were
done , adding that she thought she has seen a lot of goodwill and
interest in the public welfare , of mental acuteness , and she thought
it was impressive how much time and effort these people give . Mrs .
Valenza stated that she did not understand how , in this day and age , a
20 - foot lot , less at its western part , could be used to put up a
Zoning Board of Appeals - 8 - November 15 , 1989
rental building long after the grandfathering , when the residential
zoning was 15 ' for a sideyard requirement , which means not even enough
for the sideyards , adding that that decision created substantial loss
to her , and fire safety , in particular , but also in view of property
value , in peace and quiet , privacy , and parking availability . Mrs .
Valenza stated that when the building gets rented Mr . Gupta will be
the first to complain that the people are in his place . Mrs . Valenza
stated that there seemed to be no practical recourse for her , other
than to accept all the Board ' s rulings , since the time allotted after
the 16 days was very little , and since a private person rather than
one who expects to make money from a deal , would incur a great deal of
expense . Mrs . Valenza stated that it is nice to know that there is a
Board to even out that difference , commenting that she tried , as a
good citizen , to accept all the rulings , and in the same spirit of
good citizenship not to accept any violations or changes of any of the
conditions that were specified . Mrs . Valenza stated that there was a
danger there , and that was also brought up before the decision was
made , that the City of Ithaca had brought the Jonsons to the Assistant
Attorney for persistent violations of building law . Mrs . Valenza
stated that , as she mentioned , the variance request seems to have been
lost from the file *
it is no longer there , although it was presented .
Mrs . Valenza stated that , at the beginning , after a number of
meetings , the request was denied unanimously , and Mr . Jonson , who has
been seen lately on television telling how he just goes back and back
and back - - a difference that is very hard to even out , because some
® of us are not so lucky to have the time , energy , or health to do that ,
and would not be able to do that . Mrs . Valenza asked if the generous
rulings of the Board made in favor of the Jonsons were appreciated ,
adding , was the common good as determined here , and even submitted to
by her , and was it adhered to , and has there been respect . Mrs .
Valenza stated that she remembers coming many times when she was not
at all well , even when her mother had been put on the danger list ,
commenting that some of the meetings , at least two , were dismissed
when there were lack of plans , again , or dimensions on plans , or other
preparation , which certainly should have been insisted upon . Mrs .
Valenza stated that she was particularly discouraged to find that the
Jonsons would be allowed to center the building so it would be several
feet farther from their 934A , although several feet closer to her
property on the north , which is a gift of much value in Lakefront
property . Mrs . Valenza stated that those privileges have not
constituted sufficient gain for Mr . Jonson . Mrs . Valenza stated that
she questions your absolute . . . , adding that she would wait on that to
see . Mrs . Valenza stated that many people told her not to put herself
through coming tonight , but she felt that , although this may be a
pattern , and that people like Ivar and Jan Jonson come and come again ,
and get what they want , despite all the rest who are , in essence , the
majority , and therefore , should be given additional consideration ,
certainly equal consideration . Mrs . Valenza stated that the fact that
the stingy 5 - 1 / 2 " wood posts were changed is presented as being a
great concession in Mr . Jonson ' s building methods , commenting that ,
actually , she had to call Mr . Frost , and Mr . Frost told her he would
• come and inspect when the Jonsons asked him to . Mrs . Valenza stated
that she had to get a Town representative to ask Mr . Frost again ,
since it would be such a tragedy , and such a hazard to come out ,
Zoning Board of Appeals - 9 - November 15 , 1989
adding that , at that time the building was 12 " farther to the north
than it should have been , and further adding that Mr . Jonson did
remove it after the supervisor , and after her [ Mrs . Valenza ' s ]
lawyer . . . . he did move it some , and he did correct that . Mrs . Valenza
stated that she felt that not having complete plans , and the Board not
having complete plans , is an absolute travesty of justice . Mrs .
Valenza asked what her redress was if , after being built , it is
inspected and found not legally conforming , adding that Mr . Frost
stated that they [ the Jonsons ] can be told to take the building down ,
or to move it .
Continuing , Mrs . Valenza stated that in many enlightened
communities today several stories are being demanded as being removed .
Mrs . Valenza stated that she thought an enlightened community like
Ithaca , NY , if it intends to have justice , and have respect for the
people that are appointed to see that the things are done properly ,
should be considering that . Mrs . Valenza stated that the second
recourse was to take the Jonsons to law , adding , guess who would
initiate and pay legal fees for that . Mrs . Valenza stated that she
thought the threat of a lawsuit by the Jonsons , if they did not get
their way , and get that in , and get that building on that 20 - foot lot ,
stands as a monument of a lot that is wrong , and that the people do
not agree should happen . Mrs . Valenza stated that , of course , the
Jonsons are taking the third way , which is to come back to the ZBA ,
confess the mistakes , and ask the Board to excuse and permit it , after
• the fact . Mrs . Valenza noted that , since it is the ZBA members who
have to make this decision , she tried to notify as many people as she
could , as soon as she could , adding that she sees absolutely no excuse
for rafters being 27 " apart . Mrs . Valenza stated that she felt really
indignant when she took a letter to Mr . Frost complaining about the
Building Permit , the fact that it had written that it had reached the
top of the rafter stage , and no Building Permit displayed , so she was
not able to read that , as well as not having the proper one to read
herself . Mrs . Valenza stated that she asked Mr . Frost , as well as the
Board , to keep a very close eye on what was going on , so there would
be no need for tonight ' s meeting again , with a request for a variance
for a variance . Mrs . Valenza reminded everyone that the original
variance had to have a variance on all four sides , it was granted , and
she tried to accept the Board ' s word . Mrs . Valenza asked what the
Board was going to do now . Mrs . Valenza stated that she has been put
through harmful trauma , effort , costly in human terms , and some
expense to try to obtain whatever justice remains to her by law , and
by the Board ' s rulings , and stated that she felt she was put in a
position of trying to buy justice , adding , " you must give it to me " .
Mrs . Valenza stated that the Town of Ithaca board members have worked
very hard to effect change , asking that your rulings be respected
they have not been . Mrs . Valenza stated that Mr . Frost required
change after pressure , adding that it is necessary to resort to legal
means to obtain that very elusive , questionable , very tardy Permit ,
and with proper organization , and cooperation , the plans should have
been made at the beginning .
Mrs . Valenza stated that she closes her request to say that she
trusts the Board not to recommend , or accept partial adherence to the
Zoning Board of Appeals - 10 - November 15 , 1989
® generous rulings . Mrs . Valenza noted that she knew , and cautioned ,
that this issue would be here tonight long ago . Ms . Valenza stated
that the Board has had ample time to see that what was done should be
done , adding that she felt a great deal of empathy in feeling that the
Board could possibly cause the Town of Ithaca a lawsuit , and further
adding that she would not like to think that she had done that either .
Mrs . Valenza asked how the Town can really be protected . Mrs . Valenza
stated that the Town is now liable for a lawsuit on many issues , and
probably the pettiest , which was shocking to her , was the petty kind
of gossipy talk that was allowed to be heard in this Board Room , and
to be reported in writing . Continuing , Mrs . Valenza stated that one
involves legal slander of her daughter , adding that she felt no one
was here to gossip ; she was here to get plans ; to discuss the
feasibility ; to discuss what is justice ; that is what she is asking
for . Mrs . Valenza stated that she does not want anything that is not
coming to her ; she attended all the meetings , and did her best as a
citizen to accommodate , she thought the Board should definitely not
allow what is going on to continue to exist . Mrs . Valenza stated that
she also felt a certain sympathy in the Board having been pressured ,
illegally , to make the decision in favor after the grandfathering ,
adding that she also felt that people of the quality that she thinks
the Board is , should be able to make rules if someone is suggesting
something that is not right , then the first rule should be to report
it , and it should be a requirement . Mrs . Valenza stated that she
thought the lack of using file records makes a mockery , and a source
• of derision for the Board , adding that she very much appreciated the
vigor with which the Board pursued it , and tried to find it . Mrs .
Valenza asked why one of the Town ' s professional people , paid by the
taxpayers , does not provide those documents , adding that the size , the
shape , the placement of that was all there in proper form , not
including clauses , the way Mr . Jonson ' s surveyor did , and the way his
lawyer insisted was the size , and further adding that there were other
things there too . Mrs . Valenza stated that she did not think the
Board should allow what is happening , to happen , adding that she felt
that capable people like the Board should make laws so that they are
more free to operate without pressures of any kind , and certainly not
behind the scene ones . Mrs . Valenza stated that she felt that the
Board should insist upon knowing the law , e . g . , when looking to the
Town Attorney and ask what is the feasibility of this building ; that
one should not be answered about the kind of building , or that it
might be a better building , when the question is the existence of the
building , adding that she thought the Board has everything they need
to make themselves really viable , and trusted by the Town , and further
adding that she thought the Board would not be flattered at how many
people have told her that she was only coming to hear , " well , some
mistakes were made , but it is okay " .
Chairman Aron noted that Mrs . Valenza had read from a statement ,
and asked if she could supply a copy , for the record , of that
statement . Mrs . Valenza responded that she would try and provide
that , it probably would not be tomorrow , but it might be the day
® after .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 11 - November 15 , 1989
Chairman Aron asked if there were anyone else who wished to
speak .
Glen Harrington , of 100 Graham Road , Apt . 11A , Lansing , NY , spoke
from the floor and stated that he is the framing contractor fore the
building in question , adding that he also did the footer work on the
building . Mr . Harrington stated that , as stated , he was asked to
remove the pressure - treated footer and put in something that was more
substantial , and last longer , which , of course , Mr . Jonson complied
with . Mr . Harrington stated that when the building was inspected at
the decking stage , it was exactly 12 ' wide , adding that at this point
it could have been very easy , if there was a problem from Mr . Frost ,
as to the width of the building , they could have changed it ; it was
not a problem . Mr . Harrington said that it could have even been
changed when Mr . Frost had inspected the building , when the rafters
were being set , and the mezzanine was also inspected , which could have
also been changed . Mr . Harrington , referring to the 12 ' plus 4 "
dimension , stated that corner boards are a decoration , and on this
house they are up to i " on each side , so one is looking at 1 " on each
side if the corner boards are removed . Mr . Harrington stated that he
is a graduate Agriculture Engineer from Cornell University , so he felt
he was able to speak on this . Mr . Harrington said that the type of
siding used on the house to make the house structurally sound and
sturdy was a 1 / 2 " opposing strand board which is similar to plywood ,
adding that if that was a problem at that point , they could have used
• a led - in brace , which is cut into the wall , and the plywood would not
have been necessary . Mr . Harrington stated that if things , as they
had progressed , were thought to be such that these problems would have
occurred , then things could have been changed , adding that no one had
foreseen any problems with the building , with the decorations on it ,
being 2 " over on either side . Mr . Harrington stated that the 12 '
ruling being discussed tonight is really insignificant , adding that
wood varies up to 1 / 2 " very easily . Mr . Harrington referred to the
mezzanine , or loft , and stated that it is 5 ' high in the center , and
3 ' X6 " at the exterior walls , and further stated that there is not much
room to stand up ; it is a storage area . Chairman Aron asked why Mr .
Harrington built it . Mr . Harrington responded that he built it for a
storage area because there is only one closet on the whole first level
of the structure , which is used for a water heater . Attorney Barney
wondered if the dormers were needed for a storage area . Mr .
Harrington answered that they are not really dormers ; it is just that
the roof , instead of being down , is just pitched out to get that 316 "
for storage area against the side walls . Mr . Harrington stated that
one could see the impracticality of having a house with no closets ,
so , for a small storage area , Mr . Jonson came up with this idea of
raising the outside walls and just flattening out the roof a little
bit .
Continuing , Mr . Harrington stated that , as far as his
conversation with Mr . Frost on August 2 , 1989 , there were no problems
with it , as long as the area was kept under 33 % of the total first
level of the building , adding that , in fact , it is 30 square feet
smaller than that 330 . Mr . Harrington said that he sees no real
problems with the mezzanine area , or the 12 ' wide limits to what is
Zoning Board of Appeals - 12 - November 15 , 1989
being discussed tonight , adding that he thought the whole issue was a
bit silly , but he built the house and thought it might be beneficial
for him to speak his point .
Board member Eva Hoffmann asked Mr . Harrington to repeat the
dimensions of the loft area . Mr . Harrington answered that it was 5 '
in the center before it was finished , now it is less than 5 ' . Mr .
Harrington said that at the exterior it is 316 " . Mr . Harrington
stated that one can see this is an extremely small area ; it really is
not a usable bedroom . Mr . Austen asked if there were extended first
story walls , with Mr . Harrington answering , yes . Chairman Aron
wondered if Mr . Harrington was instructed by Mr . Jonson to build those
dormers . Mr . Harrington replied , yes ; it was actually his idea , with
Chairman Aron stating that that does not matter ; you were instructed
to build them , whether it was your idea or not . Mr . Harrington said ,
yes . Mr . Harrington said that the dormers were constructed twice , and
Mr . Frost had been there the second time they were being put together ,
and showed him exactly what was going to occur up there , and that was
satisfactory . Eva Hoffmann asked for dimensions of the dormers . Mr .
Harrington said that there is a side window in the side wall , and the
dormers are 312 " wide by 2 ' high , and the window is for ventilation
purposes , basically , and there is a little small triangle window for
who knows what . Ms . Hoffmann asked about the height from the main
part of the roof to the top of the rafter . Mr . Harrington responded
that from the floor to that rafter is 316 " ; from the roof to that
rafter is less than that , but he did not know . Mr . Harrington stated
that the width of the dormer is the same width as the rest of the
house , which is 121 , and the width of the dormer from front to back is
10 ' wide on both sides ; it is a square 10 ' X12 ' . Attorney Barney asked
if the dormers were behind the partition , as shown on Photograph # 8 .
Mr . Harrington responded that , as one can see , " this " roof is a
steeper angle than the roof that is up above . Attorney Barney asked
if the dormers were used to enlarge the loft space , with Mr .
Harrington answering , yes . Mr . Harrington noted that at the point
where the stairwell is it is only about 6 ' wide .
At this time , Mrs . Valenza showed the Board a picture which she
stated showed how Mr . Jonson altered the land slope 1 - 1 / 2 ' across to
drain on the neighboring building , which , as she had noted , is 27 " at
some points . Mrs . Valenza showed another picture which she stated
shows the extensive decking on the east and south , as well as on the
west . Mrs . Valenza stated that she would like to have the pictures
returned to her , with Chairman Aron stating that the Board would like
to view them first .
Attorney Sovocool referred to the September 5 , 1989 letter ,
( Exhibit 3 ) , and said that in the letter , and in the original
conditions , it indicated that the building shall be situated equally
between the lot lines , and it also provided that the north side shall
be no closer than four feet to the north lot line . Attorney Sovocool
stated that the actual fact is that the building is not equally
between the lot lines , but the building was moved over , so that the
building would be an additional 6 " away from Mrs . Valenza , to give her
another 6 " away from the building , because of her known concern about
the building .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 13 - November 15 , 1989
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 42
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
At this point , Chairman Aron referred to the ZBA Minutes of April
12 , 1989 , ( Exhibit 7 , Page 7 ) , in which Mr . Austen asked if there is
also a loft , with Ms . Jonson responding , no . Chairman Aron then
referred to Ms . Hoffmann ' s comment on Page 7 , which states : " 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 . "
Chairman Aron then referred to Pages 17 and 18 of the ZBA Minutes
of April 12 , 1989 , reading : " . . . 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 ,
( 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 . "
Chairman Aron stated that there are two different things before
the Board tonight , one being the width of the building , and the second
one being what he refers to , personally , as the addition , because ,
when it was discussed , it was discussed on the basis of plans
presented to this Board . Chairman Aron stated that every member has
looked at the plans which consist of a plain , 12 -pitch roof that says
15 ' in height , cathedral ceiling , a chimmney , and the width is 12 '
from outside to outside , adding that all of a sudden the Board is
confronted with something that looks quite a bit different . Chairman
Aron said that Mr . Jonson and his Attorney want the Board to modify
the plans , however , he [ Chairman Aron ] felt very strongly that the
matter before the Board is in violation of the Board ' s conditions set
forth at the meeting held April 12 , 1989 . Chairman Aron stated that
the building was not built on the premises as the ZBA had granted
approval for .
Ms . Hoffmann , referring to the April 12 , 1989 ZBA Minutes , noted
that Chairman Aron stated the following : " Chairman Aron stated that
since the building is going to be 15 feet high , is there going to be
Zoning Board of Appeals - 14 - November 15 , 1989
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 . " Ms . Hoffmann stated that it is clear that
Chairman Aron was asking if there was going to be storage space there .
Ms . Hoffmann stated that if one looks at the plans the Board was
given the last time , they have the drawing of the layout of the rooms ,
along with the two elevations to the east and west , adding that that
is what the Board looked at when they made the decision . Ms . Hoffmann
asked what the Appellant would call that plan . Attorney Sovocool
responded that , as he understands it , when the Appellant first
appeared before the Board there was no plan , at which time Board
member King asked Mr . Jonson if he could submit a plan , which Mr .
Jonson did . Attorney Sovocool stated that , as one views the plan , the
windows are not exactly the same , and Mr . Frost can attest that the
interior rooms are not exactly as they are on the plan , and as one can
see the building is 4 " wider . Attorney Sovocool stated that there
were no dormers submitted on the plan , adding that the above were all
matters that were changed or added after the plan was submitted .
Attorney Barney stated that the representation was made that
there would not be any windows on either side ; there would not be a
loft . Attorney Barney stated that there were representations made ,
and they were not specifically included as conditions , but the Board
does not generally include as conditions statements that are made that
it is going to be in a particular way . Attorney Barney asked , even
though Mr . Frost may have given , implicitly , or even explicitly , some
blessing , how can one handle the fact that the ZBA never had another
look at the issue , and these representations were made to the Board .
Attorney Sovocool responded that this is not an excuse , but Mr . Jonson
was not here when some of the representations were made ; they were
made by his wife with her understanding , adding that he thought that ,
at the time they were made , that was the intent of Mr . Jonson ; to
build it within the footprint of the building . Attorney Sovocool
stated that as the building progressed , Mr . Jonson found that other
improvements could be made to the building , namely the loft area ,
etc . ; he was able to do that , and he consulted with Mr . Frost .
Attorney Sovocool stated that Mr . Jonson ' s interpretation was that he
would confer with Mr . Frost as the matter went along , and if there was
any question Mr . Jonson assumed that Mr . Frost was in touch with the
Board , therefore , as the building was going up Mr . Jonson was getting
okays as he went along . Attorney Sovocool stated that he must admit
that when Mr . Jonson first came in he did not think it was even
Possible , through the height of the building and the floor , to really
put anything up above it , adding that , as that idea evolved , Mr .
Jonson thought that it would be alright because it was within the
Building Code ; it is not another story which is defined in the
Building Code . Attorney Barney stated that by doing that Mr . Jonson
added another 115 square feet . Attorney Barney , referring to the
Minutes of April 12 , 1989 , stated that there was a representation that
the total square footage of the building was going to be roughly
equivalent to the square footage of the building that was there
originally , adding , there is now a building with square footage that
is 20 % larger . Attorney Sovocool said that , as he read the Minutes of
Y
Zoning Board of Appeals - 15 - November 15 , 1989
April 12 , 1989 , he thought that the square footage ideas were left up
to Mr . Frost to determine what was the Board ' s pleasure on square
footage . Attorney Barney stated that the Board probably unwillingly
granted the variance originally ; they did not want to compel the lot
to remain vacant , although they probably could have . Attorney Barney
noted that the Board wanted to minimize the visual impact of that as
much as possible , and they wanted to do it in a way that would allow a
structure to be there , but it would be the least obtrusive kind of
structure that could possibly be erected there , so the Board limited
it to one - story and a certain number of feet and height . Attorney
Barney asked why all the other conditions that were also expressly
stated , that the building would be this way , were not followed .
Attorney Barney stated that a building in the City of New York is
having 13 or 14 stories chopped off the top of it because there was a
deviation from an accepted mechanism of building requirements .
Attorney Barney said that he has some difficulty having people coming
in and saying they are going to build it a certain way , then after
securing the variance , and getting permission to build the building ,
they go outside and build it somewhat differently . Attorney Sovocool
stated that he wanted to inform the Board that Mr . Jonson is not just
going to do what he wants to do , adding that , in fact , he thought Mr .
Frost would be the first to admit that he met with Mr . Jonson a number
of times , and reviewed the matter .
Attorney Sovocool stated that he felt if any mistake was made , it
• was that Mr . Jonson felt that Mr . Frost had the power or authority to
approve the building as it went up , adding that , if Mr . Frost did not
have that authority , it is up to the Board to decide , but as far as
Mr . Jonson was concerned he thought he was being very careful .
Attorney Sovocool stated that Mr . Jonson certainly does not want to
come before the Board with the idea that he is violating the
conditions of the Board . Attorney Sovocool stated that , if the Board
indicates Mr . Frost had difficulty in knowing at what point these
things should be built or not be built , then one can see that Mr .
Jonson had the same difficulty , in that he thought these would be
alright and would have Board sanction and Board approval .
Attorney Sovocool stated that whatever was said at the April 12 ,
1989 ZBA meeting was the intention of the Jonsons at that time .
At this point , Ms . Hoffmann stated that the Board has a floor
plan before them , not a foundation plan , because it shows the rooms ,
adding that a foundation plan would show where the pilings would be
put ; it would not show the layout of the rooms . Ms . Hoffmann stated
that the floor plan represents what the building would look like above
the foundation . Ms . Hoffmann stated that she assumed , as well as the
Board , that the 12 ' distance was the distance above the foundation ,
adding that she thought any experienced builder would know the
difference between the foundation and the floor plan . Ms . Hoffmann
stated that she could not believe that there could be a
misunderstanding about the width . Attorney Sovocool responded that in
• Mr . Frost ' s September 5 , 1989 letter he had indicated that he was not
sure whether the Board intended the building to be 12 ' wide , or the
building to be measured from the outside siding and corner posts , or
Zoning Board of Appeals - 16 - November 15 , 1989
whether the building was to be 12 ' wide , and then the ornamentation
was to be applied to the outside of the building . Ms . Hoffmann stated
that the fact was that the Board never saw anything , except for a
sketch or a drawing of what the building was to be like above the
foundation . Attorney Sovocool agreed with Ms . Hoffmann . Attorney
Barney stated that the drawing showed the 14 ' dimension that was not
found to be acceptable by the Board , and which is an exterior
dimension , and is clearly shown as running through the exterior of the
walls , and that was what was being shortened down to 121 . Attorney
Sovocool stated that when the Building Permit was issued Mr . Frost
gave Mr . Jonson a copy of the conditions , and they discussed the
conditions . Attorney Sovocool stated that , as he understood it , both
Mr . Frost and Mr . Jonson wanted a 12 ' wide building , at which time Mr .
Jonson built what he thought was a 12 ' wide building . Attorney
Sovocool stated that he also asked Mr . Jonson what the terminology was
that was being used for the width of the building , etc . , adding that
Mr . Jonson ' s analogy was , if one was 5 ' 10 " high , and puts on shoes ,
then the height would be 5111 " ; the shoes , and clothing , that are
worn , are like the outside ornamentation of the building ; the building
is a 12 ' wide building to which is applied siding and ornamentation .
Attorney Sovocool stated that removing the corner posts would
eliminate two inches , adding that the siding certainly could not be
removed . Chairman Aron referred to Attorney Barney ' s statement about
a building in New York City having to remove 13 - 14 floors .
Edward Austen stated that the Board was very concerned about the
visual impact of the building , and that is one of the reasons for the
height limitation , adding that the shape of the roof was considered ,
and further adding that the Board never even suggested that the
building could have a dormer to block the view from other areas ; that
was part of the decision . Mr . Austen stated that the Board did go by
the so - called sketch marked plan and elevations , and that was the
document the Board considered when approval was eventually granted for
the building . Atorney Sovocool said that Mr . Janson has no argument
with Mr . Austen ' s statement ; his only thought was that if he had known
these things , and it had been brought to his attention as the building
progressed , they certainly would have been left off .
Joan Reuning stated that her comment would be the same as Mr .
Austen ' s comment , in that the conversation was very much on the impact
on the neighborhood , and the roof line was considered .
At this time there was a Motion by Edward Austen and seconded by
Joan Reuning , with a unanimous vote thereon , to re -open the Public
Hearing at 9 : 11 p . m .
Mrs . Valenza addressed the Board and stated that she had written
a letter to Mr . Frost which is dated August 2 , 1989 . ( Letter attached
hereto as Exhibit 8 . )
Mrs . Valenza stated that when she had delivered the letter to Mr .
Frost it was at the point where Mr . Jonson had only reached the roof
point . Mrs . Valenza read aloud , for the record , the letter noted as
Exhibit 8 . In response to Mrs . Valenza ' s letter Mr . Frost stated
F"
Zoning Board of Appeals - 17 - November 15 , 1989
that , as he had noted on the letter , he had visited the property on
August 2 , 1989 at 12 : 30 p . m . , and observed no problems .
Glen Harrington , contractor for Mr . Jonson , addressed the Board
and referred to Mrs . Valenza ' s statement about the drawing of the
floor plan . Mr . Harrington stated that that is a floor plan , adding
that floor plans are drawn from rough frame wall to outside rough
frame wall , and do not include siding or structure rigidity material .
Ms . Hoffmann indicated that the plan notes natural stain cedar siding ,
and wondered if that was the outside layer , with Mr . Harrington
responding that that would be shown in a detail , adding that when a
drawing is drawn , such as this one , that is outside rough to outside
rough . Ms . Hoffmann said that should have been so stated . Mr .
Harrington agreed that there should be a detail . Chairman Aron stated
that , as Ms . Hoffmann correctly said , the Board ' s decision was based
on the drawings that were before them .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman Aron closed the Public Hearing again at
9 ; 15 p . m .
At this point , Chairman Aron asked for a motion whether the Board
should deny or modify the way the building has been built , or whether
or not the Board should insist that the contractor comply with rules
and regulations set forth under the conditions set by the ZBA at the
April 121 1989 meeting . Chairman Aron noted that the Minutes of that
meeting were filed April 26 , 1989 .
Mr . Frost stated , for the record , that he would dispute a variety
of allegations made from inadequate foundations , etc . , through the
project . Mr . Frost , referring to the comment he had noted on the
August 2 , 1989 letter , ( Exhibit 8 ) , stated that at the August 2 , 1989
inspection the building was not even completely framed , so when he
made the comment that no problems were observed , the house was only so
far along on August 2 , 1989 , adding that the problems that are being
identified now in terms of lofts , dormers , and the 1214 " building ,
were not what would have been the case on August 2 , 1989 when he made
the notation .
There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the
Board , Chairman Aron asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by Edward Austen , seconded by Joan Reuning :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Ivar and Janet
Jonson , Appellants , requesting modification of the terms of Special
Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on
April 12 , 1989 , for the reconstruction of a single story , single
family dwelling at 934B East Shore Drive , the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals deny and hereby does deny a Certificate of Occupancy
for said building , until it is brought into compliance with the plans
that the Zoning Board of Appeals originally authorized the Building
Inspector to issue a Building Permit for , and further
Zoning Board of Appeals - 18 - November 15 , 1989
RESOLVED , that the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy , upon
compliance , is subject to the following conditions :
1 . that the dormers be eliminated ;
2 . that the stairway to the loft be eliminated so that they cannot
be used ;
3e that the building shall be brought into compliance with respect
to the 12 - foot dimension requirement , including the siding .
At this point , Mr . Frost stated that he wanted to add a couple of
things . Mr . Frost said that the loft is not habitable space , and when
originally permitted it was intended for a storage area , and by Code ,
even as constructed at this point , it is not habitable space . Mr .
Frost stated that his last inspection on that property was on August
30 , 1989 , and he has not done a final inspection ; he has not observed
the non - combustible siding on that building , as he has not been called
for that inspection , adding that , as depicted in one of Mrs . Valenza ' s
photographs , it would be in compliance . Mr . Frost stated that he did
not know whether or not the Board would need to discuss it , but in his
mind , it is both in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance , as well as
the Building Code for the following reason : Mrs . Valenza is stating a
27 " separation between the end of the Jonson eave to her eave ,
however , the Zoning Ordinance would allow projections up to two feet
into any required yard . Mr . Frost stated that he would not have
personally observed the extension of the eaves from the side of the
building .
Chairman Aron stated that it had been discussed on April 12 ,
1989 , as well as tonight , that the Board is not talking about the
extension ; the Board is talking about a building which should conform
with what the Board wanted the building to look like , and that is
according to the plans . Chairman Aron stated that the extension of
the eaves , whether the Zoning Ordinance says it can be two feet or
not , the Board , as one will notice , ignored that fact ; what the Board
was mainly concerned with was : will it fit beautifully in that space
without taking the liberties away from the neighbors on the left and
on the right , adding that the Board was primarily concerned about
that . Chairman Aron stated that , as it was stated earlier by Town
Attorney Barney , the Board also had the chance , and the opportunity ,
if they so wanted , not to allow anything to be built on the lot .
Chairman Aron said that this has no bearing on the issue . Mr . Frost
stated that , in terms of the inspection that is still required for the
non - combustible exterior facing and exterior walls also , according to
Building Code , an extension can be as close as two feet , as long as
the eaves as well are non - combustible . Mr . Frost stated that ,
perhaps , the Board may want to add something about that to the motion .
Mr . Austen stated that he would amend his motion by adding a
fourth condition , as follows :
• 49 that the eaves would also have to meet the present Building Code .
Zoning Board of Appeals - 19 - November 15 , 1989
Mrs . Reuning , as seconder , consented to the amendment of the
motion .
Attorney Barney stated that the plans showed the eaves extending
somewhat wider . Mr . Austen stated that the eaves shown on the plan
show about six inches . Attorney Barney stated that he did not think
it was intended that the prior motion , or the prior limitation of the
12 ' includes the eaves , but does include the outside dimension of the
walls of the building . Mr . Frost stated that the extension and the
distance that Mrs . Valenza is concerned about , is , by Building Code ,
adequate , as long as it has non - combustible siding . Mr . Frost cited
Section 716 . 6 of the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and
Building Code which pertains to Eaves , Cornices and Trim . Chairman
Aron asked Mr . Jonson what the return is on the bottom of the eave .
Mr . Jonson answered that it is about 9 inches .
Attorney Barney stated that he would suggest , as Town Attorney ,
that the Board consider going into Executive Session for the purpose
of discussing potential litigation .
The Board then went into Executive Session for the purpose of
discussion of potential litigation . Chairman Aron stated to those
present that a decision would be made by the Board upon its return .
The Board left the room at 9 : 25 p . m . , accompanied by Town Attorney
John Barney , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew
Frost , and Recording Secretary Mary Bryant . A ten -minute discussion
took place in Executive Session with respect to matters of potential
litigation .
At 9 : 35 p . m . , the Board , Town Attorney Barney , Building
Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , and Recording
Secretary Mary Bryant , returned to the Board room , and Chairman Aron
stated that the meeting was in open session .
Chairman Aron stated that , if there were no further discussion ,
he would ask for a vote on the motion , as amended .
Mr . Austen stated that he wished to further amend his amended
motion , by amending the conditions , as follows :
10 that the overall exterior dimension not exceed 1212 " ;
2 * that the corner trim be removed on all corners , which would bring
the building to 12 ' 2 " in width , exclusive of the eaves ;
3o that the dormers be removed ;
40 that the loft be removed , including the staircase ;
5e that the final approval necessary for the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy be subject to the Building Inspector ' s
is determination that all applicable requirements of the Building
Code have been met ;
Zoning Board of Appeals - 20 - November 15 , 1989
® and by adding the following findings :
1e that the Special Approval granted by the Board on April 12 , 1989 ,
permitted the issuance of a building permit based upon dimensions
on the plans originally submitted to the Board by the Appellant
as such were modified by the conditions of said grant of Special
Approval ,
2 * that representations were made by the Appellant , as follows :
a . that there would be no loft ;
b * that there would be no exterior windows on the sides of the
building ;
co that there would be a standard pitched roof ;
d * that there would be a cathedral ceiling .
Mrs . Reuning , as seconder , consented to the further amendment of
the motion as set forth above .
There being no further discussion , the Chair polled the Board .
Edward Austen - Aye
® Eva Hoffmann _ Aye
Joan Reuning Aye
Henry Aron - Aye
The amended MOTION as further amended was declared to be carried
unanimously .
Chairman Aron declared the matter of the Appeal of Ivar and Janet
Jonson duly closed at 9 : 45 p . m .
The RESOLUTION , as so duly adopted by the Board , follows :
RESOLVED , that , in the matter of the Appeal of Ivar and Janet
Jonson , Appellants , requesting modification of the terms of Special
Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals on
April 12 , 1989 , for the reconstruction of a single story , single
family dwelling at 934B East Shore Drive , the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals deny and hereby does deny a Certificate of Occupancy
for said building , until it is brought into compliance with the plans
that the Zoning Board of Appeals originally authorized the Building
Inspector to issue a Building Permit for , and further
RESOLVED , that the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy , upon
compliance , is subject to the following conditions :
1 . that the overall exterior dimension not exceed 121211 ;
29 that the corner trim be removed on all corners , which would bring
the building to 12 ' 2 " in width , exclusive of the eaves ;
Zoning Board of Appeals - 21 - November 15 , 1989
® 3o that the dormers be removed ;
4o that the loft be removed , including the staircase ;
5o that the final approval necessary for the issuance of any
certificate of occupancy be subject to the Building Inspector ' s
determination that all applicable requirements of the Building
Code have been met ; and further
RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals make and hereby does
make and the following findings :
1 * that the Special Approval granted by the Board on April 12 , 1989 ,
permitted the issuance of a building permit based upon dimensions
on the plans originally submitted to the Board by the Appellant
as such were modified by the conditions of said grant of Special
Approval ,
2o that representations were made by the Appellant , as follows :
a . that there would be no loft ;
b , that there would be no exterior windows on the sides of the
building ;
c , that there would be a standard pitched roof ,
d , that there would be a cathedral ceiling .
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Aron declared the November 15 , 1989 , meeting of the Town
of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9 : 45 p . m .
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals .
Exhibits 1 - 8 attached .
Copies of Photographs # 1 - 9 attached .
Secretary ' s Note : As of the date of the completion of the
transcribing of these Minutes , December 5 , 1989 , Mrs . Shirley Valenza
had not provided opy of the statement from which she read at the
meeting .
Henry Aron , Chairman .
i
TM OF ImiwA FUR $40 . 00
126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Lk) L) 0
Ithaca , New York 14850
CASK
( 607 ) 273- 1747 CHECK
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 l[.v % ti ee� ti t1c.,c.
at -1 <_� -� `I. ' . ' >1" �, c cl�. t ,t , res , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No , . /, — l g S-� , 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 : 7,
Article ( s ) n l t _ _ , Section ( s ) r✓ ,
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
is Jo�c t as follow t
(Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . )
t")�'tjtl 1
// 1 r
4
� T 06 4MW'
0
CIO gjpm
1 1 ,
` I `
By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board
of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with
my applica4tion .
Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : / D
* SigrAture of Appellant/Agent :
Date :
EXHIBIT 1
INFORMATION TO BE SHMONO
i . . 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 who bound lot .
b . Both side lot lines, 6 . Setback of neighbors .
c . Rear of lot . 7 . Street nems and number .
3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures In contrasting lines .
r
•
Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date .
Signature of Appellant / Agent : Date :
EXHIBIT 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the matter of the Appeal of Ivar and
Janet Jonson seeking a Certificate of
Occupancy from the Town of Ithaca
IVAR JONSON, being duly sworn states as follows :
1 . On or about April 12 , 1989 , the Zoning Board of
Appeals held a public hearing on the request of Ivar
and Janet Jonson to reconstruct a building at 934 -
B East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca , New York as a
nonconforming use . The said Board of Zoning Appeals
granted me permission to rebuild upon special
conditions . ( See Exhibit A attached hereto setting
forth the permission and conditions ) .
2 . On May 15 , 1989 , a Building Permit was issued to me
being permit # 3829 by the Town of Ithaca .
3 . Soon thereafter , construction was commenced on the
said building . I originally put in wooden posts to
support the dwelling . On inspection by the Building
Inspector of the Town of Ithaca , hereinafter
referred to as "Building Inspector " , he requested
that I put in concrete pilings instead . I complied
with said request . ( See photograph dated July 24 ,
1989 marked # 1 attached hereto ) .
4 . I thereupon constructed the base of the said
building shown in photograph dated July 31 , 1989
marked #2 attached hereto . The said foundation as
shown in this photo was measured by me and the
Building Inspector on July 26 , 1989 and is exactly
12 feet wide . The deck on the west side is 9 feet
by 10 feet and was measured by the Building
Inspector to be sure it was all right .
5 . I continued framing the building in the same width
of 12 feet . This is a standard method of building .
Any siding applied to the framing and base would
then cover the framing and base which would extend
the width of the building. by 1 - 2 inches on each
side , depending on the type of covering . There are
corner boards on four corners which add 1 inch on
each side . They could be removed as they are only
a " trim " but add to the appearance of the building .
60 . The building , including siding is 12 feet 4 inches
wide and 40 feet long . The mezzanine is 10 feet by
11 feet . The building is 15 feet high . The deck
is 9 feet by 10 feet .
E)UiIBIT 2
7 . I believed that the building as it was being
constructed complied with the Zoning Board of
® Appeals mandate and the question of the
interpretation was not brought to my attention until
the building was finished . The Building Inspector
did not question the width of the building after he
took his measurements .
Be I had prepared and submitted to the Board of Zoning
Appeals plans for the building . As I worked with
these plans , I made some slight modifications and
decided to include a small mezzanine . A mezzanine
as defined in the New York State Building Code as
an intermediate floor between the floor and ceiling
of any space that is completely open or provides
adequate visibility . The Building Code further
states that a mezzanine with a floor area of less
than 1 / 3 of the floor area immediately below " shall
not be determined to be a story " . The mezzanine as
constructed is 110 square feet in area . ( See
photograph dated August 7 , 1989 marked # 3 where the
mezzanine and dormers have been framed in ) . I was
not sure that there would be height enough to
include a mezzanine . As detailed drawings were
developed , I decided to include a small area reached
by a stairway . ( See photo number 8 attached
hereto ) .
9 . The Building Inspector specified that the building
not exceed 15 feet in height after the building was
framed to insure that the height requirements were'
met . The Building Inspector , my workmen and I
measured the height 'of the building to be sure it
was not over 15 feet high . The Building Inspector
also inspected on August 2 , 1989 the mezzanine and
dormers as they were being constructed . He also
measured the outside of the building as it was being
framed .
10 . The Building Inspector made numerous inspections of
the building to be sure it complied in all respects
with the Board of Zoning Appeals special conditions ,
including an inspection on August 30 , 1989 . ( See
letter of September 5 , 1989 attached hereto in which
the Building Inspector voices some concerns
regarding the width of the building but does not
raise any question about the dormers or mezzanine .
He also questions his instructions from the Board
regarding the width of the building by stating , " I
am not sure whether the Zoning Board of
Appealsintended the 12 ' maximum width at the
foundation walls or at the outside finished exterior
walls
EXHIBIT 2
I1 . The special conditions specifically state 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 . I complied in all respects with the
Building Inspector ' s suggestions as the building was
being erected . The Building Inspector made numerous
measurements and inspections throughout the building
period . I was not at the hearing on April 12 , 1989 ,
but had received a - copy of the variance and
conditions . I have worked with the Building
Inspector on other buildings , and we both wanted to
be sure that all conditions were met . The Building
Inspector was very careful and conscientious . The
Building Inspector was given only limited
instructions and full authority to determine square
footages , all distance requirements and construction
requirements . I feel that he was very careful and
did a thorough job resulting in a good , safe
addition to the neighborhood .
12 . I was relying upon the Building Inspector ' s
approvals to be sure that the building met with all
requirements and believed that the Building
Inspector had the power and authority to grant all
approvals .
13 . Attached hereto are photographs showing the exterior
of the building as completed , the deck area as
completed , and the mezzanine area .
A . Photograph dated November 14 , 1989 showing
the west end of the building marked # 4 .
Be Photograph dated November 14 , 1989 showing
the view of the east end of house and
adjoining properties marked # 5 .
Co Photograph dated November 14 , 1989 showing
deck on west end of house marked # 6 .
D . Photograph dated November 14 , 1989 showing
deck and beach front of adjoining houses
marked # 7 .
E . Photograph dated November 14 , 1989 showing
interior area and stairs leading to
mezzanine marked # 8 .
14 . The mezzanine area has only limited height and size
and is reached by a steep stairway . It adds to the
appeal of the building , but does not detract from
the appearance or change the use of the building .
The prior building had storage space above the
• ground floor .
15 . The building is sided in exterior non - combustible
siding as approved by the Building Inspector .
EXHIBIT 2 f' � fes_
Sworn to before . mthis 15 h da of
November , 1989 .
�'� kd I+1 ') r 't, +' ir'<_4 IVR JONSON
„ TT
R.
TOWN OF ITHACA
126 EAST SENEGA STREET
® ITHACA, NEW YORK
14WO
September 5 , 1989
Mr . Ivar Jonson
934 East Shore Drive
Ithaca , New York 14850
RE : New Home At 934B East Shore Drive
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6-18-5-9
Dear Mr . Jonson :
This letter serves as a follow-up to our recent conversations in regard
to the construction of your single- family residence at 934B East Shore Drive .
The home is being constructed to replace a single- family home . which was
demolished . Approval for the reconstructicn .was . granted by the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Board of Appeals on April 12 , 1989 with several conditions . Those
• conditions include the following :
1 . That the building shall be situated equally between lot lines . . .
2 . That the building shall not exceed 12 feet in width .
3 . That the north side shall be no closer than 4 feet to the north lot
line .
4 . That the Building Inspector would have the power to determine
whether any proposed use is in compliance with the square footage ,
distance , and construction requirements .
Although I do not have an as-built survey map in hand at this time , my
recent inspections reveal the following :
1 . The building is not equally situated between lot lines and is at
points approximately 4 feet 6 inches frau the north side yard lot
line and 3 feet 6 inches from the south sideyard lot line .
2 . The building is approximately 12 feet . 4 inches as measured from
outside wall ( at the exterior ) to outside wall .
I am not taking issue with the location of the building on the lot since
the North side lot line setback was most critical in the Zcm ing Board of
• Appeals approvals . Although the exterior non-combustible siding was not in
=IIBIT 3
Mr . Ivar Janson
September 5 , 1989
Page Two
Place at the time of my August 30 , 1989 inspection, you are proposing to use
it , and the . use of such non-combustible siding on a building within 3 feet
�?� sem, ar.^e of a lot line is permitted by the New York State Fire Uniform
Prevention and Building Code .
What is at issue is the fact that your building exceeds the 12 foot
maximum width requirement . During our discussion , you stated you had a survey
dame which indicates the building ' s foundation is 12 feet wide . I am not sure
whether the Zoning Board of Appeals intended the 12 foot maximum width to mean
at the foundation walls or at the outside finished exterior walls , therefore ,
I will not issue you a Town of Ithaca Certificate of Occupancy until you
reappear before the Zoning Board of . Appeals for either an approval of the
as-built structure , or obtain a 411 ± variance .
I am enclosing an application for your appearance . before the Zoning Board
of Appeals and -anticipate an October 11 , 1989 hearing date . Please submit
your application as soon as possible .
Should you have any questions , please feel free to call me at 273-1747 .
Sincerely ,
Andrew Frost
Building Inspector /
Zcning Enforcement Officer
AF/dlw
Enclosure
cc : Noel Desch
Henry Aron
John Barney
Certified Mail
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
EXHIBIT 3
TOWN or rrHACA►
126 EAST $Rd= SIMI
®
MUWA NEIN YORK
14850
October 27 , 1989
Hr . & Mrs . Ivar Jonson
934 East Shore Drive --- ---
Ithaca ,
-- --Ithaca , NY 14850
Re : New Home at ' 934B East Shore Drive
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 18 - 5 - 9
Dear Mr . Jonson :
This letter serves as a follow up to my September 5 , 1989 , letter
to you in regard to the single family home you have constructed
at 934B East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 18 - 5 - 9 .
A " Special Approval " was granted by the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals , with conditions , on April 12 , 1989 , for the
construction of your single family residence . The approval was
considered and ultimately granted by the Board based upon
information you provided them which included paper documents and
verbal testimony during your hearing ( also held on April 12 ) .
® As noted in my September 5 letter , a condition of your " Special
Approval " was , " that the building shall not exceed 12 feet in
width " ; however , your building is approximately 12 feet , 4 ±
inches as measured from the outside exterior walls . This width
violates the Zoning Board approval .
In addition , the elevation plans that were submitted and reviewed
by the Board at your hearing show a roof line without any
projections such as " dormers " ; however , your constructed building
contains a dormer on the north . side , as well as the . south side of
the roof . These dormers serve a loft area in the building =
although , on Page 7 of the minutes from your April 12 hearing , it
states , " Hr . Austen asked if there is also a loft . Hs . Jonson
responded no . "
In conclusion , your constructed building not only violates the
" 12 ' wide " condition , but it also appears that the as - built
structure does not conform with the information provided to the
Board for which such information was an integral part of the
Board ' s approval .
•
EXHIBIT 4
page 2
Finally , my September 5 letter to you asks that you make an
application to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals in order
for you to seek modifications to your approval from April 12 ,
since without such modifications a Town of Ithaca Certificate of
f Occupancy cannot be issued for the occupancy of the building . I
had anticipated the hearing to be held on October 11 , 1989 ,
however , you never submitted the application ( which was sent to
i you ) .
I I am asking that you make an application and submit it to this
j office no later than November 3 , 1989 , otherwise I will have to
refer this matter to the town attorney for further action . Your
only other alternative is to modify the construction of the
building which I do not believe you wish to do .
Should you have any questions , please feel free to call me .
Sincerely ,
Andrew Frost
i Building Inspector /
Zoning Enforcement officer
AF : se
4 •
XC : Noel Desch , Town Supervisor
Henry Aron , Chairman , Zoning Board of Appeals
t John Barney , Town Attorney
i
t
a
i
i
I
EXHIBIsT 4
Gu "4
NN • � � �9
'rQ W%.e
-7� -
Q T llC� �aw job �."� 0"✓ ' 400c P4^'*..Q
r F� EiLwl.�. / ,046L AM�4 &1 L& G» a.,na�. 4L4A� akw
_ v4
9 � N.� k...\.�1� �'JL.C� .(K..- �iN•we,M/IA�,�-.�,,.� uA�.✓ W L....� •{� �,......,c
r,Sl.ti,.. .�.. - �.. -c. 'ti Q.,M'[.,� ,,;, a ,..lr X111.. �.h .✓ d 416o.:,r
.li ly.{ ' i w - inn-since ,L tip, a. a„-.L_
a 40
o M CdAtao0tvi
�Df 4*%� .� 1.
f �C.
A
a, ,�,, ar . Vii ;� fl,� � ,G,, �— Jo
EXHIBIT 5 4
D 7�hB J
�v '�-�^'�- C -�( G j� �,o✓�.�-oC. �o �t�.. ri�a�.,� .� ��t,,.L � aCa nal—
i
4 ,
I '
( i
4
t
i
I
iI
( i
ii
EXHIBIT 5
vt� J `no Lonce (� n
��j .�.ilde �S ► nC \ �div� 5vo„r
cA \f eel
erect c� b \ oy�\ EcX.IS -k- S� or,G
.,e C.
1� � T� 5 , o.0 -�. O� �'� C(1 O'✓he.. .�- , W Q� � h �� t �'v� e � O
be
l2 �ee � Scc�o .,c\l �
� L Id k r\.5
• fin order ko qrov � de s -- oroc3e
a� ann .
1-�S 0f1
S,ns
a g �o � d2o� l tw, e c� a � �.� o ,re � CeAr- rco
wo.� LAI) .i c� J-,evY\ e-V.4 of b J
Jk Me e c)-oc-- +1,� rota h
EXHIBIT B
•
9, v 5�C1�V1 . O RC1
33 /0
- P1cav%, s Was
cA 0.Cce +ab\i'
) OL � � bu ; � C� i � w : well
cf
\0U,\ Ic� \VN< ( y " ) boa�r � ( s ; 8kY, )
�
or <', P - '' 2 %z �� 5 ► CIA \ � � o 'er c� ec of •c :-tion
No �l �woo
r
V4005 �� -� �I v �g1Q-+Con
�O
ec
� pec-� o� S etn�'a f'c.. e ca.
iA C� (� v�.i re vv� -t-5 aV\ CN -}�
U
+ �� 1
1 �S liar W
how,,,
C) CC ur r ed ,
U
FMIIBIT 6 ��h v (' n �,
J
FILED
TOWN OF� ITHACA
Date 'z/=- =f
• Clark 7Z79 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 an8 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 NO . 6 - 18 - 5 - 9 , RESIDENCE
DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID PARCEL • OF LAND IS NON-CONFORMING IN
SIZE AND THE DWELLING PROPOSED FOR RECONSTRUCTION WAS NON-
CONFORMING IN YARD . SETBACKS , - - HOWEVER , 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 531 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 ) .
Attorney Jack Sherman , Attorney for Ms . Janet Jonson ,
addressed the Board . He stated that as he understands,; 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
EXHIBIT 7
z
ZBA
4 -'12 - 89
2
presented . . copies .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 eat ' - 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 If in the case ,
other than the point . of law . fr' om the City code , which he provided
to the Board .
Mr . Frost concurred that of the : materials that Atty . Sherman
has presented , to .theIBoard , 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' Jo ' i Ins originally proposed an addition to their
existing, building . on the . I 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 .
EXHIBIT 7
ZBA
4 - 12 - 89
- 3
Atty . Sherman referred tothe 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 . - SchliederIs 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 - ; '66n 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 j
slightly less than the .old building -- although the configuration
is somewhat different ; it is . slightly wider and slightly f
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 ' - codei
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 - :occupah6y at the time: prior to` dthe 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 . , 4 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 ,
EXHIBIT 7
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 toy 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 ifA"Vas aware of that law .
Atty . Sherman ;. esponded %iiat. 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 ofe 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
EXHIBIT 7
ZBA
4 - 12 - 89
® . 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 * .. . :: ,
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
- memozandum : 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
Tess 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
isbeyondthe . 75 $ .
. . Atty . Sherman " said he does not think that is in dispute at
all . The question is about the 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 - gralidfathering 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
Rr : 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 :Nshe knew At 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 . 4 King responded that was the filing date ; he believes
that the Town Board adopted it in April 1987 . Atty . Sherman said
EXHIBIT 7
BA
- 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 tshe . 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 . Jonsonresponded - . 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 . . As . ..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 . R
Chairman Aron . . asked . if until . that :. time in her life . . comes ,
will the house be occupied by others Ms.. Jonson responded that
in 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 .
• onson responded that that is what she planned to do when she
*)ught this property .
EXHIBIT 7
2BA
4 - 12 - 89
® 7
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 lit ; it was rented- by 'one man at
the time of the little fire.. .
Town Atty . Barney, referred to the floor � ;7plan 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 he4 � 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 toh 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 note . shown :ft-* 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 101 , but
• on the new plans there is no indicationof 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 .
EXHIBIT 7
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 5 ' .
Ms . .,.. Hoffmann said that in the old . plans ;..` it looks like it is
square , which would mean that it is 10 ' : x 10 ' Ns 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 10 ' . . . 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 10 ' , is there any other
exterior addition that is planned . . Ms . Jonson 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 : Exh-ibit # 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
EXHIBIT 7
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 '
heteto" as Exhibits` # 3 ,' # 4 , , # 5 , # 6 , # 7 , and # 8 ) .
.; , . -diairman . Aron asked - Ms . Jonson and Atty . Sherman if they:* ;
wiShei d ' :- to. respond to the letters that % he has read into the' fel
record
Ms; Jonson ' stated that in regard to Mrs . Valenza ' s letter
concerning the fire that . they had iw 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 haened . Mrs . Valenza ' s
pp
daughter had come to live with the Jonsons because she was
th own, - out by her mother - and her suitcase laid on the heating
system and caused a smoke fire . Atty .. Sherman stated that there .
may . ,w.ell . -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 . Valenta is very ill .
Ms . Jonson said thatif 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 . -As 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 Veirs ,
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 .
EXHIBIT 7
ZBA o
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 . big4. 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 parki.ng . 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 , 4 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 attemptingto 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 .
EXHIBIT 7
ZBA `
4 - 12 - 89
® it
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 byiScott O ' Rear and the date of
the report is' February 2 , 1985 . He not 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 9-:-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 244 . 1986 and they depict
the property and note the address several ways ; the last one
being 934E 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 Ids .
Jonson a permit to - rebuild at - the time. under - - Section 30. 9 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 . Jonsonhas 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 doesh ' t - make ' ' itlargers .
Ms . Jonson asked what ' the height usually is on a single
family home . Mr . OSherman . replied to Mt . ---" 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
EXHIBIT 7
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 .t. 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 havEng
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 j
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 .
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 .
EXHIBIT 7
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 : ands
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 herbefore the Board if that were
e
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 Ahive ' to believe herr : � ' 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" `q•several
- -- . times - in the summer of ' 1987 ., and she also spoke with Nancy Fuller
because she knew that Ms . • d Fuller would - be the one ' dollecting '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
conversation 's 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 .
EXHIBIT 7
ZBA
4 - 12 - 89
14 .
® Mr . Austen asked Ms . Jonson if this building were built ,
. .. g
wouldn.' t it lower the value of .her house next do•or . 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 •,•havinq .a . little yard there it . . would
be nicer..; . Ms . ..:, Jonsonf 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
ita ted ' or obligated . 0040 . . 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 shecantell from ' measur-ing . Even though . Atty .
Sherman ' s measurement seems to indicate that it has been made
EXHIBIT 7
2BA
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, � 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 th& front corner , which would mean
that the 3 feet as permitted - •with- anon-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 . .
Y
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 afire
in that area , and the impact of building , etce
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'q �' 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 2.1 foot wide . lot is not
wide enough to build a house on . - -
Ms . . Hoffmann : stated that she this thinking about non-
e 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
EXHIBIT 7
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 . .. . 1A
the hardest
decision that the Board has ever . faced i.f.. those.; equities ;are
there . If it had clearly been in the Town of, ; Ithada and _ the. wind .
blew it over , Ms . Jonson wouldn ' t be able to' rebuild_ ' and 'sthis
Board would .not be about to give : a permit to build .
Town . Atty . Barney stated that they . could rebuil&� 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 ormay 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 1 completely . dem6lishedo
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 ; ,theyhad`, no . doubt . 6 .
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
EXHIBIT 7
R
1,
i
mss• ,� � .� ���„ „�.� ��
r-�.�`.�-` �� it- -- - Yom... •- •j _.
i
44
4
40
R � ill. 1�t• ,
• - ti
�ti
. .. p._�_•:�:�, a'':1•'.,-ter'
r .w
,i• -,.fit V_
1 a
...
• r
ti•
5
C I -Law'
S
_ _
� � ♦ � � � �
,•, , ' ��
,-
�, ,.
�,_
�- — . ��1
,.�..,_
`.t-. ..
- -.
:�
t+..l _
t�SYc- I �•Z!
.4` � d- �.
_ � •__
-?
� �=�
�, `
�_
• �'
m,,,.
..•s,
��
-:.� ,� .�
-'�•
K
\� ♦ _�
v' �
h 1
m �+i•�' �
� • , _ � ��
`' ' ,
.�.. ��
��
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 Axon remarked that he heard the members of :` the -
Board saying ` thaf} as :' far aw land user_ is ` concerned , we are talking `
ab6ii . 20 . feet ;+14 ihches : . , _ :�, .. f; : . . .
. ,
f.
_. ... I F,
- 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 ' mote 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 j
property,, . somewhat along the lines of the- . drawings proposed , ' j
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 t2ie 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 :tikoposed 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 ;
EXHIBIT 7
v
rhA
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 ) 4
EXHIBIT 7
i a, meq,« , 2 , 1 9 8 9
I
I
AFFIDA 17IT OF Pt IBI,ICATION
IT ACA JOURINTAL
State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . :
Gail Sullins being duly sworn , deposes and
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING '
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that BOARD OF APPEALS
she/ he is Clerk NOTICE PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY, NOV . 15, 1989 %
7 :00 P. M.
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper rinted and published in By direction of the Chairman":
pp of the Zoning Bo7rd of Ap-
peals NOTICE is HEREBY GIVEN
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true that Public Hearings will be
held by the Zoning Board of
copy , was published in said paper Appeals of the Town of Ithaca
on Wecinesc ay November 8,
1989, in Town Hall , 126 East
Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor
REAR Entrance, West Side),
Ithaca , N. Y. , COMMENCING
AT 7 :00 P. M. , on the following'
matters.
APPEAL of Ivor and Janet Jon-'
son , Appellants, requesting
modification of the terms of
Special Approval granted by
and that the first publication of said notice vras on the 10 the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Board of Appeals on April 12,
1989, for the reconstruction of
day of hy C , be 19 GC{� a single story, single family
dwelling at 934B East Shore
Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Pa-
rel No . 6- 18-5-9, Residence
e.A� District R- 15. Said Special Ap-
proval authorized a 12 foot
wide building whereas the
building constructed is 12 feet,
/ 4 inches. Furthermore, infor-
Subscribed and sworn to before me , this D day motion and material provided
by the appellantsindicated I
o f 19 that the proposed structure
would not have a "loft" or ;
roof "dormers" . however , the
building as constructed has a
loft and two roof dormers.
Said Zoning Board of Appeals l
Notary
at said time, 7 :00 p. m. , I
Notary public " and said place , hear all per-
sons in support of such matters
JEAN FORD or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in
Notary Public, State of New York person . , Andrew S. Frost
Building Inspector/
No. 4654410 Zoning Enforcement Officer
Town of Ithaca
Qualified in Tompkins County 273- 1747
/ November 10, 1989
Commission expires May 31, 19 . ,