HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1990-01-03 F
FILED
WN OF ITHACA��a��j� �
® Clerk 77
TOWN OF ITHACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 3 , 1990
PRESENT : Vice - Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Eva
Hoffmann , Joan Reuning , Building Inspector/ Zoning
Enforcement Officer Andrew Frost , Town Attorney
John Barney .
ABSENT : Henry Aron .
OTHERS PRESENT : Gary Turton , Donald Brown , Sandra Brown ,
Alfred DiGiacomo , John Sherry , Zetta Sprole ,
Martin Shapiro , Esq . , Charles McCary , Bob
Shaw , Anne Shaw , David Gersh , Esq . , Bruce
Shindhelm .
Vice - Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10
p . m . and stated that all posting , publication and notification of
the public hearings had been completed and that proper affidavits
of same were in order .
The first Appeal on the Agenda was the following :
® APPEAL OF ZETTA RUFF SPROLE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING VARIANCE
OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , OF THE TOWN
OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A
" BED AND BREAKFAST " , KNOWN AS " THE HOUND AND HARE " , WITH A
MAXIMUM OF FOUR LODGERS , TO BE LOCATED IN A SINGLE- FAMILY
HOME AT 1031 HANSHAW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -
71 -7 - 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS A
SINGLE -FAMILY HOME TO BE OCCUPIED BY A FAMILY PLUS NO MORE
THAN ONE BOARDER , ROOMER , LODGER OR OTHER OCCUPANT .
Atty . Shapiro , representing Mrs . Sprole , stated that he
understands that there are four members of the Board present and
with the attendance tonight they would need the unanimous vote of
the Board to grant the requested variance . Under those
circumstances he asked the Board if they might be able to put
this case over until such time as a full Board might be able to
hear it . Discussion followed on the time frame of when they
would be able to come back before the Board . After further
consultation with his client , it was decided that they would go
ahead with the appeal .
Atty . Shapiro explained that Mrs . Sprole has owned this
property for quite some time and has raised her family there .
Before the children left home there were eight people living on
the property . At present , Mrs . Sprole is single , her children
® Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
are all grown and gone and she is in the house by herself . Atty .
Shapiro referred to the practical difficulties and unnecessary
hardship documentation that he had prepared which is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 1 .
Atty . Shapiro explained that Mrs . Sprole has a number of
extra rooms and she would like to use two of those rooms to house
guests on a basis that usually would be weekends . There would be
no more than two occupants per room - it would always be a
couple . It would basically be a Bed & Breakfast , using just two
rooms . He stated that Mrs . Sprole gets most of her clientele
from referrals . The majority would be coming late on a Friday
afternoon and leaving on Sunday . The major portion of her
clientele would be people visiting Cornell University or Ithaca
College or their children at those places and who want to stay in
something other than the traditional motel / hotel situation .
Atty . Shapiro further explained that in all cases there
would be no more than one car per couple so there would never be
more than three cars , hers included , on the premises . There will
® be no employees at all and the impact , in just about every way ,
shape and form , on the neighborhood is going to be minimal . She
has sufficient off - street parking to take care of any
automobiles . This is her home - she lives in it and she
certainly does not want any situation that would detract from
this being her home or being a residential situation . Atty .
Shapiro assured the Board that the house will not be changed in
any way , shape or form . The house is well maintained and will
continue to be well maintained . Ms . Sprole , now that her
children are gone and she is again single , has very little means
of support and she is looking to get some minimal amount of
money out of this endeavor to help her maintain her house in the
present and attractive condition .
Atty . Shaprio stated that a number of Mrs . Sprole ' s
neighbors have stated their support . Statements of support are
attached as Exhibits # 2 - # 9 . They are signed by the following :
Betty D . David , Sue Swerbenski , J . Christian , J . R . Henry , Sheri
Lyon Johnson , Justine L . Lin , John Sherry , Ernestine Wright , and
Anne C . Shaw .
Atty . Shapiro referred to the tax map showing the property
owners in the area that are in support of the proposed project .
The tax map is attached hereto as Exhibit # 10 .
Vice - chairman Austen opened the public hearing .
® Mr . Gary Turton addressed the Board and read a statement
signed by his wife and himself opposing the Bed & Breakfast that
Mrs . Sprole is proposing . The statement is attached hereto as
woe
M1
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
Exhibit # 11 .
Mr . Turton also read letters into the record from Karel and
Simone Husa and from Donald and Kitty Zilversmit , stating their
opposition , dated January 2 , 1990 and January 3 , 1990 ,
respectively , which are attached hereto as Exhibit # 12 and # 13 .
Mr . Bob Shaw , 313 Roat Street , stated that his concern is if
there will be boarding of pets for people who will be occupants
of the Bed & Breakfast . He also questioned if , at the present
time , there is a boarding and breeding business on the premises .
He said that currently there is a covered kennel in the back of
Mrs . Sprole ' s property with lights on 24 hours a day . The dogs
do make noise in very early hours . He stated that he would be
impacted by any more pets that could be at that residence . Mr .
Shaw stated that as far as the Bed & Breakfast is concerned , he
does not really have a problem with it as an operation as long as
it is kept to the limits that were discussed earlier by Attorney
Shapiro . He stated that he knows Mrs . Sprole has been breeding
dogs for some time and his concern is that the population of dogs
could become a problem .
® Atty . Shapiro clarified that Mrs . Sprole has three pets of
her own , plus one that she is keeping for a friend . She does not
board dogs . There are no plans to have more dogs there .
Mr . Al DiGiacomo , 1024 Hanshaw Road , had questions for the
Board regarding zoning laws for Bed & Breakfast establishments .
Discussion followed regarding the laws that govern such an
establishment . Mr . DiGiacomo asked if there would be a sign on
the property .
Atty . Shapiro stated that the intention is to have a sign .
It would be legal in all respects to the Sign Ordinance . The
sign would be less that 4 square feet in size .
Mr . DiGiacomo stated that he is opposed to the project .
Mr . John Sherry , 1026 Hanshaw Road , addressed the Board and
stated that he is not opposed to the principle of the project ,
however , he has concerns about commercialism in the area .
Mrs . Reuning asked about other Bed & Breakfast
establishments in the area . Mr . Frost stated that there is one
on Warren Road . There is also one on the corner of Hanshaw and
Sapsucker Woods Roads but that is on the Town of Dryden side .
Vice Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
Vice Chairman Austen read Part III of the Short
Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted to the Board .
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
The entire SEAF is attached hereto as Exhibit # 14 . ,
Environmental Assessment
By Mr , Edward King , Seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning .
RESOLVED , that this Board accepts the recommendation of
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , and finds that
because of the relatively small scale and character of the
activity for which this variance is requested , therefore ,
the Board make and hereby does make a negative declaration
of environmental significance .
Ayes --Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
After further discussion by the Board on the proposed Bed &
Breakfast , Vice Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the
request ,
® By Mr . Edward King , Seconded by Mrs . Eva Hoffmann .
RESOLVED , that this Board finds that for this petitioner
there are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship
in confining the use of her large home to strictly those
residential uses presently permitted under the Town ' s
ordinance as specified . This Board also finds the
following :
1 . Mrs . Sprole ' s application is to devote two rooms to
occasional Bed and Breakfast use , with no more . than two
occupants in each for a total of four at a time .
2 . Mrs . Sprole has indicated willingness to have such a
variance limited in time , as this Board suggests . to a
period of five years at which time , if she intended to
continue , she would have to apply for a new variance .
3 . That such limitation be further limited to the duration
of her personal ownership , should it be less than five
years ,
4 . The Board finds that the proposed use is residential in
nature and therefore in conformity with the residential
character of the neighborhood ,
5 . That it is a relatively low- line occupancy .
6 . That her property provides ample parking space and there
would be no outside employees involved .
7 . That any traffic would present an insignificant increase
for Hanshaw Road , which is a high traffic highway .
8 . That the property is well suited for the proposed use .
99 That the proposed signage would appear to come within
the requirements of the Sign Law , in that it be no more
than 4 square feet .
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
10 . That the premises are indeed under -utilized in their
present single person occupancy .
11 . That the upkeep of the property appears to be beyond
reproach .
12 . That there will be no additional pets boarded other than
what she presently has on the premises .
13 . That such a variance , while it would modify the
application of the regulations , it would still preserve
the spirit of the ordinance .
14 . That public safety and welfare would not be jeopardized
by the granting of this variance for such a limited
period , and substantial justice would be done .
15 . That the limited period would gave the neighbors who
have expressed concern over the operation some
opportunity to bring in evidence on an application for
renewal .
FURTHER RESOLVED , that the variance be granted for the
limited period of five years , or for such lesser period as
the applicant shall own the property , with the following
® conditions :
1 . That the applicant supply the Board with a document in
properly recordable form agreeing to limiting the
duration of the variance to her ownership of the
property ,
2 . That the applicant , herself , continue to occupy the
premises and , if she vacates the premises , the variance
will cease ; such condition to be included in the
document to be submitted to the Board ;
3 . That no pets be accepted from any of the proposed
boarders at any time for occupancy on the premises ,
4 . That the Building Inspector inspect the premises and be
satisfied as to the life safety aspects of the premises
for occupancy as a Bed and Breakfast ,
5 . That , as the applicant has represented , the anticipated
use will be principally on weekends and occasionally
mid -week ;
6 . That at no time will there be more than four ( 4 ) Bed
and Breakfast occupants .
The voting on the motion was as follows .
Ayes - King , Hoffmann , Reuning , Austen .
Nays - None .
t
® Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
The second Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF DONALD AND SANDRA BROWN , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING
AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE
XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR
THE EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/ LOT LOCATED AT
1448 TRUMANSBURG ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 24 - 1 -
19 . 2 , ZONE DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL , ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-
30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . THE EXTENSION PROPOSED IS THE
EXPANSION OF A BEDROOM , IN AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE , BY 21 FEET TO THE WEST , MAINTAINING THE EXISTING
NON-CONFORMING SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 12 . 7 + OR
.. FEET . CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRE A SIDE YARD
SETBACK OF 40 FEET .
Mr . Donald Brown and Mrs . Sandra Brown appeared before the
Board and explained their need for the expansion of a bedroom .
Vice Chairman Austen read a letter into the record from Mr .
Robert G . Mower , dated December 31 , 1989 stating that he has no
objection to the proposed expansion . The letter is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 15 .
Vice Chairman Austen also read into the record an ' overview '
that was submitted by the Browns along with the application . It
I
s attached hereto as Exhibit # 16 .
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr . Brown if his intention is to
extend the existing southerly line to the west . Mr . Brown
replied , yes .
Mr . King asked the Browns if this would be a one - story
addition . Mrs . Brown responded , yes , the total size of the
addition would be 21 feet by 18 feet at the exterior
measurements .
Vice Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one
appeared to address the Board . Vice Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
There was discussion about the angle of the house on the
lot .
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
Motion
By Mrs . Joan. Reuning ; Seconded by Mr . Edward King .
RESOLVED , that the Board finds the following .
1 . No one appeared in opposition to the proposed addition .
2 . A letter was presented from Mr . Mower , the closest
neighbor , with his approval .
3 . That Section 77 . 7 ( a - f ) shall apply .
Therefore , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grants
the extension of a non - conforming building/ lot by allowing
this addition to be located no closer than 11 feet from the
property line , with the following conditions .
1 . That the extension of the wall be in a straight line on
the southerly line , with the same bearing that the
existing south wall to the building has ,
2e that this is to be a single story addition ;
34 that there will be no windows on the south side of the
addition .
The voting on the motion was as follows :
Ayes - Reuning , Austen , King , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion carried unanimously .
The third Appeal on the Agenda was the following .
APPEAL OF BRUCE E . SHINDHELM , APPELLANT , DAVID B .
GERSH , ESQ . , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 ,
OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE
EXTENSION OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING/ LOT LOCATED AT
911 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 -
18 - 1 -8 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID EXTENSION
PROPOSES THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING 22 . 5 -FOOT BY
17 . 5 -FOOT GARAGE , LOCATED 2 . 2 + OR - FEET FROM THE WEST
SIDE YARD IAT LINE , WITH A NEW GARAGE , 18 FEET HIGH BY
30 FEET WIDE BY 24 FEET DEEP , TO BE LOCATED PARTIALLY
WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE AND 5 + OR
- FEET FROM THE WEST SIDE YARD LOT LINE . SAID LOT IS
® AN IRREGULAR-SHAPED LOT , THEREFORE , UNDER CURRENT
• Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
ZONING REGULATIONS A 20 - FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK IS
REQUIRED . IN ADDITION , UNDER CURRENT ZONING
REGULATIONS , THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS IS 15 FEET .
Attorney Gersh addressed the Board and stated that they
have submitted a corrected survey which now shows that the
frontage along East Shore Drive will be 30 feet and the proposed
depth would be 24 feet . He stated that they are also submitting
a sketch to show the relationship of the proposed new garage to
other buildings in the immediate area . The sketch is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 17 .
Atty . Gersh explained that across the street is the Chamber
of Commerce building which is considerably more than 18 feet high
and then just beyond that is the Youth Bureau building which has
a part of its function automobile repair work and the Youth
Bureau Building itself has two overhead doors , considerably
larger than what Mr . Shindhelm is proposing .
Atty . Gersh referred to the supplement for the request for
tSpecial Approval for this project which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 18 .
Vice Chairman Austen read into the record a letter from
Herbert Brewer , Executive Director of the Tompkins County Chamber
of Commerce , dated December 28 , 1989 and a letter from Clair
Whiting , 915 East Shore Drive , in support of the project . The
letters are attached hereto as Exhibits # 19 and # 20 .
Atty . Gersh requested that letters which were exhibits # 8
and # 9 from the December 13 , 1989 meeting be a part of the record
of this meeting . Those letters are attached hereto as Exhibits
# 21 and # 22 .
Mr . Shindhelm showed brochures to the Board that show what
the building and the overhead doors will look like .
Mr . King referred to the updated survey map ( 12 / 22 / 89 ) which
was submitted to the Board . The revised survey map is attached
hereto as Exhibit # 23 . Mr . King stated that the 24 feet in
depth indicates that the front of the garage might be as much as
7 feet closer to the highway than is the front .
Mr . Shindhelm said that is because it is not sketched on
there taking away the embankment behind it which is being planned
to do . He explained that there is an embankment on the side of
the driveway that they cannot take away from ; there is an
Town of Ithaca 9 `
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
embankment behind the proposed garage which leads up to the lawn
in front of his house and that embankment they can take away from
and that is the plan .
Mr . King asked Mr . Shindhelm if he is saying that he intends
to place the garage farther back than the sketch indicates . Mr .
Shindhelm replied , yes . He said that , ideally , they want to have
front walls of both his neighbor ' s garage and his garage
corresponding , which will be possible unless there is a railroad
trestle in that embankment .
Town Atty . Barney asked if there would be electric hooked up
to the garage . Mr . Shindhelm replied that there would not be
electric to the garage .
Vice - Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one
appeared to address the Board . Vice - Chairman Austen closed the
public hearing .
Vice - Chairman Austen read a letter into the record from
Harry Missirian , Acting Commissioner of Planning for Tompkins
County , dated December 6 , 1989 , which is attached hereto as
Exhibit # 24 .
Mr . Shindhelm stated that the garage next door is 20 feet
wide , 16 feet high and 21 feet deep . His proposed garage will be
10 feet wider , 2 1/ 2 feet taller , and 3 feet deeper .
Mr . Shindhelm stated for the record that he has been in the
towing business twenty years today . He has never done any
mechanic work and he has no intention to change that . The only
purpose for this garage is for storage for his trucks . He
explained that in the last year he has been very fortunate to
obtain a very unique vehicle which is one of a kind in the United
States and he very much wants to protect that truck and his
investment in it and store it in a garage . He reiterated that
his sole purpose for this garage is to store his vehicles ,
safely .
Motion
By Mr . Edward King , Seconded by Mrs . Joan Reuning .
RESOLVED , that this Board grant and hereby does grant a
requested height variance for the construction of a garage
which will be a maximum 18 ' 6 " high at the highest point ,
and that the Board permits the garage to be sighted no
closer than 4 feet to the north of the lot line , and that
the front of the building , which is the westerly side , be no
closer than 25 ' from the right - of -way of Route 34 , upon the
findings .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
10 that the proposed construction will not impair the
health , safety or general welfare of the community ;
2 . that it will be in harmony with the general use and
building in that area ,
3e that the neighbors most immediately affected , namely
those adjacent north and across the highway from this
property , have both submitted their written consents to
and approval of the proposal ;
49 that the proposed construction will be consistent with
the character of the district in which it is located ,
with its immediate vicinity being faced , as it is , to
the south and east by a raised elevated New York State
highway ;
5e that the structure will serve a most useful function in
preserving and storing very special , expensive
vehicles , namely the two tow trucks owned by the owner
of the land ;
69 the access and egress from the structure appears to be
safely designed and the general effect on the community
as a whole , including traffic load on the public
streets and upon water and sewer would not be
detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare
of the community ;
7 * that by granting this variance there is no
determination being made as to whether the present use
of the property is in compliance or non - compliance with
the ordinance ,
therefore , the Board does grant these variances for the
construction with the following conditions :
10 the structure will be used solely for the housing of
vehicles of the owner of the property ;
2 * the building will not be used for any general repair or
other work but strictly as a shelter for the vehicles ;
39 the building will be used to store vehicles owned by
the owner of the house in back of the proposed
building and the building will not be used for any
commercial purposes .
The voting on the motion resulted as follows :
Ayes - Austen , King , Reuning , Hoffmann .
Nays - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
•
The meeting adjourned at 9 : 25 p . m .
® Town of Ithaca 11
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 3 , 1990
Respectfully' /Submitted ,
A OVED o ff-G -�
Connie J . Ho
ward Austen , Vi a Chairman Recording Secretary
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP
The appellant owns the subject property located at 1031 Hanshaw Road . Ithaca, New
York, which property is improved by a single family home containing four bedrooms , two
bathrooms , a living room , dining room , sun porch , kitchen with pantry, and attached deck .
Interestingly , the subject property is a small part of property given to appellant' s ancestors
following the American Revolution for meritorious military service during the war . The appellant
lives in and occupies the subject property alone ; she is unmarried and her children are grown
and live elsewhere . Due to certain family difficulties the appellant must now support herself
and the subject property, but she has no specific training and aptitude , except for a love of
people and a desire to maintain her home in a beautiful and attractive condition , all of which
lends itself to maintaining a Bed and Breakfast. The home itself is simply too large and costly
to maintain without some small additional income .
The subject property is located in an R- 15 zone , which permits uses other than a tourist
home (which definition appears to apply to the use of the subject premises as a Bed and
Breakfast ) . Among the permitted uses is that contained in Article IV , Section 11 , Subdivision
1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance which provides as follows :
" 1 . One Family Dwellings . In addition to a single family ,
such dwelling may be occupied by not more than
two boarders , roomers, lodgers , or other occupants . "
The appellant desires to use the subject premises as a Bed and Breakfast , utilizing only
two bedrooms for such purposes . The maximum occupancy at any given time will thus be four ,
a couple in each of the bed roams so utilized , and much of the time the occupancy will be two
guests or none . The appellant primarily will operate the premises on the weekends , although
occasionally may have guests during the week also . It is important to note that the variance
requested is thus minimal, in that the appellant may , under the permitted uses , have two
guests , and the variance is thus needed only for those times that she has three or four guests ,
which will likely be limited in most cases to the weekends . There will be no employees . Given
the situation of the present use of the property , it is likely that the number of people using
the subject property at any given time will likely be less than the number of people using other
single family dwellings occupied by traditional families .
The variance should be granted because the property is in harmony with the general
purpose of the zoning ordinance . Only a minimal variance is requested , and the actual usage of
the additional permitted usage by the variance will also be minimal. The property will remain
in all ways outwardly a single family residence , and will actually be able to be better
maintained with the variance. There will be no adverse effects on the health , safety, morals ,
and general welfare of the community; rather a need will be partially filled in a small way.
Often, for various reasons guests of residents in the nearby community stay at Bed and
Breakfasts while visiting. This provides a welcome respite from the usual motels with the
attendant traffic and noise often located farther away.
There is no question that the subject premises are well suited to the instant purpose .
Included in the application for this variance are pictures of some of the rooms to be used and
of the exterior, together with a layout of the interior of the building . No further adaptation
is required .
The location and design of the premises are in keeping with the neighborhood , as can
readily be seen from the photographs . This is a beautiful single family residence , much like
neighboring properties in situation and appearance . The immaculate upkeep of the premises add
to the value of the neighborhood and that fact of the appellant ' s residence assures continued
® PAGE 1 OF 2
EXHI4BIT # 1
positive contribution to the upkeep of the building. The fact that the usage is to be minimal ,
assures that the amenity of the neighborhood will not be compromised in any way. In addition,
there are bed and breakfasts nearby , and upon information and belief, a variance was granted
for a bed and breakfast nearby on Warren Road, which premises are in the same R- 15 zone as
the instant premises . Ingress and egress have been provided in a safe manner in full compliance
with all regulations.
Due to the fact that the usage is to be so minimal, the additional traffic will also be
minimal. Generally speaking, guests arrive sometime Friday afternoon or evening. They may go
out to dinner or to visit friends or see the sights , and generally return in the early to mid
evening. Saturday morning the guests have breakfast and then leave , either for the day or until
the next time they are in town. Guests generally return or new guests arrive Saturday
afternoon or evening and the cycle repeats . It is unusual that guests come and go several
times in the course of a day. Thus , the additional traffic generated by this request, which once
again is for use of the second bedroom on an occasional basis , would be trivial. Further ,
Hanshaw Road has recently been improved so the effect on traffic would be even further
minimalized . Water and sewer service would not be impacted to any measurable degree .
Therefore , it is respectfully submitted that the variance requested is the absolute
minimal variance needed. The premises will not be modified and will remain an asset to the
community. The fact that most of the immediate neighbors have fully supported this
application, testifies to the fact that there are no adverse effects of any meaningful nature
in granting the application.
Your approval of this application is respectfully requested.
• PAGE 2 OF 2
EXHIBIT # 1
/J
WE RESIDING AT .
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
SIGNED _ -
j DATED �� J
DAv %d)
•
EXHIBIT # 2
� a
WE RESIDING AT
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
SIGNED AlLL 40clldDATED
•
EXHIBIT # 3
�3
WE RESIDING AT X035`
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE . IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . , WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION - TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
NED
SIG � 2,
62 DATED
EXHIBIT #4
� jL
r
•
WE RESIDING AT .
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . , WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
, o
SIGEDN
':. - ;?� DATED
i
d� ill
EXHIBIT # 5
� S
•
WE RESIDING AT
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
D // c DATEDi1L��J? ( -
SIGNE ,
EXHIBIT # 6
WE RESIDING AT . C) cl S
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FORA VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY .USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . ' WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAV HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
oi
SIGNED Y DATED
•
EXHIBTT # 7
EE 7
WE RESIDING AT
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS . WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
SIGNED
(,? �,c � % ''V �-� DATED Id
.- - -� �. .p
EXHTB I T # 8
WE RESIDING AT Aa
UNDERSTAND THAT ZETTA SPROLE IS APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE
SO THAT SHE MAY USE HER RESIDENCE AS A BED & BREAKFAST
USING TWO BEDROOMS FOR HER GUESTS * WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO OBJECTION - TO HER DOING SO AND WE CONSENT . _ WE WISH
TO HAVE HER VARIANCE ACCEPTED .
SIGNED DATED
EXHIBIT # 9
v � M P �. I u „oblF- • ^ � II 4
ii w • ,
It
�' •er- ,; Oal _�. u •1., — - 4u ` 1 1 �e:__.. _ ! Plt . _ . 4U__ " 1
II--
es ' 13i �16 - 9ugi��uo- {+ �
n , f � ' j ♦ T INu , � � 10 • / a � I I m--
gig.It
42 11 u
CO
It
3NO1S >t9p18 " •„ 1 Q Q M
III — _
� ,A . hl N . fes ; Q ; ap + "v `0 Y • � olll � N
g I
? 31V13AV p
fj
31juj5 >,w ill _
IT" I I -- ari- - --
• ' IIf w o .. I a �'
addle ^QD
I I '
ad in
dam ot go
? Q 1 \ Of _ -' ri'I ' •iii 111x' t��ei ./'i'1
at
sir oil III vi (� � '
M I in
( • . 1 ,.. L,I
IT
ad
N j Noa IAT MI i ♦ J N Y r . .
as _0
0
7 / / 1
, L • 11 —aa... ' 101.
�. / 011 � • 011 ` � / : � � �
01
in 5 m s 1 w 3
coallLo
(D1Q A// IIc N
0
1� •� VSII . n f /
m � of t 3/ J o � d • �ro ♦'�' .>r � � / ^
lid avoij MV116hV11 V3V H1. 1 Ju
— __ vonAv3 z10
�o
U •
J '
LO
b
� � C
z a
n •
2 �w
J
r' EXHIBIT # 10
•
January 3 , 1990
The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals
We strongly oppose the variance request of Zetta Sprole as described in
your December 26 , 1989 letter .
We reside at 1027 Hanshaw Roads we are the immediate neighbors to the
west of Ms . Sprole ' s property .
My wife , three children and I moved into this residential neighborhood
in the fall of 1983 and have enjoyed the neighborhood tremendously . We want
to see the residential zoning stay in place with no spot variances being
granted . In our opinion spot variances defeat the whole purpose of zoning .
Respectfully submitted ,
Gary Turton
Carol Turton
EXHIBIT # 11
Karel Hula
1032 Ilanshaw Road
Ithaca, New York 14850
To the Town of Ithaca Zoning board on appeals :
We , undersigned Karel and Simone Husa , strongly oppose .the establish-
went of a " Bed and Breakfast " known as " The Hound and Hare " in a
single -family home at 1031 Hanshaw Road , Town of Ithaca .
There are numerous reasons for the opposition to change the
Ordinance in this Residantial District , the main two are the dimi -
nution of value of properties around the said Parcel and the very
. h
certain future appeals by the other home owners in this residential
. area , thus changing the original status and bringing even more depre -
ciation to properties here .
January 2 , 1990 ' Karel Husa
Simone Husa
EXHIBIT # 12
January 3 , 1990
To Zoning Board of Appeals
Tovn of Ithaca
From : Donald B . and Kitty Zilversmit
Re Appeal of Zetta Ruff Sprole
We the undersigned oppose granting a variance permitting the operation
of a " Bed and Breakfast " facility knovn as the " Hound and Hare " , with a
maximum of four lodgers to be located in a single - family home at 1031 Hanshav
Road , Tovn of Ithaca . The objection is based on the fear that the operation
of such a facility vill change the nature of the residential area by
increasing local traffic and noise . Furthermore , the opening of such a
facility may pave the vay for additional commercial ventures in an area which
until nov has strictly maintained a single - family environment .
nnSigned
Donald B . Zilversmit
• Kitty Zilve
1030 Hanshav Road
Ithaca , N . Y . , 14850
EXHIBIT # 13
14. 164 (2187)— Text 12
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER 617.21 SEAR
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART 1 — PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1 . APPLICANT /SPONSOR
Zetta Ruff Sprole 2 ' o'{�iiTc AX Hare Bed & Breakfast
3. PROJECT LOCATION: _
Municipality Ithaca ( Town ) County Tompkins
4 . PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map)
1031 Hanshaw Road ( Map Attached )
5 , IS PROPOSED ACTION:
91 New ❑ Expansion ❑ Modlflcationlalteratlon
6 . DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY:
I wish to use two ( 2 ) bedrooms for a maximum of four ( 4 ) guests in my
four ( 4 ) bedroom house as a bed and breakfast . .
7 . AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Initially acres Ultimately acres
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRIqTIONS?
❑ yes No If No, describe briefly Not permitted ; only two bboarders or lodgers
permitted in R- 15 sone
• fl . WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
M Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Agriculture ❑ Park/Foreat/Open space ❑ Other
Describe,
10 . DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (F.EDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
❑ Yes [3No If yes, list agency(s) and permlt/approvals
11 . DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION. HAVE A CURRENTLY VAUD PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
❑ Yes MO If yes, list agency name and permlVapproval
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
❑ Yes ® No
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Applleanvalwaor name: Z e t t a Ruff S p ro l e
Date:
Signature:
If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form 15619re proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
EXHIBIT # 14
PART II — ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 8 NYCRR, PART 817. 12? It yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
❑ Yes ❑ No
B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 8 NYCRR, PART 817.8? If No, a negative -declaration
may be superseded by another Involved agency.
❑ Yes ❑ No
C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, If legible)
C1 . Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal,
potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly.
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly
C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change'in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly
CS. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed actlon? Explain briefly,
Ce. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identif led In C1 ,C5? Explain briefly.
C7. Other Impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
0. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS?
❑ Yes ❑ No if Yes, explain briefly
PART III- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse affect Identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important or otherwise significant.
Each effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d)
Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (I) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that
explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse ImpaotWhave been Identified and adequately addressed.
❑ Check this box if you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse Impacts Which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration,
❑ Check this box if you have. determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any significant adverse environmental impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination:
Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name of Responsible icer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible a icer
ignature of Responsible Off Ker in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer different from responsible officer)
Date
2
EXHIBIT # 14
PART If - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROJECT : Request for variance from Article IV , Section 11 of Town of Othaca
Zoning Ordinance: 1031 Hanshav Road
REVIEWER : George R. Frantz , Asst. Town Planner � -
DATE : December 28 , 1989
A . Does Action exceed any TYPE 1 threshold in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 . 12 ?
ye3mammmmommme No Action is UNLISTED_X._
B. Will Action receive coordinated reviev as provided for UNLISTED Actions
in 6 NYCRR , PART 617 .6 ?
Yes No...f► ==mmm Involved Agency( ies ) :
Co Could Action result in any adverse effects associated with the following :
C 1 . Existi ng ai r quality , surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels , existi ng
traffic patterns , solid waste production or disposal , potential for erosion, drainage or flooding
problems ? Explain briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated. Proposed action is the grant of a variance from
Article IV , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning ordinance to allow the operation of a " bed
and breakfast " with a maximum of four lodgers in an existing residential structure . No
addition to the existing home is proposed .
C2 .Aesth tic, agricultural , archaeological , historic , or other natural resources ; or
community or neighborhood character ? Explain briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated. Existing character of surrounding neighborhood is
residential . Proposed use will be is an existing residential structure on an one acre lot and set
back from Hanshew Road approximately 110 feet'. Because of the nature of the proposed use,
the relatively large site of the site , and the fact that no additions or alterations that would
change the character of the existing structure or site are proms , no significant adverse
impacts on neighborhood character are anticipated.
C3.Vegetetion or fauna , fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats , or
threatened or other natural resources? Explain briefly.
Because the proposed use will be on an existing developed site , no significant adverse impacts
are antici pated .
C4.A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a chance; in use or
i ntensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly :
• No significant adverse impacts with regard to community cels and plans as officially adopted
are anticipated as a result of grant of the requested variance. The subject parcel is located in a
R - 15 Residence District . Within the R - 15 Residence District the Zoning Ordinance allows,
EXHIBIT # 14
J
among other uses , single - and two - family homes , specific public and institutional uses ,
agricultural uses , offices of a resident doctor , dentist , musician , engineer , teacher , lawyer ,
architect , artist or member of other recognized profession and quasi - profession , and
customary home occupations operated solely by a resident of the dwelling and subject to
restrictions outlined in Article IY , Section 11 . A bed and breakfast use of the scale of the one
proposed appears to be similar in character and expected impact on the surrounding area as
those uses listed above which are already allowed within the R - 15 Residence District .
CS.Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the
proposed action ? Explain briefly:
Given the small scale of the use for which the proposed variance is requested, no significant
adverse impacts with respect to the above factors are anticipated .
C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified i n C I -05 ? Explai n
briefly:
No significant adverse impacts anticipated.
C7 . Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy ) ?
Explain briefly:
No significant adverse imus anticipated .
D. Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts ?
Yes Nom If Yes , explain briefly
PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Because of the relatively small scale and character of the activity for which a variance is
requested , a negative determi nation of envi ronmental significance is recommended.
George R . Frantz
Asst . Town Planner
EXHIBIT # 14
December 31 , 1989
Town of Ithaca
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca , NY 14850
Attention : Paul S . Hansen , Assistant Building Inspector/
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Dear Mr . Hansen :
I have read and understand the variance appeal , dated
December 5 , 1989 , that Mr . and Mrs . Brown submitted to the
Town of Ithaca describing the planned extension of their
house at 1448 Trumansburg Road , Ithaca NY .
I have no objection to the planned extension .
• Sincerely ,
Robert G . Mower
1444 Trumansburg Road
Ithaca , NY 14850
cc : D/S . Brown
EXHIBIT # 15
.V A
4 C7
vIc
_., i
L***IyjAt .:ewe 46U,4 G /*d/X 04f,6 �
.;t _.;6C6 .;oO . . Ooe� _. et� . Gam.
i ,
&4"� xfu4d �Z&� Z47XA&n1 4 oZ� /OwAL �A j4UAW7c=m
oop/
It11
i .
i
I
I . EXHIBIT # 16
r
a
1 ;
A {0
T 1
r o �
N C H
W 4r
s
r CA
o� A (04
QD
It
A EXHTBIT # 17
�0
SUPPLEMENT TO
— TOWN OF ITHACA
Request for Special Approval
by
BRUCE SHINDHELM ( 911 East Shore Drive )
This is a supplement to the annexed Application for Special Approval
( Sec . 77 ( 7 ) ) . This matter was heard on December 13 , 1989 , but was withdrawn
because information as to the height of . the proposed garage inadvertently was
omitted.
We also are now providing an amended survey by T . G. Miller which
corrects the October 30 , 1989 survey to show the garage will be 30 ' long and
24 ' deep .
The height of the proposed garage will be 14 ' at the eaves and 18 ' at the
peak . This height is necessary to allow clearance for the trucks that will be
housed within . We need a 12 ' door ( one of our trucks is 11 11 " high ) and the
Morton Co . , builder of the proposed garage , has advised that 14 ' eaves with
18 ' peak are required for snow load and structural strength .
The garage is located against a hillside which slopes upward ( easterly )
until it becomes the Route 13 roadway . The embankment is approximately 22 '
above street level , so that it would still rise above the proposed garage .
The entrance would be attractively landscaped : a large fir tree now
standing in front of the proposed site would-be maintained and surrounded with
landscape timbers and plantings . Some gravel would be placed to match that of
the neighbor , Mr . Whiting , and the applicant.'-s property .
The garage itself and the garage door would have windows , carriage-type
lights on either side of the door and would coordinate in color and design
with the garage of the neighbor to the north , Claire Whiting . There would be
no bays , no external equipment or anything else that would detract from the
residential appearance of the garage .
The proposed garage would measure 30 ' wide , 24 ' deep and 18 ' high at its
peak ; Mr . Whiting ' s garage , which stands adjacent , is approximately 20 ' wide ,
21 ' deep and 16 ' high at its peak . The Chamber Building across Route 34 is
considerably higher than 18 ' . Thus , our garage . would not be disproportionate
to neighboring structures .
® The property is and will continue to be well -maintained and attractive ,
EXHIBIT # 18
DAVID B. GERSH - ATTORNEY AT LAW - ITHACA. NEW YORK - (607) 277-3300
with trees , flowers , lawn and shrubs .
The appearance of the neighborhood would be dramatically enhanced by the
removal of the present dilapidated wooden garage and the removal fran sight of
passersby-of-the--two-trucks- -now -parked-near-the .-Route-34 _ highway .We sincerely believe all the standards needed for a Special Approval are
met by the present Application , and respectfully ask that the Approval be
granted .
Bruce E . Shindhelm
David B . Gersh , ent
EXHIBIT # 18
DAVID B. GERSH - ATTORNEY AT LAW - ITHACA, NEW YORK - (607) 277-3300
TOMPKINS COUNTY
CHAMBER
GOF COMMERCE 904 EAST SHORE DRIVE ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • 607/273- 7080
December 28 , 1989
Mr . Bruce Shindhelm
% Finger Lakes Wrecker
911 East Shore Drive
Ithaca , NY 14850
- - Dear Bruce : - . - - -
Please be advised that I have no objections . to your proposed
garage being approximately two .- feet 6 inches taller than _ that
of your neighbor . Your project - will add to ' the neighborhood
and will blend into the landscape of the area .
Sincerely ,
Herbert D . Brewer
Executive Director
HDB / mjd
EXHIBIT # 19
� �P
Clair Whiting
915 Fast Shore Drive
Ithaca , NY 14850
Bruce ShincJhelm
c/o Finger Lakes Wrecker
911 Fast Shore Drive
Ithaca , NY 14350
Dear Bruce
finis is to confirm in writing that I have no objections
to your proposed garage being approximately two feet taller than
mine , and appreciate you doing everythinP possible to see that
the front walls of both garages are as much in line as possible .
Sincerely ,
�J Com"
Clair Whiting
CW/ ejg
EXHIBIT # 20
Claire Whiting
® 915 Fast Shore Dr
Ithaca , NY 14850
December 12 , 1989
Bruce E Shindhelm
Finger Lakes Wrecker Service
911 Fast Shore Drive
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Bruce
I wish to lend my support for your plans to replace the old
dilapidated garage on your property with a new , larger one , to
house two trucks . I have no objection to the garage being five
feet from our property line , and feel the white and gray colors
would blend in with the other structures in the neighborhood . In
short , I feel the new garage would definitely be an improvement
in that area .
Sincerely ,
Claire Whiting
CW/ejg
EXHIBIT # 21
TOMPKINS COUNTY
CHAMBER
® 904 EAST SHORE DRIVE • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 • 607/273 .7080
OF COMMERCE
December 8 , 1989
Mr . Bruce Shindhelm
Finger Lakes Wrecker Service
911 East Shore Drive
Ithaca , NY 14850
Dear Bruce :
I wish to inform you of our support for your plans to replace a garage
on your site . The upgrading of facilities in the neighborhood is in the
best interest of all neighbors . We greatly appreciate your commitment .
to this project and look forward to its completion .
Please feel free to use this letter as a statement of support , as you
proceed to secure the necessary approvals . If I can be of further
assistance , please give me a call .
Sincerely ,
Herbert D . Brewer
Executive Director
HDB / mjd
EXHIBIT # 22
, r
TE µD 'rD
µ GA.(UGA 9? • £ I%
W
U<
•O ; <
J 0 < V ' •A a0
/ P
O 16W 4 jJY > 03
Q J Z I ins $ cs
N u r . r
•0 F > V d f s ttl00^ U wr
In Z - o ` � .
E � z - m - o . o � z 2
c 000
r . 0 h Q
so
4 7
w ~ s r °
/ J rF a s . Q ; w
(Q� 00 u Pwb
! , ZJF '^ ' 1
? P
w
0000 - - 0000 0000 } ily000000p
Soil M QQ r�
; , � b8�.8, - W
ai
+.jeliy ONO
Vii« 1 r O �\.yl ,.£k� �
Lo ppp
Fd4j � i � 0 . � ; J3 1010
O - :! tf 01
OAP
w ti6" 0s . : ..1 0 .
Q = 13 J _ 9 aaoeav3 rt,�. *-•t,0 ,a — Ma
on
w ; _
® al
•� �� ,' I�7� nY1 ,h ;�O '� 0L t7 1 {�. •f( O d r -
�. Q� .�,s _ i441Y ',1y 4 t u. •ati. r fl• low,
-w.r,.am.i.••wv..rdd"9+a1�t01 - •—�� e.: I . ,+i., ,_ : . , i,
f. e '. r. u
J ,• z 1, „ 1 t1 'J.dy ! 1
i 1 u.
m r ; < � �, , s ,. e � Q ,, .,
ul
Z uo
LU
14
1p
O a , S 40 �.
LL wi�
d vA
,,• � F .LAG .. .
tY p •1
Ali
3� o� ,X)
A`' Z < 1 ` t.LF.r1..HS' Ky%WOOD 0
i�, tR. .
.IDr fi.
aw, 1•• r N1 V !� r . Q 7 k
ap
/e WLLI { C
,v ; Y < F- 1' n . u, oa .al Lel
CL Oit4ill",
CP
Via, 40
q: tl
• W y '�
WCY
06 )OMOO C31
LA ppoiin
z L O L. .Lo go, O
so, 00um.
6 y v a, t v 's,
W 06 4A
F. N N -u .L-r• m :.
F o• isiiu ,z ,o 'c
w eo #A C4
r. � .c• (0 Nn 07 .
� (1)
44.
• Y r ' At03b3N SbY3ddY 3bO1YN91S 3soHr 0�--s I a's at
7 u N IJOA3AWS ONYI 03SN3) ll 3H1 A lY3S z �" 0 '� '� u
A NOISS3bdr1 3NI bY39 S3ldO) HO dYN O t
01YS It AlNO 103b3H1 S31dO) OMI u :5
NJ N � �
dMf SIHI l OI1YA MV Y.03b3H C
SNOIIVJIll1b3] 11V - MVI A9
031101NObd 3bY ' ntll 40 ;IY3003 "" 1:411?
++ du 1*, Nd
31Y1S ' A ' 1Vi's �
W1
' 902[ NOil)3S O1 9NIHbOINOJ y
EXHIBIT # 23 'ON dYN St" SNOILM11Y ubutuiTm ..,' �n ms's y i
. _ . tC
All
a, f
N � AYu '
j PI psi 1 v
dl r
Q
" 1+L d
<�- 1
cy ` o
41
r oi a
wl
J 9 �O b� 'Oty1 � 39V llln 3mavw "rwol'Y .. 4 n. ,p cc
All
Myo f ,S ' OZI M rQ£ •b9 Sy_ =
W
,;ice
o � �c4 i s ' AA, moo. � s
LO 10 } N
OL
9 iaoaav��-dr1top , •M 3 .
to
v
mt
my to d � { • a � S Z.% dI
o- . r 0/
W _w . ' .4 A j 4
:•?Ar ....�. aii!' r_al.:>r: d. - •' .• -�. . ..i:. :.+v. .J .cZ.: .� n..�«. .a r c0 _ a.tyL :
yP
wo
Irk W
IlIls
p o o m N Am, a . rob9 S;EC '.Ve N -
� I .
., = o LL r s�3way.L - , S
LIJ
p Ws
_ N -Ap u 1
3 a
of
AllJ All oV ^ ,
i J
�3
0`41 v o F a
Z < d
In 0 { d �/ H W V 1 Z K
o } n o'` p % 3 r 3 ° W
o %
o A �
L
�, ry 0,jf I 3 i
a ? o = ok
° F
3 of d) �' r
( r,4.0 Z
COW") n3 W
r nlao?iWin
Onmb3l -
� OA
Y d 1r
OI u ` p
o ,-5 . 14
7 W 3 ,21 ,Z8 N ti _
O N % a O
ID as J r
• 1,7 �' 6 d " j Z W
L~ 3 Q o 7 d
I 3 0 0
V y a Z ,
�
3 ] b Y r
0 a 7 W uL fdD3b3N Sbv3dev 3an1 ;
61 n b0A711bIK OHY7 03SN3311
�. Q r0ISS3bdMt 3N1 bV38 S3 :
OWS Jr A1NO iO3b3M1
dVW SIHI b0i (111VA
S80IlYJli11b3] l'.
031(OlHpbd 3UV ' ITII
JOIS ' A ' H ' Z t:
'6021 4011)3S O1 -
` EXHIBIT # 23 1r ..� idm1 sn�s
Iz
r • r i`
ILI
1
### ######## TOMPKINS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
#### #######
#### ####### Harry Missirian Acting Commissioner of Planning
### #########
December 6 , 1989
To : Andrew Frost , Town of Ithaca Zoning Officer
From : Harry Missirian , Acting Commissioner of Planning
Re : Zoning Review Pursuant to Section 239- and -m of the New
York State General Municipal Law .
Proposed discretionary action : Special Approval application of Bruce Shindhelm
at 911 East Shore Drive ( state highway )
Tax Map No . 18- 1 -8
This memorandum acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above
for review and comment by the County Planning Department ,
ZONING REVIEW , pursuant to NY General Municipal Law , Section 239- 1 and -m .
® The .proposal , as submitted , will have no significant deleterious impact on
intercommunity , county , or state interests . Therefore , no recommendation is
indicated by the County Planning Department and you are free to act without
prejudice .
However , we caution you to consult your municipal attorney before proceeding
with this action . Although the statement we received of this proposed action
does not say what zoning district the lot - is in , we presume it is in the R- 15
district . Our copy of your zoning ordinance does not indicate that the Board
of Appeals has been given authority to carry out this action .
Additional comments not part of the 239-1 & -m review . .
It would be appropriate to consider the permit for construction of the
replacement garage separate from any permit to use the garage for commercial
purposes . Replacing a dilapidated garage with a larger building is a small
. matter . Granting approval for use of facility for commercial purposes in a
residential district is considerably more significant .
copy : file
EX
Biggs Center , Building A , 301 Dates Drive , Ithaca , New York 14850 ( 607 ) 274- 5360
EXHIBIT # 24
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING .
BOARD OF APPEALS, NOTICE
OF PUBLC HEARINGS ;-
® WEDNESDAY, JANUARY .3,_
90,
19 7:00 P. M.
B direction of the Chairman 1
of the Zoning Board of Ap- '
peals NOTICE IS HEREBY
134
It 11A.:d ITHACAJOURNAL
GIVEN that Public Hearings '
will be held by the Zoning
Board of Appeals of the Town
of Ithaca on Wednesday, Jan-
uary 3, 1990, in Town Hall , ,
126 Stre (FIRST
State of New York , Tompkins County , ss . : Floor,
REAReca Entrra Entrance, WEST,.
/� Side ), Ithaca, N. Y. , COM
i;l� Sullins AT 7:00 P. M. , on
<Y '
being duly sworn , deposes and the following matters.
APPEAL of Zetto Ruff_ Sprolet A
says , that she/he resides in Ithaca , county and state aforesaid and that Appellant, requesting . varix,"
once of the requirements of .
Clerk Article IV, Section 11 , of the
she/he is Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordi
nonce, to permit the operation
of The Ithaca Journal a public newspaper printed and published in of a "Bed and Breakfast'-;
known as "The Hound and
Ithaca aforesaid , and that a notice , of which the annexed is a true Hare", with a maximum of .
four' lodgers, to be located in
copy , was published in said paper a single-family home at 1031Hanshow Rood, Town of Itha-
ca Tax Parcel No. 6-71 -7-5,
Residence District R- 15. _ Said ;
e br ICY r 4Ordinance permits a single'
family home to be occupied
by a tomily plus no more than'
one boarder.. roomer. lodg@L
building setback of 12. 7 plus-
/minus feet. Current zoning
regulations require a side ' .
yard setback of 40 feet.
and that the first publication of said notice was on the a A APPEAL of Bruce E. Shindhelm,-
Appellant, David B. Gersh,
da of Esq. , Agent, requesting autho-
y 1 9 riof zation
the Zoning
Art cleXII,
J Section 54, of the Town of j
p Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, for
Cthe extension of a non-con-
forming building/lot located I
at 911 East Shore Drive, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 18-
1 -8, Residence District R- 15. �.
Subsc ' ed and sworn to before me , this da y said extension proposes the I
replacement of on existing .
Of( 19 22. 5 foot by 17. 5 foot garage,
located 2. 2 plus/minus feet
from the west side yard lot
line, with a new garage, 18
Meet high by 30 feet wide by
24 feet deep, to be located
partially within the footprint
Notary Public . of the existing garage and 51
plus/minus feet from the west
side yard lot line. Said lot' is an
JEAN FORD irregular-shaped lot, there
fore, under current zoning '
Notary Public State of i\!e,v Yore seregulations a 20-foot side yard
tback is required. In addi-
No. 46544 ; 0 tion, under current zoning
r. regulations, the maximum ,
Qualltled in Tompkins CCUnty height permitted for accessory '
�C ^ - „7 � eYI )
/ buildings is 15 feet.
. . ires � � Said Zoning Board of Appeals
May
will at said time, 7:00p. m . ,
and said place, hear all per-
sons in support of such matters
or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in
person.
Andrew S. Frost
Building Inspector/
Zoning Enforcement Officer j
Town of Ithaca
273- 1747
December 29, 1989