Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-03-24 1 • 1 ILM [Date pwt4 OF ITHACA o ►G43TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 24 , 1993 The following matters were heard on March 24 , 1993 by the Board : APPEAL OF SUSAN WEITZ , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 AND 12 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST FOR UP TO FOUR LODGERS AT 312 SALEM DRIVE , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 70 - 9- 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF RICHARD BRUNO , II , OWNER , RICHARD BRUNO , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 29 . 3 FEET + ( 30 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) , LOCATED AT 4 WINNERS CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 58 - 1 - 8 . 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . GRANTED , APPEAL OF BRUCE G . RIGHT MYER . APPELLANT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF A SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 23 , 1992 , TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE PLUMBING WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 155 POOLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32 - 1 - 1 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) , SAID BOARD IN THEIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STATED " THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING TO THE BUILDING AND THE TUB THAT IS THERE NOW , WILL BE REMOVED " ." DENIED . APPEAL OF DAVID BOWLSBY , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UDDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND /OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 25 - 2 - 38 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND , THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT , ON CAYUGA LAKE ( BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK ) , AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE , ADJOURNED TO MAY 12 , 1993 . I Town of Ithaca FILA 1 Zoning Board of Appeals TOWN OF ITHACA March 24 , 1993 Date Cla a TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 24 , 1993 PRESENT : Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . OTHERS : Richard Nicholas Bruno , David Bowlsby , Ann Bowlsby , Robert Shaw , Peter Rothbart , Nancy Corbett , Brad Corbett , Susan Weitz , Charles Eckert , Sharon Eckert , Bruce Rightmyer , Ronald Krantz , Joan Krantz . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings were completed and are in order . The first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF RICHARD BRUNO , II , OWNER , RICHARD BRUNO , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 29 . 3 FEET + ( 30 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) , LOCATED AT 4 WINNERS CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 58- 1-8 . 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . Mr . Richard Bruno explained that he measured from the back end lines instead of the diagonal ones . Chairman Austen agreed that it was an unusual back yard line with a jog in it . Chairman Austen reaffirmed that it was 29 . 3 feet to the closest spot . [ The survey map by Al Fulkerson entitled Lot No . 6 - Winners Circle , Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , NY and dated February 23 , 1993 , is attached hereto as Exhibit # l . ] Andrew Frost explained that occasionally his office views matters as being deminimis , and the general mathematics rule is that if you ' re . 5 or higher , you round off to the higher number and if your . 5 or lower , you round off to a lower number . He said had this been closer to 29 . 5 or . 6 , we would have maybe not bothered with it , but since we round off and get closer to 29 feet , as small as this is , it does not meet the 30 foot setback . Pete Scala mentioned that if the distance was measured to the shortest point , it wouldn ' t be where the arrow is ; it would be perpendicular , and less than 29 . 3 feet . He stated that it actually maybe less than 29 . 3 feet . Mr . Frost stated that the deck which normally would be regulated by zoning , is less than 3 feet off the ground and Section 65 of our Ordinance says that unroofed porches , patios , and similar structures within 3 foot of the ground surface are not regulated , so we are measuring to the corner of the house and not the deck . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . OMOTION : By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grants and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Richard Bruno , a variance for the issuance of a permit for the occupancy of his premises located at 4 Winners Circle , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 58 - 1 - 8 . 6 , which otherwise is in violation of the Zoning Law because the rear of his premises was constructed less than 30 feet from the rear line , with the following findings : 1 . That the discrepancy is diminimis and that any benefits to be accrued to the owner from granting this variance , far outweigh any detriments to any of the neighbors as a result of this construction and the manner in which it was done . 2 . That the statement of the owner that this was done in innocence of what the law was , he thought that he was measuring it properly and that it was placed more than 30 feet , but in fact it turned out to be less than 30 feet . 3 . That the map of Al Fulkerson , dated February 23 , 1993 shows the distance of 29 . 3 feet , which means the deficit of about 7 / 10 of a foot . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF SUSAN WEITZ , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE N , SECTION 11 AND 12 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST FOR UP TO FOUR LODGERS AT 312 SALEM DRIVE , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 70- 9- 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . Mrs . Susan Weitz explained that she is asking to turn 2 / 3 of the lower floor of her bi - level home to be used as a bed and breakfast , consisting of 2 bedrooms , a living room area , a kitchenette , and a private bath . Mrs . Weitz stated that the parking is straightforward . She explained that she wants to use the bed and breakfast for only one family or a couple at a time , so there would only be one additional car and one small group of people coming . She said they do have a widened driveway , so it should accommodate the additional car easily and they also have a garage to park her car . She explained that the house has one main entrance in the front and you can go' either downstairs or upstairs from that entrance , which would serve as the entrance for the bed and breakfast and there is an additional rear exit on the upper floor . She explained that the reason that she wants to open a bed and breakfast is so that she can keep her house in Ithaca . She stated they are first time homeowners and moved here because of their children . She was living in New York City and wanted to bring the children up in a safer area . Her husband has not found a job in Ithaca yet , so he is commuting on weekends to Ithaca , and there is an additional financial burden on him until he is able to find a good job in Ithaca that would allow them to continue paying their mortgage . They think that if they were earning an income from the bed and breakfast , that he would be more able to accept different jobs because we would have enough income to supplement what he would accept in Ithaca . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Chairman Austen referred to a letter written by Peter Rothbart in favor of the bed and breakfast . [ The letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #2 . ] Mr . King asked how large a floor area does the appellant propose to use for the bed and breakfast and how large is the remaining floor area for their own family use . Ms . Weitz responded that all she could tell them was the size of the rooms . She stated that the main room for the bed and breakfast , that ' s the living area , is 30 feet by 10 feet , then there are two bedrooms that are about 10 feet by 12 feet each , and then there is a bathroom that is about 6 feet by 4 feet . She further stated that her living quarters were about 15 feet by 20 feet . Andy Frost stated that the second floor has 1 , 104 feet . He stated that his office has an old building permit and there are some building issues which he might mention later , but the original building was constructed with 1 , 104 feet upstairs and downstairs of equal size . Mr . King wondered if they had a utility room in the lower floor . Ms . Weitz answered that they have the water heater and the furnace , but that is not in the living area downstairs , that is apart from that . Chairman Austen referred to a Short Environmental Assessment Form that was prepared by Assistant Town Planner , Mr . George R . Frantz , on March 19 , 1993 . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Form is attached hereto as Exhibit #3 . ] Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Peter Rothbart from 310 Salem Drive , wondered if the granting of this variance would allow any external construction beyond the R- 15 designation . Chairman Austen explained that no construction is proposed for this appeal . Mr . Rothbart asked if it would allow any future owners , once this variance is granted , to perform any physical construction or landscaping , beyond what is available under the R- 15 statue . Chairman Austen stated that as long as they meet all the requirements for R- 15 and the building code , they can build without a variance . Attorney Barney reinstated that unless there was a condition imposed by this Board in granting the variance , and they meet all the setbacks and building code requirements , nothing further would be required by this Board . He further stated that the variance is requesting four roomers or lodgers and if it was felt that in order to accommodate the four , and they wanted to build two new bedrooms off the back , there is nothing prohibiting them , unless there was a condition by this Board . Mr . Rothbart asked as the neighbor next door , while he completely supports this bed and breakfast and he doesn ' t see any negative impacts in terms of parking , or neighborhood character , in fact it may enhance the character by having more kids in the area , but he would request that the Board make it contingent on no additional external building beyond that which is currently allowed , and that any future building must come before the Board at that time . He stated that whether it was illegal or not , there has been a boarder living there for years and it was of no impact . He also mentioned that while he cannot speak for the neighbors across the street , they are a fairly close bunch of people who have no problem with it , they are concerned , however , that this would open the door for any external buildings . He stated that this was not a problem for Susan , but for any future purchasers , they would be able to have any input on • additions in that area . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Mr . King asked if the garage was a one car garage and. Mrs . Weitz responded yes . Mr . King asked if they owned two cars and Mrs . Weitz answered yes , but that her husband ' s car was only there on weekends , but there is room for a third car , and since they are proposing to have only one family , or couple , stay at a time , they would be able to accommodate that number of cars . Mr . King asked if she had a parking apron , extending to the south from the driveway and Mrs . Weitz answered yes . Mrs . Weitz mentioned that she had spoken to Mr . Thomas Cullen , 402 Salem Drive , and he says that he has no issue with the bed and breakfast , but she doesn ' t have it in writing . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance to the Appellant , Susan Weitz , with respect to the operation of a bed and breakfast for up to four lodgers at 312 Salem Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 9 - 5 , as recommended by Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , on March 19 , 1993 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , Scala Ellsworth , King . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . Hines stated that this issue has come up a few times in the past , the most recently being the Eastern Heights area . He added at that time they suggested that some communication be made to the Town Board to include bed and breakfasts along with usual home occupations . He further added the impact of bed and breakfasts in modest numbers probably has no greater impact on the neighborhood than offices , hair dressers , or whatever else is otherwise permitted , and then there is some additional uses that are permitted by special permit and he couldn ' t think of a single case that the Board didn ' t grant . Mr . King thought the Town Board preferred that this Board deal with each case on a case by case basis to examine it , rather than say anybody in a two family area can operate a bed and breakfast . He said that it was conceivable that some area might be more attractive than another and you would have a proliferation of those , where you would not have a proliferation of doctors offices , or other types of home occupations . Mr . Hines stated that at the particular area of the appellant , there aren ' t other bed and breakfasts . Mrs . Weitz stated that there is one on Hanshaw Road , one on the border of Dryden Road and Sapsucker Woods Road , and one on Warren Road . She said there are none within walking distance . Mr . Hines referred to the financial statement Mrs . Weitz submitted to the Board . Mr . King discussed the practice of limiting the bed and breakfast to a time limit . Mr . Frost mentioned that the Sign Ordinance would allow her to have four square feet of sign area . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 MOTION - By Mr . Hines , seconded by Mr . Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant , Susan Weitz , a variance so that they may operate the premises at 312 Salem Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 9 - 5 , as a residential home with a bed and breakfast , pursuant to the application made by them dated. March 81 1993 , with the following conditions : 1 . That the structures on the premises will not be enhanced or enlarged or changed by any exterior construction to accommodate its use as a bed and breakfast . 2 . That the uses so permitted will terminate at the expiration of 5 years or on May 1 , 1998 , or sooner upon the sale of the premises by the Appellant . 3 . That the Appellant must comply with the appropriate code enforcement agencies regarding code deficiencies within the residence . 4 . That there be no more than one family staying at the bed and breakfast , with no more than four persons at a time . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : • Ayes - Hines , King , Scala , Austen , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF BRUCE G . RIGHTMYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF A SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE %II , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 23 , 1992 , TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE PLUMBING WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 155 POOLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32- 1 - 1 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID BOARD IN THEIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STATED " THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING TO THE BUILDING AND THE TUB THAT IS THERE NOW , WILL BE REMOVED " . Mr . Bruce Rightmyer presented pictures of his property to the Board and explained where the pictures were taken from . Mr . Rightmyer showed the Board the area of the building that was going to be residential until he found that there was too many complications to even consider it because he would have had to drill his own well , put in the septic , subdivide , and it was just too cost prohibitive to accomplish . He stated that he has dropped that whole aspect . Mr . Rightmyer stated that it was not a very large area and that he might have run into more problems than he dreamed of , due to not knowing the laws and not looking into it as he should have . He said this structure would have probably been too small for a residential unit in square footage • anyway , but it was going to make a good wood shop . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Mr . Rightmyer said that he had built this as a residential unit , including the bathroom , and that is why the bathroom looks so nice for a garage , but it is already in there , he ' s got some money into it , and he ' s just asking to use it as a bathroom in his garage . He stated that it ' s already in there and he doesn ' t want to tear it out if he doesn ' t have to . He understood that he would have to change some plumbing , and said that it was fine . Mr . Rightmyer showed the Board a picture of what he has yet to put into the garage . He said that he utilizes the space in the garage very nicely himself without asking for a residence and he is glad that he didn ' t even do that now with all the laws that he would have had to go through ; it would have been cost prohibitive , plus now he can use that space himself , and as the Board can see , he needs it . He further stated that because he did spend money on that bathroom , that he may keep it and use it strictly for himself , for his own personal use because it saves him going outside . Mr . Hines asked if he had made any changes in these premises since he appeared before this Board last time . Mr . Rightmyer answered no , other than landscaping . Mr . Hines asked what hardship has Mr . Rightmyer incurred that he wants to bring to the Board ' s attention that would militate them granting this permission . Mr . Rightmyer said nothing other than having some money involved in this bathroom . Mr . Hines stated that Mr . Rightmyer had it involved when he appeared before . Mr . Rightmyer stated that he came with the impression that he was going to make it residential before . Mr . Hines stated that regardless of that , they granted him permission to use the building but said that he wasn ' t to have plumbing facilities . Mr . Hines said that he remembered it and he is wondering why they were here tonight and what has happened between summer and now . Mr . Rightmyer stated he thought that he could have one bathroom when he left . Mr . Frost stated that he had suggested, in a letter the Board had before them , that he had thought at one point that the restriction was more for what was to be a dwelling unit . Mr . Frost stated that there are really two bathrooms in the building because there is one in the center of the building . Mr . Rightmyer stated that bathroom was sealed off . Mr . Frost asked if the plumbing was removed and Mr . Rightmyer answered yes . Mr . Rightmyer said there were holes in the floor , but that he couldn ' t take them out . Mr . Frost stated that in one letter he had suggested that he had thought that the bathroom in the center of the building was a convenience bathroom for the garage and was ok , but certainly the plumbing in the back was what would have to go , because that was a part of the apartment . Mr . Hines stated that they had watched this thing grow like topsy and when it came before us , he had thought that they were modestly generous with the series of violations and they were quite explicit in what they did and nothing has changed since last summer . He further stated that if they were a court , they would immediately say that they rule on this issue and it ' s over with and there ' s no change between the last ruling and today , so why are we here . Mr . Rightmyer asked if that was the reason for modification . Mr . Hines responded that the Appellant can ' t keep coming back to the same tribunal and asking them to rethink what they ' ve done before , unless you can show that there is some change . Mr . Rightmyer said that he had thought that it was approved when he left that night for one bathroom to be ok and then the letter came out and Andy • pointed out to him that it wasn ' t , Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Mr . Frost wanted to clarify that when the approval was given , copies of the minutes were sent to Mr . Rightmyer with the resolution which was clear that there was no bathroom . He stated that the letter that he had written suggested that he thought that it did not apply to the middle bathroom , which doesn ' t even exist at this point , but in no way was he implying that the bathroom in the back was something that was ok . Mr . Rightmyer reinstated that he thought that there could be one bathroom in the garage and he was not right in his thinking . Mr . Frost stated that he thought the resolutions in the approval were clear in that there was to be no plumbing . He further stated that Mr . Rightmyer did approach the Town Planning Department to pursue subdivision which , as his letter indicates , went no where . [ The September 23 , 1992 resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #4 . ] Mr . Scala read item number 5 of the September 23 , 1992 resolution . Mr . Scala reaffirmed that Mr . Rightmyer did remove the tub . Mr . Rightmyer stated that he removed a shower because he was under the impression that he could have one bathroom . Mr . Frost reiterated that there were two bathrooms in the building , one in the center of the building and one in the residential unit . He stated that when he wrote Mr . Rightmyer the letters , he enclosed a copy of the resolution and it says there shall be no plumbing . After finding out from Mr . Rightmyer that he was not going to subdivide , Mr . Frost told him to get rid of the plumbing . Chairman Austen mentioned that the Board said that the connection to the septic tank must be approved . Mr . Frost spoke to the Health Department regarding this and they didn ' t really care about the septic system serving the property as long as there was no dwelling unit involved . Mr . Rightmyer explained that he was just asking for one bathroom in the garage , and to keep the one that he has there because he does have a lot of money invested . He stated that he did understand that it is a little exorbitant for a garage , but it ' s already in and it ' s not going to cost him anything to leave it there and he would have to tear down walls to take it out , some of which may be a fire proof wall that he has up now . He said that the present wall is 5 / 8 inch sheetrock , both sides of the wall between that dwelling and his garage and he really doesn ' t want to break that up because of fire . He stated wood shops tend to have that little problem and he does have a nice little barrier . Mr . Scala stated the Appellant has to tell the Board what has come about that has been a hardship of some kind , other than the funds , but the Appellant hasn ' t put any new funds in that , what hardship has occurred since the last time he came here that warranted his making another appeal . Mr . Rightmyer stated that he could not afford to drill a well and put in a septic system , which is what he would have to do to make this a residential area . Mr . Scala stated that wasn ' t involved in the appeal , so what is it relevant to the appeal , as Mr . Rightmyer ' s building stands now , what is he pleading . Mr . Rightmyer stated that he would like to keep the plumbing and that it is already in . Mr . Scala asked why , other than the fact that he doesn ' t want to tear it up . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Dr . Ronald Krantz of 179 Sheffield Road appeared before the Board and explained that he and his wife own approximately all the surrounding land around Mr . Rightmyer ' s property . He stated that when Mr . Rightmyer first started clearing the land , Mr . Rightmyer cleared a lot of the debris and the wood onto Mr . Krantz ' s property . Mr . Krantz came by and they discussed the matter nicely and gentlemanly on both sides . Mr . Krantz stated he ended up getting a surveyor , which he paid for , to rule where the boundaries were , and Mr . Rightmyer , as he declared the last time six months ago , agreed that he had overstepped the boundaries and put the wood and debris on our land and promised to clear it . He stated that it has not been cleared . He further stated that Mr . Rightmyer had declared to the Board that he owned a bunch of apartments and that he has been pretty involved with real estate through the years . Mr . Krantz stated that Mr . Rightmyer didn ' t have a building permit when he put this up . He stated that Mr . Rightmyer put up a building that was too tall , too big and which this Board said that if a building permit had been applied for , there was no way that it would have been approved . He stated that the building was already there , so the Board was faced with the dilemma of telling him to rip the darn thing down , or else letting it stay up there because it was just a little too big and a little too tall and so the Board did really the only thing the Board could do . Dr . Krantz stated that we have a building that got put up without a permit , that was too big , and too tall , by a man that deals in real estate and owns a lot of apartments . He stated that he didn ' t clear off the debris from Dr . Krantz ' s land and then the Board stated six months and one day ago , remove the plumbing from it and remove the tub and it is another six months gone by and it is still there . He further • stated that the building , which was just a building for Mr . Rightmyer ' s boats , now has four regular sized doors , three double garage overhead doors , one very large garage door , a large picture window and it ' s petitioned into three rooms . He stated now we put in a little plumbing and in his eyes , despite what Mr . Rightmyer says , we ' re aiming right down the road to some apartments , which was the original purpose of this . He stated that the Board agrees that the plumbing and the tub comes out , which should have come out six months ago . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . MOTION : By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Chairman Edward Austen : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny the Appeal on the grounds that the Appellant , Bruce Rightmyer , has stated that there has been no change in the circumstances with respect to the structure , located at 155 Poole Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 1 - 1 , or his investment in the structure since his appearance before this Board last year , at which time we listened to the evidence and many of us viewed the property , considered the situation , and made the finding that the building be continued , but in an effort to limit the use of the building , required that the plumbing be discontinued . The Appellant comes before this Board and says that he wants us to change our mind and allow the plumbing . There has been no new evidence ; we have ruled on this matter , and once having ruled on it , our ruling should stand . Otherwise we will be continually getting applications to review our own decisions , which is essentially what he wants us to • do . He ' s asking us to rethink what we have already thought through and I am stating that that is not an appropriate function of this Board . Based on what we have listened to , I move that the appeal to this Board be denied , without prejudice of coming before us if he has some more information , but based on what we hear tonight , there is nothing for us to decide . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Ellsworth , Hines , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried . Mr . King stated that beyond the technical point , which is very well taken , there is a fact that this Board could have ordered the building itself removed or destroyed because it was put up without a permit and was in total violation of the Zoning Ordinance and it was constructed without a building permit by a man who owns three houses . He further stated the only purpose that he can see in retaining the bathroom , the expense question aside , would be to be able to utilize it down the road in a manner that is not permitted by our Ordinance . Mr . King thought that these points should at least be in the record as supportive of the decision on the technical motion that has been made . Mr . Rightmyer asked if the Board was saying that there was no way he was ever going to get water in that building . He stated that he had to have water because his heat is water and there are pipes in the floor . Mr . Frost stated that plumbing is plumbing and he thought that it said there will be no plumbing to the building . Mr . Rightmyer further stated that he has a boiler in there for heat and has pipes in the concrete floor . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Rightmyer what kind of heat he had and Mr . Rightmyer responded that he had hot water in the floor . Mr . Frost stated that Mr . Rightmyer • could keep the plumbing for the hot water that provides heat only to the floor . Attorney Barney wondered what the septic system hooks up to . Mr . Rightmyer answered to the house and the Health Department said that it was fine if it was just a garage . Mr . Frost said he talked to the Health Department and if it wasn ' t a dwelling unit , then they had no regulation about the septic . Attorney Barney asked what in the garage is connected to the septic system and Mr . Rightmyer responded that right now there is a lavatory in the garage . Mr . Hines stated that the lavatory will be disconnected . The last Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF DAVID BOWISBY , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND /OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 25- 2-38 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND . THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT , ON CAYUGA LAKE ( BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK ) , AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE , Mr . Hines stated in the interest of expediting their decision in the ultimate resolution of the problems that Mr . Bowlsby has , ultimately he has to get permission from the State and the Army Corp of Engineers to do whatever he wants to do . He stated that if what the Appellant ultimately wants to do is fairly extensive , then what ' s the sense of our going through a lot of monkey business if the Corp of Engineers and the State doesn ' t approve . Mr . Frost responded that the Department of Environmental Conservation is not involved . He mentioned that the extent of the Army Corp of Engineers ' concern is only that the structure is on piers and allows the water to flow underneath the structure . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Chairman Austen asked if there is a permit for this project . Mr . Frost explained that Mr . Hines has what he received from the Army Corp a couple of years ago . Mr . Frost suggested that whatever the outcome of this appeal , that a reaffirmation from the Army Corp with regard to their permit seems appropriate . Mr . Frost mentioned that he had recently talked to the Army Corp and the impression is that the Appellant did get what he needed to and they are satisfied , as long as it ' s not obstructing any flow of waters . Chairman Austen referred to the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , on March 22 , 1993 . He had invited George Frantz to the meeting and invited Mr . Frantz to discuss his positive declaration of environmental significance . Mr . Frantz appeared before the Board and stated that it ' s not like the usual environmental assessments or recommendations as far as determinations because usually as a planner and reviewer of developments in the Town of Ithaca , the types of environmental impacts that we usually uncover relate to the natural environment , whether its potential to impacts with regard to erosion , air quality , ground water quality , noise level , or impact on traffic . He said in this case , as he stated in the review , the proposal before the Board doesn ' t appear to have the risk of any significant adverse impact with regard to things like erosion , impact on environment , or rare and endangered species of life . • Mr . Frantz stated the impact , rather , is to the potential significant adverse impacts to the community ' s goals and policies as officially adopted , specifically , the Town ' s current zoning as far as the intensity of land uses envisioned under the Town zoning . He thinks in this area that it is a particular concern , given the fact that there are approximately 70 lots in the Town of Ithaca along Route 89 , many of which are legal non- conforming lots . He added there are approximately 90 dwelling units in this stretch of lake front . Mr . Frantz stated the particular parcel in question is especially deficient in size and lot dimensions and his recommendation is that there is a potential for a significant adverse impact for this proposal , essentially on the potential character of the existing neighborhood , and also due to the what he believes is the fairly substantial increase in the intensity of land use on the site . Mr . Frantz stated as far as impact on the lake or anything , he didn ' t address that because he knew that Mr . Bowlsby did get a permit from the Corp of Engineers and he is not qualified to assess its impact on the lake . He does know there are plenty of docks . He said his concerns were entirely from the land use planning perspective and the impact on the community ' s goals of policies as deflected in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Austen also noted that the coverage of the property is above the maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance , it is covering 220 of the property , including the additional land that is between the high and low water mark . Mr . Frantz stated that approximately 1 / 4 of this 9 , 100 square feet that he used as the lot size , is actually between the approximate low water and high water marks . He explained that of course , if you were to subtract that , you ' d get an even higher percentage of lot coverage . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Mr . Frost stated that it has always been a little unclear to him where the land is when you ' re dealing with properties on the lake or in the lake . He stated in some cases he ' s heard measurements at the high water mark , others to the low water mark . Mr . Hines stated that the title runs to the low water mark . Mr . Scala reaffirmed that up to the low water mark , it ' s in the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Hines stated that it ' s always in the Town of Ithaca , but the title of the upland owner extends to the low water line . He further stated the State of New York owns the bed of the lake and has recurring rights to use the lake water over your land , whenever there is lake water over your land . Chairman Austen referred to C5 of the Environmental Assessment Form . Mr . Frantz stated that at some point the Board may be faced with a future request , given the amount of the investment of the boat house , that it be allowed to become a full dwelling unit . He was also concerned about the precedent set for other property owners along the lake who may also have boathouses of this size . Mr . Hines replied that there aren ' t many ; he could only think of one that is this extensive . Attorney Barney asked if the building was going to have sanitary facilities at all . Mr . Bowlsby responded that he is simply asking for a place to put a toilet . Attorney Barney stated that the Army Corp permit specifically precludes the construction of boathouses which includes living quarters or sanitary facilities . Mr . Bowlsby stated that the gentleman from the Army Corp said that if Mr . Bowlsby ever wanted to get that added to his boathouse , simply apply for it . He further stated that he had told the Army Corp that was his intention when he first spoke with them . • Mr . Hines stated that the purpose of the regulations is premise on the fact that the upland owners don ' t own the lake and the rights of the public are paramount in the use of the lake and that every object placed in the lake impedes that , whether it ' s a buoy for anchoring our boats , or whether it ' s a dock and that the intention is to permit those facilities which aide and assist our boats and other means of ingress and egress to the lake , but when you start creating residential or living facilities , you start going on to the next step . Mr . Hines didn ' t thank it would be automatic that the Army Corp would find that acceptable and he was surprised that the Department of Environmental Conservation isn ' t involved . He stated he understand the Appellant ' s problem and he was sympathetic to it , but the point is that it ' s a rather large facility and he realizes that it ' s hardly navigable water down there because it ' s marshy and the weeds are very high , but as long as there is water over the land that extends into Cayuga Lake , the public has the right to traverse there and every time you ' ve built something , you ' ve eliminated the public ' s access to it . Mr . Bowlsby stated that yes , but that is why they put limitations on what you do and how far you go out and he ' s within limitations . Mr . Hines stated that there are limitations on the amount of square feet you can cover and lots of other things . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he spends all his time down in the boathouse . He stated he has his tool shop down there , he goes down to work , build things , it ' s his garage , it ' s his little entertainment center down there , he has friends that go down there , and he spends a lot of time down there . Mr . Hines stated what the regulations deal with is the intensity and the nature of the use over the lake and that ' s what you ' re really dealing with . He stated they ' re saying that you shouldn ' t have an intense use over the lake . Mr . Bowlsby stated that he didn ' t see an intense use over the lake because the lake is a big lake and he is out there legally 20 feet , with the building above the boat . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 Attorney Barney read from the Army Corp permit stating that this permit does not authorize the placement of enclosed buildings , boathouses , fuel storage tanks , sinks , toilets , showers , fuel dispensing or sanitary pump out facilities waterward of the Ordinary High Water shoreline . He stated that the paperwork that Mr . Bowlsby presented to the Board suggests that he cannot do it , now there maybe some communications Mr . Bowlsby had with the Army Corp , but this is the permit that Mr . Bowlsby is expecting this Board to act on and rely on . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mrs . Sharon Eckert approached the Board and explained she and her husband , Charles , live at 825 Taughannock Boulevard , south of the Bowlsby ' s . She stated that , as David said how much he appreciates the lake , so do they . She stated that they may not always be on the lake , but her view is obstructed from her deck by the boathouse , which is already constructed . She didn ' t believe that there was a permit for the boathouse to be constructed . Mrs . Eckert said the boathouse is occupied from time to time . She mentioned that there are fluids that come out of the boathouse into the lake water . She didn ' t know what they are . She stated that they also have a lot of difficulty with parking along Route 89 . She stated David has three off - street parking spots , they have one . She also stated there are two people that live in her house , she doesn ' t know how many reside in David ' s , but • there are usually 2 or 3 vehicles on the street , plus his off- street parking . She stated they would like to remain good neighbors with David . She mentioned that when David built his house and deck , he apparently didn ' t check the survey , because he built his windbreak and the stairs off his deck on their property . She stated they consulted with their lawyer and in order to remain good neighbors , they gave him written permission to occupy that space , provided they could revoke that permission at any time . She reaffirmed that she doesn ' t want to be enemies with her neighbor , she just wants to be able to use and enjoy the lake as much as he does . Mr . Bowlsby stated that what he should address first , if he ' s ever going to get a toilet , is to communicate again with the Army Corp of Engineers . Mr . Brad Corbett of 907 Taughannock Boulevard appeared before the Board and stated that the last couple of times that he went down to the lake in his boat and he saw the building , that it was totally over the land , even at the low water mark , that it is still jutting out onto the lake . He stated that it gives the appearance of being inhabited a good period of the time . He stated every time he has seen it , there ' s either been someone there , the lights on , the television on , or whatever . He wondered if this is permissible , being also part of the lake property , maybe perhaps he would be permitted to build another large structure out there . He stated it does not appear to be a boathouse ; it appears to be a residential unit and for that , he would object to its continued use in that respect . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . Hines suggested an adjournment . Attorney Barney stated that the problem is that there appears to be a violation here so he thought if they granted an adjournment , without taking action on the application for the building as it sits there , there ought to be put some kind of time frame that Mr . Bowlsby will be back here . He asked Mr . Bowlsby how long it would take to talk to the Army Corp . Mr . Bowlsby replied that it might be six months . Attorney Barney stated that they couldn ' t wait that long . Mr . Frost stated that he would make some phone calls to attempt to expedite this . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals March 24 , 1993 MOTION : By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adjourn and hereby does adjourn this matter and place it on the May 12 , 1993 calendar for additional hearing , specifically for the Appellant to furnish a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers , with the consent of the Appellant , David Bowlsby . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT Upon motion , the meeting was adjourned . Dani L . Holford • Recording Secretary APPROVED : Edward Austen , Chairman rq N .4 _T4 Tq tow a oft ft J °�°9 �? E�9E�2� Q1 -� •� sG�` 18900 09 N . (h on N1% KND -� 01 r 0 p , ~• � nL' To; N 'Q b Z :CJ z b � C o En d o ��yr o — pro : E pc < S r ^• n Irl %A � _rte z z LA �ar3 fn ink v Zb ti j11 T' in a4 � ry 0 N C ` d _n ^ nth 2 u A yz � boo r �� m rn -v w 'n Z v o -V : gyp MW0 1 ° Ap0 � z l Nr y A I 1 _3 m WIN z � m jN !q z pvZ !a tol \40 0 c Nn Ll v� T ` '4 o 32 .1 1 m m Z m m Y 14 p � i ' 1 I �;rmv I Iq I C zz ZI b if - � I m ~ 0 A � v W K-iti - C - m " „ L v P ` I w w p rnjp m AP pL \ a4' " \ �W 30 vrarei Z ti � - n O ^ b Q/ Jr, 2. vor m g H _. ^ m C tl C �j S'?�� L °lkw1G1 �e c7ek>9Y� H � °nnd ' m' 01 �1 C n o m g ^ 3 0 p�r 'j� LY m m M N 0 o m o g VV•• n o > 'o AnCl HD n i0mm � 'ot ZC` r� Ba � oS eO 11 _ DA b o m b n ; 's 3�00 no yDofl -0 9 b _ a S a N 2 _ rJp V• ° M�n� PO Box 4641 Ithaca New York 14852 607-257-8101 March 12 , 1993 To Whom It May Concern , This is to advise the concerned parties that as resident/homeowners of 310 Salem Drive , Ithaca , NY, we would find it acceptable to grant the zoning variance for Susan Weitz to operate the Ithaca Family Bed and Breakfast in her residence at 312 Salem Drive subject to the following condition . We conditionally agree to this zoning variance provided that the variance does not allow for any external physical construction or landscaping beyond that which is allowed under the present zoning regulations for the location as it currently exists . Please feel free to contact us should you have any further questions . Yours truly , 14 Peter Rothbart 1 Linda Uhll REC EIV = I I = Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 MAR 81993 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review TOWN OF ITHACASHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 3UIMNG /LSViN" LISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) 1 . Applicant /Sponsor : 2 . Project Name : Svs�rn r.�Je / f l�l� a ;CdM 43(7dcfJ Pcr 5 3 . Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks , etc . or provide map) : 3) a� Salem ,lir. , 06G1 C) f&05. w" be ���n /��' � � �/ Ad arm/ Tax Parcel Number : Jo - q- 4 , Is Proposed Action : IT NEW EXPANSION MODIFICATION / ALTERATION 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( Include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : /Uo eon57rVC7 ;007 JnVObeC/, / cvov /� 0�:>e� -fie %�L, e � �ICCer i large ,ver. fi'ar, c >< Y � a5 I i ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project .) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) . Acres (6- 10 yrs) (a- Acres ( > 10 yrs) �� Acres ' How is the Land Zoned Presently ? ` 8 . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YES � NO If no , describe conflict briefly : 4d & ,afe egtf(j5f�; all /70 f C vl?�eI2 i 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : I i Public Road ? YES 0 NO E Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES NO 10 . What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Commercial Industrial E] Agriculture E] Park /Forest /Open Space F�J Other Please describe : 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit , approval , or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES 1 NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : plea / �ej�f i 7�G`0C Se/% Ce - alreG 6161 aaorov�? 12 . Does anu aspect of the proposed action have a currentlu valid permit or approval ? YES NO If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . Covey C/e �,� ?v� �ess -el- ) 1 CC I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I �licant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : *.5ao U)e'j � I 7Signature : 7�yr C1 Date : b0� 43 PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO _ If yes , coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6 ? YES NO k= If no , a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency , if any. C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten , if legible) C1 . Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality , noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly : See attached . C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See attached . C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly: See attached . C4. The Town '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 : See attached . C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? Explain briefly : See attached . C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl - C5 ? Explain briefly: See attached . C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly : See attached . D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO If yes , explain briefly: See attached . E. Comments of staff CAC other attached . (Check asapplicable . ) PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect Identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (le. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) irreversibility ; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials . Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here 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 here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Prepar is Signature Utofferent from Responsible Officer Edward Austen , Chairman Na i f Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer - Date : Si nature of Res onsible Officer in Lead Agency �— �Xh� b°� 43 PART H - Environmental Assessment: Use Variance Request for Operation of a Bed & Breakfast Inn in an Residence District R-15 312 Salem Drive Zoning Board of Appeals, March 24, 1993 A. Action is Unlisted B . Action will not receive coordinated review C . Could action result in any adverse effects on , to or arising from the following: 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? No significant adverse impacts with regard to existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, existing noise levels , solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems, are anticipated as a result of the proposed action . The proposal involves the establishment of a bed and breakfast operation in an existing single-family home. Such a use is not permitted in the Residence District R- 15 , therefore a variance is needed from the Board of Appeals. No expansion of the existing home is proposed. Existing traffic patterns may be affected somewhat by the proposed action . A site inspection by planning staff revealed that the existing driveway and garage can accommodate a total of three vehicles. Assuming the need for two cars for use by the owners of the property, only one parking space would be available for use by prospective patrons. Given the narrow pavement and shoulder width on Salem Drive, any use of the street for parking purposes is not recommended. C2. Aesthetic agricultural archeological , historic , or other natural or cultural resources , or community or neighborhood character? No significant adverse impacts to aesthetic , archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. No agricultural resources exist on the site, or are expected to otherwise be affected. The proposed bed and breakfast will operate within an existing home , therefore no new structures will be created. A bed and breakfast establishment, although not allowed in the Residence District R- 15 , is comparable in scope and impact to several of the offices of resident doctors and other professionals, and customary home occupations, allowed under the provisions of Article IV, O 1 . Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition , the existing mature landscaping on the parcel provides some screening of the property from adjacent residences. Thus no significant adverse impacts to community or neighborhood character are anticipated as a result of the proposed action. C3 . Vegetation or fauna, fish , shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? None anticipated due to the existing developed character of the site. 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? None anticipated. Although a bed and breakfast establishment is not allowed in the Residence District R- 15 , as state above it is comparable in scope and impact to several of the offices of resident doctors and other professionals, and customary home occupations, allowed under the provisions of Article IV, Section 12 of the Zoning Ordinance . C5 . Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action ? None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 - 05 ? None anticipated. CT Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? None anticipated. D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. ® 2 . E ,�h� ea 7 Y PART III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action , the scale of it, the character of the area, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: George R. Frantz, Assistant Town Planner Review Date : March 19 , 1993 41 3 Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 RESOLVED , that the Toem of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant a variance to the Appellant , Eric Friedland , for the occupancy of the basement apartment at ' 29 Coddington Road , by three unrelated people , such variance to be conditioned upon the compliance of the Appellant by October 15 , 1992 , with respect to the violations present , as outlined in 14r . Frost ' s letter dated Se :: tember 1 , 1992 , and that such tenancy in the basement terminate on llav 31 , 199 , with the following findings : 1 , that there is a :Matter of hardship , not tc the ocmer , but to the tenants ; rho : could be harmed if required to var_ ate the premises prior to terninati :: n of their lease . that the matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub - pa _ _ f of the Z. :; ning Crdinanr_ . I * the variance itsiil Y ill e ..,p re AmA " than 1 1 _ CP. 1`I3 . , r z. cv 1 e � ` A . ate : n she Hoti = r ._ zu � t as L � � c ; rs : Ayes - 'nines. , King , Scala , Austen . Nazis - NcneAAA . ( 11r . Frost ' S lettar attached hereto as E ::hi bit T . Tile Hotion carried unani mausly . The 'Last Appeal t:; be heard by the 3oard was the following : AP,PE�P!L GF BFeU �►^ ' G: R■IG ► � 'L°ELlY' N'T , RE.O,UEST7G ALImfiGRIZATION E'?�C`-M THE ZNIi1G EOARD OF APPEAgL.S . 11 ER ART•^ICaE�XII , SrECTION 5 OF THE TOWN OE' I . CA ZCNI�VG ORDINANG•E , TrJ MA l' NTAIN AN ACCESSOR:� B ■ �Il■ JG C•ONT� �■: ■ G A GARAGE , ST�JRAGE �iND A DF ; -1 7 .Ti�IG UNITON AA NON- GONFC ■: G PRO'PER.T`I •'�A�TED AT 1G55 tPC® , " :ROAD , TO,I?7N pi F 11 lylrb.l _� 4 • U OFA ITHtACI TA% PARCG.1L N0" � 2-'1 - 1 , AGR■I e �I�STh+ICT ( R- 30 rG � •I'ICNS SAID PROPERTY IS NDN-"CONFaO, , " a ■ G BECAUSE •IT C©NT�AIlIS 'T'rIO SEIPARATL' S+�IGL; -FA. + ® `L BWI G,S•,.* 1 GNL+Y ' GNE REQS• E: T< T-�' BUT�LDING°' ^N A S+IZ■ tGLE PAR �� OF . 7�AAI1: IS PERMI,• •.� _ APPEiIJ�ANT FURTFIER REQUESTS` A VARIANCE"'FROMARTIC«LE V , S+ECTI�N 20 , ;,f MAI�:iT�AIN Tn CCES ©RY EUS ■ ,ING 16 1`% 2`�FEET ( + CR -")'`� IN` HEHIGHT , WHEREAS 15 E^7 TJ I►S THE MAXD4UM HEIGHT PERMITTED . . — - — Mr . Bruce Rightmyer appeared before the Board and explained that he built the garage in question to house boats which he owns . He stated that he did not knew that he needed permits to build the garage . ldr . Rightmver stated that he will withdraw the duelling unit appeal . Both he and Mr . Frost presented photos of the property and the buildings on the property . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . ® Hr . and tfrs . Ronald Krantz spoke to the Board opp? sing the garage , the way it was built , and the size of it . Town of Iti•laca Zoning Board of Appeals September � ? , I qq -' • .. 6 . that the connection of the septic system Will be approved by the end the _rear bt: the Tompkins Count,. Health Department . 7 . that there will be proper landscaping done to screen the property from th ne i (fh rs and such plantings will. be approved by the Torn r lannina staff . A vrr_ = 1. n the 1lotion resulted as fol '_ oews : Aves - King , Scala . Hines . Austen . Nays - Ncne . The Hcti .� n was carried unanimous - v . 140TIC By 1r1r . Pet = Scala , sec ;; nded by 1Ir . El . yard King : RESCLVED . ttlat the T , rrri Ci Ithaca Zoning Board of ? i: r. eal :: runt an -I here jc � grant tl'e ,yr• ; ellint , LHr . Ri .;htmyer , permission to ma _ nt- 7 an zcCess =v bL11 -: 4 _? ".: With a height of 16 . G tEEt , with th = follc wina findina and Condition : 10 that the proper landscaping be done and approved by To:,m Planning stat = . 2 . that .1:e added hei ,ht is necessary to permit overhead doers to char r c ' ® line . A vote cn the notion resulted as folloWs : Aves - Scala , King . Hines , Austen . Nays - None . The Motion carried unanimously . ADJOUR:II [E.IT Upon Motion , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 p . m . APPROVED : - - - - - - - - - - - - - Connie J . Holcomb Recording Secretary ® Edward Austen , Chairman t EL � ` \P TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS L A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , MARCH 24 , 1993 7 : 00 P . M . By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday , March 24 , 1993 , 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 SUSAN WEITZ , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 AND 12 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF A BED AND BREAKFAST FOR UP TO FOUR LODGERS AT 312 SALEM DRIVE , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 70- 9 - 5 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF RICHARD BRUNO , II , OWNER , RICHARD BRUNO , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO PERMIT A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK OF 29 . 3 FEET + ( 30 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) , LOCATED AT 4 WINNERS CIRCLE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 58 - 1 - 8 . 6 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF BRUCE G . RIGHTMYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A MODIFICATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF A ® SPECIAL APPROVAL GRANTED UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON SEPTEMBER 23 , 1992 , TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE PLUMBING WITHIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 155 POOLE ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32 - 1 - 1 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID BOARD IN THEIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL STATED " THAT THERE WILL BE NO PLUMBING TO THE BUILDING AND THE TUB THAT IS THERE NOW , WILL BE REMOVED " . APPEAL OF DAVID BOWLSBY , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A SPECIAL APPROVAL UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , AND / OR VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , AND ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE A SECOND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT LOCATED AT 829 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 25 - 2 - 38 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A PARCEL OF LAND . THE APPELLANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A BUILDING MEETING THE DEFINITION OF A DWELLING UNIT , ON CAYUGA LAKE ( BETWEEN THE HIGH WATER AND LOW WATER MARK ) , AND USE THE BUILDING FOR PERSONAL ACCESSORY USE . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent or in person . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1783 Dated : March 16 , 1993 Publish : March 19 , 1993 Town of Ithaca . Zoning Board of Appeals September 23 , 1992 After further discussion , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment MOTION Hr . Edward King , seconded by Mr , Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals make a negative determination of environmental signifcance in the mattere and bofdtir � Bruce G . Rightmyer ' s request to maintain an accessory garage and a storage area d at 155 Po locate building containing s ole Road , Tom of Ithaca Tax Pard '_ Nc . 32 - 1 - 1 , in accordance with the Appellant t s Statement his request to maintain a dawelling unit in said accessory the Board ch thacri ;. gill re used only as .x gara7e and accesscry buildibuilding such that i = limitation by 1 - 1 / 2 feet , ADID ng exceeding the garage hei7 t FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the facts as found b � p Eiken in his revie �,j of the envi rcnmental assess 1 - Tanner Richard �. . 1902 . i, cn � form , dated September A vote on the 'Motion resulted as follows : AVPs - King , Scala , Austen . �1aYs - None , Abstention - Hines . [ The Short Environmental Assessment Fc rm is attached hereto as Exhibit � 7 . ] ?MOTION By Elr . Pete Scala , seconded by fir . Edward King ~ RESOLVED , that the Tosm : o_f Ithaca, Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby grant Special A " "„ 1 does pprcval to the' Appellant , Mr . Bruce Rightmyer , to maintain an accessory building -containing a garage and storage area on a non - conforming property located . at 155 Poole Roa Agricultural District , with the l TO . ,wn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 1 - 1 , follv, �ing . findings and conditions :" 1 that there is a need for the garage for the storage of PMr . Ri eL s boats . htm r ' g y = • thatthe property in question is 7 . 9 acres , that the matter is in compliance with Section paragraphs a - f of the To:•m of Ithaca Zoning Ordinancearagraph 7 , Sub - 4 • that the Appellant has withdrawn his re building Will be used solely quest for a dwelling unit and the 1 as a garage and for storage . 5 , that there will be no plumbing to the building and the tub that is there now will be removed .