Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-05-12 FLED TOWN OF ITHACA TCyWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS pater`► 43 MAY 12 , 1993 CIerI��Gc�� L, 1-1n1a� The following matters were heard on May 12 , 1993 by the Board : APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM MARCH 24 , 1993 ) 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 FETING 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 UNTIL JUNE 9 , 1993 . APPEAL OF ELIZABETH DELAHANTY , APPELLANT , STEPHEN GIBIAN , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A NONCONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 340 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 66 - 3- 4 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A NEW 16 FOOT X 21 FOOT ENCLOSED LIVING AREA AND AN 8 FOOT X 8 FOOT OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO BE ADDED TO THE REAR OF SAID RESIDENCE , WHICH IS LOCATED 2 FEET + FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ( 25 FOOT SETBACK • REQUIRED ) . THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS AN AVERAGE LOT DEPTH OF 87 FEET + ( 150 FOOT LOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL OF PATRICIA AND STEPHEN LUCENTE , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ALTER THE USE OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 981 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 21 - 2 - 30 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ALTERATION CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CONTAINING A THREE -CAR GARAGE WITH A SECOND FLOOR STUDIO AND AN 8 FOOT X 12 FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH IS LOCATED 4 FEET + TO THE PROPERTY ' S NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ( 15 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED , SINCE SAID ACCESSORY BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S FRONT YARD ( SUCH BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ) AND ITS PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO BE 19 FEET + ( 15 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION REQUIRED ) . THE BUILDING LOT IS 50 FEET + WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ( 100 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . Fl� 1 ,owN OF i7mACA TOWN OF ITHACA Dat i I n u 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS • MAY 12 , 1993 Cie PRESENT : Edward Austen , Robert Hines , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Town Attorney John Barney , and Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost . ABSENT : Edward King . OTHERS : G . C . Kugler , Stephen B . Gibian , Steve Lucente , Pat Lucente , Rocky Lucente , Larry Fabbroni , and Elizabeth Delahanty . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings were completed and in order . The first Appeal on the agenda to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL ( ADJOURNED FROM MARCH 24 , 1993 ) 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 . • Chairman Austen said this Bowlsby Appeal has been postponed tonight , and it will probably be heard on June 9 , 1993 . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ELIZABETH DELAHANTY , APPELLANT , STEPHEN GIBIAN , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 340 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 66- 3-4 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A NEW 16 FOOT X 21 FOOT ENCLOSED LIVING AREA AND AN 8 FOOT X 8 FOOT OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO BE ADDED TO THE REAR OF SAID RESIDENCE , WHICH IS LOCATED 2 FEET + FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ( 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) . THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS AN AVERAGE LOT DEPTH OF 87 FEET + ( 150 FOOT LOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . Stephen Gibian , agent for the appellant , made the correction of the outside wood deck size which was stated as " 8 FOOT X 8 FOOT " to be " 8 FOOT X ' 1 $ ' FOOT " which shows it that way on the drawing . He and Chairman Austen decided that this error could have been either typographical or due to the unclear printing on the drawing . He passed drawings around to the Board members . Mr . Gibian explained that this house at 340 Forest Home Drive was the smallest home in this group . It was built as a memorial for the owner ' s wife when it was originally constructed , and it has little slogans carved into it . He further stated that all three buildings make a special grouping , but this one was particularly nice because of its scale and size . He believed Mrs . Delahanty purchased the property two years ago , and because it was built as a memorial , that in some ways , it is not set up very well for house . The kitchen is only about 5 feet X 7 feet in size . The proposed addition is to add a kitchen and dining space to the rear of the lot . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 • Mr . Gibian stated that the idea was to match the form of the existing gable roof and main floor to the rear . He pointed out that all the proposed additional footprint occurs within the allowable building area on the lot in terms of setbacks from side yards , rear yards and front yards which are shown on the site plan . He stated that the proposed addition area is within the allowable building area , and the three current non- conforming area deficiencies are side yard , front yard and front depth , which deficiencies have existed prior to the zoning ordinance . He stated that 1943 was the start of construction , and 1956 the completion . Mr . Gibian passed around some photographs and sketch plans showing the proposed massings . Mr . Frost added other photographs beside the ones from Mr . Gibian , and asked Mr . Gibian whether the site plan was based on the survey map , to which Mr . Gibian replied affirmatively and added that it was referenced there . He stated that he located the trees , the manholes and things like that himself , but that the survey does show the house , wall , and shed . He stated that it was an odd lot , with one property line going across the road to some point in the other driving lane , and the back line was in the middle of Fall Creek . He guessed that it was subdivided from a larger parcel in the 1950s to which appellant Elizabeth Delahanty agreed . Upon Chairman Austen ' s question if any side yard dimensions were going to be changed , Mr . Gibian indicated that they were not and that the deficient side yard dimension was an existing condition and that the addition area was set back another 8- 10 feet from the required side yard setback . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Gibian stated that there was only one immediate neighbor , Kenneth and Helen Greisen , and he believed all the other surrounding properties were owned by Cornell University Plantations . He passed around a letter from Helen Greisen . Mr . Frost stated that , for the benefit of the Board , he attempted to place a wheelbarrow and trash cans in the photographs to give some idea where the outer limits of the wall for the addition would be in regard to the creek in back . Upon reading Ms . Greisen ' s letter , Ms . Delahanty stated to Chairman Austen that even when the Greisen ' s home was surrounded by water , hers was not . Mr . Frost stated that the appropriate section of our flood regulations of the zoning ordinance will apply to this building and that , should the Board grant the approval for this addition , that he will be meeting with the architect tomorrow to make sure that they comply with the flood sections . The article is called a Flood Zone 8 . Ms . Delahanty stated that she was required to have flood insurance at that location . Chairman Austen read the above discussed letter into the minutes as follows : " [ From ] 336 Forest Home Drive , Ithaca , MY 14850 [ it was written ] May 12 , 1993 [ . ] To Whom It May Concern : My husband and I have lived at the above address since August , 1976 , and have never seen high water flood the property at 340 Forest Home Drive , even at times , such as 1981 when our own house was surrounded by water . We have seen the plans for the new addition to the house at 340 , and approve of them in every way . The addition will greatly enhance the owner ' s comfort , increase the value of the house , will improve its appearance , and will have little effect on us as far as I can see . Sincerely , Helen Greisen " Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 • Chairman Austen stated that if no one wishes to speak from the public , the Board would close the public hearing and would address the environmental assessment form which was prepared by George Frantz on May 10 , 1993 . After Chairman Austen read the main points from the assessment report , Mr . Frost wanted to clarify that the floodway is actually where they have water , not dry land . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala $ RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative determina- tion of environmental significance and that we adopt as facts , set forth thereof , those findings which George Frantz made in the report on , May 10 , 1993 , and parts of which was read by the Chair and that we hold as an evidentiary document the site plans prepared by Mr . Gibian , dated April 27 , 1993 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . • Upon general discussion of the location and appearance of the house , Mr . Gibian stated the addition of this house was to enhance the house by improving on the original gable core which is presently surrounded by low , flat roofing . The idea was to almost strengthen it by adding another one like it and to frame the existing archway entrance . Chairman Austen asked if the material used would be stone to which Mr . Gibian replied that it probably would not be stone due to budget and , for flood reasons , it may have to be on a pier foundation which does not go along very well with stone . He further stated that it would probably be made of stucco to try to blend in , but it would probably not be made of stone . Without any further questions from the Board , and without further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a motion . MOTION By Mr . Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant to the Appellant a Special Approval authorization for the construction for the addition to the premises known as 340 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3- 4 . 1 , as shown on the site plan submitted for the application , as well as other architectural documents prepared by Mr . Gibian with the findings set forth in the report of George Frantz , earlier referred to , in the Environmental Assessment Form , with the following additional findings and condition . 1 . That this residence is in a scenic area of Tompkins County , bordered on one side by Fall Creek , and whatever detriments might accrue to the neighbors as a result of the proposed construction being completed , they certainly are far outweighed by the benefits which accrue the owner by making the addition to this property . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 a2 . Architecturally , it is certainly in keeping with the neighborhood . 3 . That the construction be substantially in accordance with the plans as presented to this Board , that such modifications may be required to comply with the Flood Protection Law of the Town of Ithaca . 4 . That the letter of neighbor , Helen Greisen , 336 Forest Home Drive , Ithaca , New York show that there is no opposition to the addition . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The next Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF PATRICIA AND STEPHEN LUCENTE , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ALTER THE USE OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING/LOT LOCATED AT 981 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 21-2- 30 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . SAID ALTERATION CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CONTAINING A THREE-CAR GARAGE WITH A SECOND FLOOR STUDIO AND AN 8 FOOT X 12 FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH IS LOCATED 4 FEET + TO THE PROPERTY ' S NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ( 15 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED , SINCE SAID ACCESSORY BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S FRONT YARD ( SUCH BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ) AND ITS PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO BE 19 FEET + ( 15 FOOT HEIGHT To TATION REQUIRED ) . THE BUILDING LOT IS 50 FEET + WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ( 100 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . Chairman Austen opened the forum by requesting why the addition is needed and requesting clarification of the location of the garage to which Larry Fabbroni pointed out on the sketch that it was located just to the west . He stated that the Appeal was pretty much self- explanatory as far as what Mr . Lucente would like to add to his house and what he has in mind for the garage . The studio over it is just another room where , basically , he intends to use it as a study , as you might in your own house . Mr . Fabbroni stated that some of the practical difficulties in doing this the normal way is the steep slope . Number one , there is about a 20 foot drop from where you see the garage down to the level of the house . Therefore , the choices are of cutting into the hillside or making an additional space in the garage . The side yard to the north is , in a way , buffered by a ravine that exists on the adjacent property and the next house to the north is approximately 50- 60 feet from the lot line . He stated that the 4 foot dimension , while sounding pretty small , is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the next house is up quite a ways . He stated that the lot itself , even though it is non- conforming , is just short of 15 , 000 square feet which is the legal size lot in this area . He said that the width is one of the biggest constraints , as is the slope . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the reason Mr . Lucente would like to add on in this manner is that he shares a driveway with two neighbors , and this is the logical access and place for the addition . It is the only other flat place on this lot to put a structure . He also stated that even though it is in the front yard , the Board will note that it is almost 150 feet from the road . Referring to Mr . Hines ' question , if anyone could even see the Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 building from the road , he stated that Mr . Lucente ' s Appeal as to the 4 foot of height would not make any difference . He concluded that this addition could be attached to the house , working around the height problem , with the exception that the slope is severe between the house site and the garage site . He stated that the Lucentes live there , making this their home , observing that most of the properties around them are rentals and that they are not going to impact other permanent residents of the area by the relief they are asking for . They need room for their expanding family , and they are sitting on a much higher value than when they first bought the house . He stated that the Lucentes would like to enjoy it as their home , explaining that anyone who lives on the lake knows how valuable they are today . Mr . Hines agreed that while it may not be impossible to see the house from the road , it would be difficult to do so . He expressed his concern relative to the height in this general neighborhood as it would pertain to the neighbor ' s views . Knowing the area , Mr . Hines assumed that it would not , as did the Board upon a general discussion . Chairman Austen questioned the size of the lot , observing that it may very well be the smallest lot on the lake . Therefore , he stated that he felt that the side yard line was being pushed to the extreme . An observation was made that the gully was there , and Mr . Fabbroni stated that he believed that the existing house was closer to the line than the proposed addition . He stated that the northeast corner of the house was closer to the line than the proposed addition . Discussion followed relative to the location and size of the gully . Trying to clarify the positioning of the addition , the Board members discussed what the bold , black line was on the sketch . Mr . Lucente explained that the addition would extend about 4 feet beyond the bold line because the addition to the foyer would take in part of the existing porch today . Therefore , the addition would probably result in being approximately 4 feet from the line . Mr . Lucente explained that there is approximately 4 feet of existing porch which would be utilized and needed for the addition . Therefore , he would just carry it on for 4 more feet . Chairman Austen asked that on top of the existing 4 feet , the Lucentes would come out 4 feet more . Mr . Lucente indicated that was true and going 12 feet over ; i . e . , out 4 and over 12 , bringing the addition to a place he indicated on the sketch . Chairman Austen stated that he did not see anything on the sketch to where the addition is going to be placed , adding that he questioned that there was not going to be any change at one point on the sketch . Mr . Lucente offered to draw in the addition on the sketch , referring to the narrow " X " on the sketch . Mr . Lucente and Mr . Barney discussed the clarification as to the additions , resulting in Mr . Lucente stating that what is in the black line is existing , with the only change being the 4 foot addition . Mr . Barney questioned that what the Board is now looking at is the house and a porch around the house , two sides , to which Mr . Lucente agreed . Mr . Barney asked if Mr . Lucente was going to enclose that porch and then add another addition . Mr . Lucente stated that , essentially what he wanted to do , is to demolish the existing porch ( which you could see in the dotted line ) and to carry it out another couple of feet beyond it . Mr . Barney continued to clarify the addition , stating that the Lucentes would be adding on a second story as well . Mr . Lucente agreed with this observation . Mr . Lucente stated that the extension would be upstairs as well as downstairs . Mr . Hines asked Mr . Fabbroni his estimate of the grade involved to which he replied one -on- one , explaining that it was pretty steep . Mr . Austen stated that that would be 45 ' . Mr . Hines asked if that had been excavated out . Mr . Fabbroni said that where the driveway- the parking area is now , is flat . Chairman Austin asked if the property was excavated out Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 to build the house there , leaving that steep a slope . Mr . Lucente stated that the house was originally built approximately 70 years ago . Mr . Scala wanted to know if Mr . Lucente needed a set of steps to go to the house . Mr . Lucente said there were approximately 18 steps to which Mr . Scala asked if there were existing steps . Mr . Lucente said that these steps gave access to the parking area , therefore , using the same steps . Mr . Barney asked for clarification of the map relative to the exact position of the addition , stating that Mr . Lucente was going to extend out to the north 8 feet , which is 4 feet more than is shown on this map , sketch , or survey . Mr . Fabbroni agreed . Mr . Barney stated that that extension is then going to proceed to the east , this being 12 feet , therefore this being a 12 foot X 4 foot extension over and above what is shown within the black lines . Mr . Fabbroni agreed . Mr . Barney then stated that to the east , ignoring the black lines , it appears to show that there is a porch or a deck that is not part of the enclosed part of the house at this point . Mr . Fabbroni agreed that this was correct . Mr . Barney then asked if it was Mr . Lucente ' s intention to enclose all of that area so that there he would have an enclosed house . Mr . Fabbroni said that that was incorrect , that the deck was not enclosed , just the 8 X 12 feet was only going to be enclosed . Mr . Barney then stated that the only addition was going to be the 8 X 12 foot addition on the northwest corner of the house . Mr . Frost stated that it is confusing as to whether or not there is a second floor addition , and if so , what is its dimension . Both Mr . Lucente and Mr . Fabbroni answered 8 X 12 feet . Mr . Frost then asked if it was to extend any further than 12 foot from the existing nonconforming building setback . Mr . Fabbroni made the comment that the he did not believe that any part of the new corner of this addition would be any closer to that line than the existing northeast corner of the existing porch . Mr . Frost stated that this would then be the same setback , approximately 4 plus or minus feet . Mr . Barney asked what facilities are planned to be installed in this garage / studio and what did Mr . Lucente mean by studio . Mr . Lucente answered that there was to be plumbing , bathroom , and shower , but no kitchen . Mr . Lucente explained that he was a composer and the area would be used by him for that purpose , as a studio . Mr . Barney asked if there would be any hot plates and refrigerator to which Mr . Lucente answered no . Since there appears to be an increase in his family , Mr . Lucente stated that the room which he is presently using as a studio would become the new baby ' s room . Therefore he needs this addition to carry on with his music , and he needs a place to store his cars . Mr . Scala asked if the upstairs was going to be heated to which Mr . Lucente answered yes . Mr . Frost then stated that this area would not be a dwelling unit , adding that for the record , if the Board prohibits him from having a refrigerator , he would not have the facilities to prepare food . Mr . Ellsworth asked if Mr . Lucente intends to have plumbing and a toilet . Mr . Lucente explained that due to the nature of his work , he would like to have a toilet and a shower . Mr . Ellsworth stated that he felt this setting was looking like a living area . Mr . Barney explained that a R- 15 zone would only allow one building with dwelling units and was concerned that once the house was sold , someone might go into the house that has this plumbing and everything installed , add a refrigerator and hot plate or two burner stove , and then there is a second dwelling unit on the property that should not be there . Mr . Lucente said that as he has been envisioning the second floor studio at this time , it would be windowless in order to ensure sound-proofing because he did not want to disturb anyone . He felt that major renovations would have to be done if anyone would want to make that type of area rentable . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 • Mr . Frost stated that just to complicate issues , if the Board was to give Mr . Lucente a building permit as a music studio and you omitted windows , which would be required for habitable space , then Mr . Lucente should understand that if he did construct the studio without windows the building certificate would then state that he could not do anything else with this structure , other than a music studio . Mr . Lucente stated that he had no problem with that . Mr . Frost explained that the Town ' s Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as a dwelling providing complete living facilities for one family . When one goes into building code , it then talks about a dwelling unit as a place that offers sleeping , sanitary and cooking facilities . The cooking part of the code is what triggers the dwelling unit definition . At that point , Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . He continued by reading the Environmental Assessment Form reviewed by George Frantz on May 11 , 1993 . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative determina- tion of environmental significance and that we adopt as findings and facts , set forth thereof , those findings which George Frantz made in the report dated May 11 , 1993 , and the facts set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form and the attachments to it , and further finding that the variance for the height of the accessory building , if granted , would have very little impact on neighbors by reason of the grade , terrain , and visibility from the road is probably non- existent . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth . Nays - None . Discussion followed by Mr . Scala questioning if the Board could make some mention of the steep slope , even though the Environmental Assessment Form states that there is no potential for erosion . He would like to make mention of the fact that Mr . Lucente would insure that in the construction of the garage , he would not let any of the drainage be upset and have cause for potential erosion to the neighboring property , as well as to the existing houses . Mr . Frost spoke about using a silt fence . Mr . Hines stated he had no objection and that the Board could incorporate in the findings of fact that construction methods are available which would be appropriately employed to minimize any erosion . The findings can include the possibility that the construction could take place conforming to the standards which have not yet been adopted because the variance has not yet been granted. Mr . Fabbroni stated that the addition would be on a flat area , but agreed that a possibility is to use the silt fence as Mr . Frost suggested . Chairman Austen stated he believes that area is shale , if it conforms to the rest of the immediate area . Mr . Ellsworth continued to observe that the trickier part would be the far out foyer addition , Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 • near the gully because of the drop off there . Upon discussion of the depth of the gully , Mr . Lucente stated that if a line was drawn from the house site itself , over the gully , he believes the depth to be 16 - 18 feet deep . After more discussion , Mr . Ellsworth maintained that the important part of this issue is that the Board did not want any blockage of the gully . Mr . Hines stated in his motion , in respect to that problem , there are engineering techniques available which would substantially eliminate any adverse problems . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Fabbroni if he was engineering this for Mr . Lucente . Mr . Fabbroni indicated yes and went on to say that the silt fence was sufficient , he thinks that the it would insure that the loose dirt would not get in the gully . He further stated that as far as the stream goes itself , a practical aspect is that if the construction blocked the stream , the operations would be in big trouble because they would be " mudded " right out . He suggested to the Board that the construction would be self-policing in that the gully as well as just below the garage site , and would be standard fare . It was then established by Chairman Austen and Mr . Hines that the Board was looking at a special approval for the building and a variance for the height . Chairman Austen expressed that he was initially concerned about pushing the total side lot line to lesser than presently exists , especially because this particular lot is probably one of the narrowest lots on the lake , an already deficient lot size . Mr . Scala again brought up that , as he understands it , the drawing does not show the full footprint of the existing house . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this was not the case and that what Mr . Lucente was going to add was to the northwest corner of the house , not the porch . He said that if you add an 8 foot north by 12 foot east block you would know where the addition is planned . Mr . Scala asked if this then does not bring it any closer to the existing porch . Mr . Fabbroni said they believe the very northeast corner of the structure Mr . Scala was looking at is already 4 feet , plus or minus from line . Mr . Scala and Mr . Frost went over the drawing to ascertain the position of the addition . Mr . Scala then stated that the drawings were not complete , and Mr . Lucente agreed . Mr . Frost stated that the plot map shows the covered porch of the existing house , and not the addition . Mr . Lucente apologized for not presenting a better drawing . Chairman Austen stated that usually the Board expects a better drawing of the dimensions of the proposed addition , right to the tenth of a foot . He further stated that the Board could not go by the submitted map as to what the addition would be . Mr . Frost suggested that if this was an issue , a contingency of approval could be to have a survey map submitted . In addressing Chairman Austen ' s concerns , Mr . Hines explained some of the historical background of lake property located south of the Ithaca Yacht Club . He stated that prior to the construction of Route 89 , a 50 foot lot was essentially considered the standard lot at that time . He further stated that the Board has established the recognition of the historical fact of 50 foot lots to which Mr . Barney reminded the Board that variances have also been denied for these very narrow lots . Mr . Hines said that he did not think that the Board should punish an owner who , in good faith , buys a 50 foot lot and then uses it as a residential lot . Chairman Austen said that even though he agreed with Mr . Hines he was concerned about cutting down established dimensions . Mr . Hines stated that , as he understands it , the end result of the addition will be two 4 foot points on the property . Discussion followed about the lot line and the effect the gully has on it . Chairman Austen stated that he did not see anyone present representing the McHughs or the Loehrs to speak in this . Mr . Barney stated that he actually represents both the McHughs and the Loehrs . He said they both were out of town . Mr . Austen stated that he assumed they both received notification of this hearing . Mr . Hines said that there was a for sale sign at the top of the Loehr property to which Mr . Barney agreed that the property was for sale . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 Mr . Hines stated that the Board is dealing with a request for special approval . It appeared to Mr . Hines that the new criterion is whether Mr . Lucente ' s addition does harm to the neighbors as a result of granting special approval for this construction . Mr . Barney stated that was true regarding the garage . Mr . Hines stated that was true , as well , for the addition to which Mr . Barney disagreed . Mr . Barney stated that the addition was an enlargement to an already non- conforming use which is governed by Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , subparagraphs a-h . Mr . Hines stated that most of the criteria under Section 77 is substantially the same . Mr . Barney agreed that it is similar . Mr . Hines stated that , relative to what Mr . Barney stated , Mr . Hines said that one motion for special approval for the house is appropriate . Mr . Barney agreed . Mr . Hines then stated that the Board would then deal with the garage to which Mr . Barney indicated that that was correct , if the Board so chose . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that the Board grant to the Appellants , Patricia and Stephen Lucente , Special Approval for construction of additions and alterations to the dwelling house on the property known as 981 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 30 , with the following findings and conditions : 1 ) That the approval be granted as described and set forth in the Appellant ' s sketches and plans submitted with his application , and in particular that the addition of the enclosed area on the northwest corner of the house , at no point , be closer than 4 feet to the north line of the property . 2 ) That the Board adopt the findings of the Planning Department dated May 11 , 1993 and the environmental findings and the findings of the testimony that the lot was on a steep grade and because of the grade and terrain , there would be very little impact on the neighbors and that it is in keeping with the architecture in the area . 3 ) That the house is fairly small and the lot measures 50 feet in width and the house is located at an angle to the property , it is not an untypical lot of Cayuga Lake property in the Town of Ithaca . 4 ) That the Appellant provide a survey plat showing the proposed construction prepared by the Appellant ' s engineer to the satisfaction of the Building and Zoning Enforcement Officer before issuing a building permit . 5 ) That the survey should show the whole proposed addition to the house , but it does not need to be resurveyed in so doing , although it should show the proposed dimensions and the dimensions between the lot lines and the proposed addition . 6 ) That construction methods be used during the course of construction which would prevent erosion and alteration of drainage paths . 7 ) That the construction be substantially in accordance with plans , elevations , and the like which have been submitted in support of the application . 8 ) That the request is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , subparagraphs a-h of said Ordinance . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 With no further discussion , a vote was taken for the above motion which referred only to the residence , not the garage , and resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth . Nays - None . Chairman Austin opened the discussion on the variance for the garage which Mr . Lucente is seeking a height of 19 feet whereas 15 feet is the ordinance limit . Chairman Austen asked if this garage construction was due to the new guardrails on the highway , limiting parking on Route 89 . General comment was that 90 percent of the parking was wiped out due to the new guardrails . Mr . Lucente stated that the distance between the Lucente residence and the road has a 70 foot vertical drop . Chairman Austen commented that , in his opinion , the garage was a good addition to enable vehicles to be off the road . He reiterated that , as the Board had discussed before , this addition could not be living quarters . It must be strictly a music studio . He asked Mr . Lucente why is there a need for a height of 19 feet . Mr . Fabbroni stated there was no other flat place on the lot to put that room . Looking at the map , Mr . Frost stated that it did not clearly reflect the drop and slope on the north side of the building ( the back side of the garage ) . He commented that the new doors would be on the south side . Mr . Lucente indicated that was true . Mr . Frost indicated that it did drop off toward the gorge on the back side , therefore the measurement was from the lowest point of the lot to the top of the roof . Mr . Frost asked Mr . Lucente if the 18 feet shown on the sketch reflects the lowest point on the back end of the building which will have the grade drop down . Mr . Lucente stated that he did not think so . Mr . Frost then stated that the Board would then possibly be looking at a garage which would be even more than 18 feet . Mr . Lucente stated that , under that definition , he believed the Board was looking at such a possibility . He stated that it was his intention to set piers to carry the weight of the slab to the north and then to bury them . Mr . Frost asked what was the slope on the roof top which Mr . Lucente answered that it would be identical to the house because he did not want a mis -match of the roofs . After general discussions , Mr . Hines talked about accessory buildings on lots , and he commented that he felt this was a creation of living space . Mr . Barney stated that technically Mr . Hines was correct and legally the Board could not do this . Mr . Frost stated that the Lucentes were allowed to have an accessory building and this is what the other component of this Appeal was about . An accessory building other than a garage is allowed in a rear yard , and this was a front yard . He added that placement of the building on the down hill side would be more difficult . Chairman Austen stated that this placement was not unusual on lakeside property . Mr . Frost commented that this technically is a garage / accessory building . Mr . Hines expressed concern about the proposed motion and that some part show that this not look at all like a residence . Mr . Scala asked why the reference to this building as an accessory building rather than a 3 car garage . Mr . Frost stated that the use of the stairs goes beyond that of a garage . Mr . Hines asked how critical a shower was to the addition . Mr . Frost stated that by strictly applying the ordinance , that absent the definition of a dwelling unit , he did not see how the Board could necessarily prohibit the sanitary portion of an accessory building- - as long as it did not meet the definition of the dwelling unit . He added that he could see that , in granting the approval , the Board could condition anything it wanted . Mr . Fabbroni stated that this was designed in this manner because of the slopes . He said that if the Board pictured the garage attached to the house , many of the things the Board is worrying about would not really be of any concern , including the height . Mr . Hines agreed with the exception that an extra mass was being created on the property . He added that he did not say that having the use that Mr . Lucente intends is objectionable , but he did say that people worry about the students and extra people and cars . He stated that if people see anything of any semblance of a residential use , people get excited . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 Mr . Frost asked how often does the band get together to which Mr . Lucente replied on a regular basis . Mr . Barney asked what Mr . Lucente meant by regular- -weekly or monthly . Mr . Lucente answered " daily" , stating that there were times when he would use the studio alone and there would be times when the band was there .. Mr . Barney and Chairman Austen stated that the area of the garage would be 22 X 30 feet , with Mr . Scala stating that he now understood that there is a full upstairs . Mr . Austen then stated that he noticed something he had not seen before and that was there was a full outside stairway , going up . Mr . Lucente stated that was correct , that the stairs were going up from the house to the parking area . He explained that there was an outside entrance to the second floor of the studio . Mr . Fabbroni further stated that if this was not done in this manner , the way to get into the studio would have to be through the inside of the garage , by the cars . Mr . Chairman Austen stated that there would be ample room with the size of the garage , and he said that he had not seen any stairway located on the drawing . Mr . Ellsworth noticed this was on the back , on the floor plan of the drawings submitted . Mr . Frost and Chairman Austen said that it should show on the elevation plan . Mr . Hines stated that the building would not be used as a dwelling to which Chairman Austen stated that it was already in the motion . Mr . Barney asked how crucial it was to have a shower in there . Mr . Hines stated that he was not exited about a shower , but rather baning a toilet , but with a group of people , one should probably have a toilet . Mr . Lucente addressed the issue , stating that rehearsal and playing the musical instruments was likened to a physical workout . He stated that with a family , he did not want the musicians in the house , using the facilities . Discussion followed , and Mr . Barney stated that it was approaching the stage of using it as a dwelling unit as opposed to a place to have to musicians rehearse . Mr . Ellsworth expressed concern that once the water and the drainage ( the sanitary ) was made available , what was left to have the electric stove , etc . Mr . Lucente expressed the view that if he were a mechanic or a fisherman , and his wife did not want him to come into the house , this is the type of situation he has with the studio . Mr . Barney explained that Mr . Lucente was coming to a Board who turned down an applicant to have even a toilet in a garage because of the circumstances . He stated that he was suggesting that perhaps Mr . Lucente should be content with only the toilet . Chairman Austen stated this Board would not listen to an Appeal to make this into an apartment . Mr . Hines stated that he was uncomfortable with this because it sounds more and more like another room in Mr . Lucente ' s house . Chairman Austen advised that although this scenario might not happen with Mr . Lucente , should someone else move in , this would be a perfect set up for another bedroom or two or an apartment . He added that the Board was very concerned about this , denying quite a few to have accessory buildings fixed up so they could be used as a dwelling unit . He asked Mr . Lucente to confirm he would have no windows in the building , as shown on the plan . Mr . Lucente indicated this was true , as part of his final plans . Mr . Frost wanted clarification of the idea of approving the plan with the idea of with or without windows or whether it does not matter to Mr . Lucente , Mr . Hines stated there would be a sink and toilet in the facility and that the Board make as a finding of fact that the terrain , location of the residents ' house is such that the location of the garage on any other part of the lot is impractical and that most everybody on the lake has a garage in that particular location so the architecture fits the area and that the height , by reason of the grade and the terrain and location of the adjacent houses will not appear to obscure the sight line of anybody who is using the lake or viewing the lake from the roadway . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 Chairman Austen asked if there was any further discussion . Mr . Scala asked the significance of windows versus no windows , and Mr . Frost replied that code normally would- require windows for light as well as ventilation . He stated that he could understand the construction solely for a sound studio that the omission of windows can be justified . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Board allow for the height variance for Patricia and Stephen Lucente at 981 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 30 , to proceed with the construction of an accessory building as a three car garage with a second floor studio , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . That there would be an outside stairway , north , towards the lake- -a provision for an outside stairway going from the upper studio area , down to the existing stairway which leads to the house . 2 . The upper second floor studio would be allowed to have a full bathroom ( toilet , sink and shower ) . 3 . There would be a heating system , but there would be no other utilities so that there would be no way in which this could be used as an apartment ; no refrigera- tor and no stove . 4 . That there would be a requirement for a proper survey to show the location of the garage on the lot . 5 . That there would be no adverse effects on the environment so far as it affects erosion . 6 . That there would be a build up on the north side so that the overall height of the building , from any point around the building , would be less than 19 feet . 7 . That it is the intention to have the garage contiguous to the parking area and parking would be such as to allow , not only the proprietor , but his guests as well . 8 . That the construction be done in a manner with appropriate engineering techniques to eliminate erosion and maintain proper drainage . 9 . That the addition be substantially in accordance with the plans as submitted , with the option to delete the windows . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Scala , Ellsworth , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . ADJOURNMENT v Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals May 12 , 1993 • Upon motion , the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 50 P . M . Roberta H . Komaromi C� 1 Recording Secretary APPROVED : Edward Austen , Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , MAY 12 , 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 , May 12 , 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 ( ADJOURNED FROM MARCH 24 , 1993 ) 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 . APPEAL OF ELIZABETH DELAHANTY , APPELLANT , STEPHEN GIBIAN , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NONCONFORMING SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A NONCONFORMING BUILDING /LOT LOCATED AT 340 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 66 - 3- 4 . 1 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF A NEW 16 FOOT X 21 FOOT ENCLOSED LIVING AREA AND AN 8 FOOT X 8 FOOT OUTSIDE WOOD DECK TO BE ADDED TO THE REAR OF SAID RESIDENCE , WHICH IS LOCATED 2 FEET + FROM THE ROAD RIGHT-OF -WAY LINE ( 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) . THE PARCEL OF LAND HAS AN AVERAGE LOT DEPTH OF 87 FEET + ( 150 FOOT LOT DEPTH REQUIRED ) . APPEAL OF PATRICIA AND STEPHEN LUCENTE , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ALTER THE USE OF A NONCONFORMING BUILDING / LOT LOCATED AT 981 TAUGHANNOCK BOULEVARD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 21 - 2 - 30 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , SAID ALTERATION CONSISTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING CONTAINING A THREE- CAR GARAGE WITH A SECOND FLOOR STUDIO AND AN 8 FOOT X 12 FOOT ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH IS LOCATED 4 FEET + TO THE PROPERTY ' S NORTH SIDE LOT LINE ( 15 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BEING REQUIRED ) . VARIANCES FROM ARTICLE IV , SECTION 13 , OF THE ORDINANCE MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED , SINCE SAID ACCESSORY BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN THE PROPERTY ' S FRONT YARD ( SUCH BUILDINGS MUST BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD ) AND ITS PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO BE 19 FEET + ( 15 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION REQUIRED ) . THE BUILDING LOT IS 50 FEET + WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK ( 100 FEET BEING REQUIRED ) . 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 : May 4 , 1993 Publish : May 7 , 1993