Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-07-14 TOWN OF ITHACA FlL� TOWN Of M4;((l ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS , JULY 14 , 1993 CJer • THE FOLLOVIING 14ATTERS WERE HEARD ON JULY 14 , 1993 BY THE BOARD : ' . APPEAL OF CHRISTOPHER MULLER , APPELLANT , JAMES HILKER , D . B . A . J & L BUILDERS , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 FEET + ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . SAID BUILDING IS TO BE LOCATED AT 1 JOHN STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 56 - 3- 13 . 29 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , GRANTED , APPEAL OF GREGAR BROUS , ET AL , APPELLANT , CHARLES GUTTMAN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUEST VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 2 , AND SECTION 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND SECTION 280A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SIDE BY SIDE TWO-FAMILY HOME , WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT HAVING AN EQUAL FLOOR AREA , ON A BUILDING LOT HAVING ONLY 30 FEET OF WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE ( AS WELL AS THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE ) . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 109 DREW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 28 - 1 - 34 . 23 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE PRIMARY UNIT OF A TWO -FAMILY HOME TO BE TWICE THE FLOOR AREA OF THE SECOND UNIT AND BUILDING LOTS TO BE 100 FEET WIDE AT THE STREET LINE AND 150 FEET WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK , GRANTED WITH CONDITION . • APPEAL OF DOROTHY CANFIELD , APPELLANT , THOMAS H . CANFIELD , JR . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 AND 23 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH HAS 30 FEET OF FRONTAGE AT THE STREET LINE ( 100 FEET REQUIRED ) , LOCATED AT 180 CALKINS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 32 - 2 - 13 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V , SECTION 20 , MAY ALSO BE REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 23 1 / 2 FEET + ( 15 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) , GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . EHRHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT , LOCATED AT 1027 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35 - 1 - 7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35 - 1 - 7 . 2 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE FACILITIES AND BUSINESS SPACE FOR G . W . EHRHART INC . , A PROPANE GAS SUPPLIER . GRANTED WITH CONDITION . APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . EHRHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 41 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO DEVELOP A RENTAL STORAGE FACILITY AT 1027 • ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 35 - 1 - 7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35 - 1 - 7 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . TOWN OF RHACA TOWN OF ITHACA Dste g 130A L ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS � ^ Clem • JULY 14 . 1993 PRESENT : Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , Acting Town Attorney Hugh C . Kent , Zoning Enforcement Officer/ Building Inspector Andrew Frost , Assistant Planner George C . Frantz , OTHERS : Christopher Muller , James Hilker , Gregar Brous , Charles Guttman , Esq . , Mimi Mehaffy , Mark Utter , Thomas H . Canfield , Jr . , Thomas Overbaugh , Kathryn Wolf . Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 05 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 CHRISTOPHER NJIaER , APPELLANT , JAMES HaJM , D . B . A . J & L BUILDERS , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 FEET + ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . SAID BUILDING IS TO BE LOCATED AT 1 JOHN STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 56- 3- 13 . 29 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . Christopher Muller spoke , giving his current address at 20 Pheasant Walk in Ithaca . • He said that he brought additional material for the Board to look at , including a quick , hand drawn sketch . Mr . Frost stated that , as the Board looks at the pictures , they do have a permit for this house and that there will be adjustment to the grade if necessary if this appeal is not granted . Mr . Muller said that the slope of the property is from one corner to the next on the topographical maps which shows almost 30 feet , and in order for him to build a house on the site ( economically and also to put in a garage ) , it was designed to place the garage underneath the one story family room . At that grade level , it is only up 22 feet from grade , going up 28 feet on the high side so that it is within the height variance according to the grade and the height . He showed the pictures of the houses in the neighborhood , particularly the three surrounding houses that are more than one story , primarily to show that the grade in the neighborhood is such that it would be almost impossible to build a house without it . Mr . Muller stated that the houses in the pictures are all adjacent properties . He further stated that the entire neighborhood is built with block houses because the houses are built on significant grades in that whole neighborhood . Mr . King commented that the land generally slopes off to the south , to which Mr . Muller confirmed this observation . . . actually , southwest . He stated that if you go up John Street , it goes up into the Eastern Heights Park , and that is the area that is the Park Lane extension into Route 79 . • Chairman Austen asked if the garage was an afterthought to which Mr . Muller stated . that it was not meant as an addition . Mr . Hilker stated that this was the exact same plan that they were going to do in the City of Ithaca and the Vine Street property , which was not possible due to the easement . Mr . Muller said this is the same design with the one door garage and the walkout . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 Chairman Austen opened the public hearing , and he asked if there was anyone who would wish to speak on this matter . Chairman Austen asked if number five is the next lot . It was stated that there is one left between the two lots , and Chairman Austen stated that three is a viable number . Mr . Muller said that was true and that there was a new house now constructed which must be either number seven or nine or something that also has a building down in back . Mr . Frost stated that there may have been another house with the height variance on John Street a few years ago . Mr . Hilker pointed out that this lot was set apart from others in that it was not over 30 feet in a vertical rise . No one appeared to address the Board , so Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen read Part III - Staff Recommendation of the Environmental Assessment Form . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals makes a negative determination based on the facts set forth in the report of George Frantz , on July 14 , 1993 with the additional fact that the situation is epidemic in Ithaca , with • the hills , and the neighboring properties accommodated , and the esthetics does not in any way impair the enjoyment of the neighboring properties or create any environmental impacts at 1 John Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 56 - 3- 13 . 29 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the Appellant , Christopher Muller a variance from the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a plan with the evaluation in excess of that otherwise specified , in this case 37 feet more or less feet rather than 30 feet , and as the Board reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form , adopt the findings and reports made therein , at 1 John Street , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56 - 3- 13 . 29 , with the following findings : 1 ) The facts set forth in the photographs in connection with this application the terrain is such that the construction of the house necessarily involves the • rear yard is substantially lower than the front yard , hence giving rise to the height in the rear . 2 ) Given the construction plans and photographs , the architectural appearance of the house is similar in character to the other houses in the neighborhood . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • 3 ) There is practical difficulty in constructing a house in any other way other than that which has been undertaken . 4 ) That this would impose no architectural burden on other homes or properties in the neighborhood , and that it is consistent with the architectural design of properties in the neighborhood . 5 ) That generally the house on the other three sides is only about 28 feet high , well within the limitation and that the variance is only on the south elevation , the 37 feet being to the peak of the roof and that additional height resulting from excavation down to provide entrance into a basement garage . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The second Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF GREGAR BROUS , ET AL , APPELLANT , CHARLES GUTTMAN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 2 , AND SECTION 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND SECTION 280A OF NEW YORK • STATE TOWN LAW , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SIDE BY SIDE TWO-FAMILY HOME , WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT HAVING AN EQUAL FLOOR AREA , ON A BUILDING LOT HAVING ONLY 30 FEET OF WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE ( AS WELL AS THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE ) . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 109 DREW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 28- 1-34 . 23 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE PRIMARY UNIT OF A TWO-FAMILY HOME TO BE TWICE THE FLOOR AREA OF THE SECOND UNIT AND BUILDING LOTS TO BE 100 FEET WIDE AT THE STREET LINE AND 150 FEET WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK . Chairman Austen asked for the date of the construction of the building to which Mr . Guttman said that Mr . Brous was not one of the original builders . He said that Mr . Brous purchased it several years ago , that it was originally built by other owners who , at that time , applied for a building permit . Mr . Brous and Mr . Frost looked through the files , finding that the building permit was applied for , and then nothing further was done . He said perhaps that was why no one noticed at the time , the problem with the one unit being larger , twice the size of the other unit . He said in regards to the yard deficiency issues , he was not sure if the variance is absolutely necessary . The lot was approved as part of an approved town subdivision , and therefore , it was an approved lot . He said that , arguably , no variance would be required because the Town Board approved it as part of the subdivision . Regarding the building itself , Mr . Guttman said the building was built shortly after the zoning ordinance went into effect . He said that to change it at this point , it would be at great economic expense to move the interior part of the building to make one unit twice the size of the other unit . He said that it was the position of the appellants that granting the variance will not have any negative adverse effects on the neighborhood or the community , but • instead it would have great significant , positive effects to the appellants , that it would not change the neighborhood or community in any aspect at all . He said that this was not a self- created hardship . He said the building was built by the prior builders , the building permit was allowed , and the building was built with almost equal units , rather than with one larger unit and one smaller unit . Mr . Guttman also submitted a Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 statement to the Board from a neighbor to west which states that they have " no problem with this . Good Luck . " Mr . Guttman said that other people in the neighborhood were spoken to , particularly the individual who lives across the street , and they all said they have no problem with the variance , and that they wished them good luck . Mr . King asked if there was a written response from any of the other neighbors to which Mr . Guttman said that the only written response was the one submitted to the Board from the neighbor to the west . Mr . Scala asked why the variance is coming up now since they have been in the building for four years to which Mr . Guttman said that they were applying for a Certificate of Occupancy in connection with a refinancing of the current mortgage . Mr . Frost said that the permit date is 1973 , the zoning went into effect in the Town of Ithaca in 1954 . The permit states that it was , in fact , a two- family home . He said there are no plans on file nor any record of inspections . He said that it would be hard to say whether or not there was a deviation of some plan that was discussed between the appellant and the building inspector at that time . He said that is was not really clear as to what was approved . He added that given the house that had been constructed , that if that was the original plan , that it would be pretty hard for someone to ignore the fact that people were living side - by- side in an equal area . Though if that particular plan for that building was not presented with the building permit application , then he didn ' t know if they could make the assumption that the permit was issued in error . • General discussion followed between Chairman Austen , Mr . Frost , Mr . Ellsworth , and Mr . Hines regarding the history of the approved subdivision and possible variances to other areas in the subdivision and granted per Section 280a of the Town Law as early as the 1960 ' s . He said that there was no evidence he could find granting a variance per Section 280a granted with the subdivision , but in fact , there was a map stamped by the Chairman of the Planning Board at that time . Mr . Guttman said that the map was actually approved in 1972 . He said that it was a 1968 map , revised four times between 1968 and 1972 . Mr . Hines asked if this variance requires an environmental review to which he was told that it did not . Mr . Frost pointed out the subdivision map . Mr . Hines asked if the occupancy of the building was two families . Mr . Guttman said that two families own it , each owning it as tenants in common . He said that the two families living in it are owners of the property . He said that each family has an undivided one -half interest . Mr . Frost made note that when you walk up the stairs at approximately the center of the building you are actually in a breezeway , and it is totally open between the two units . Mr . Scala questioned that someone said an environmental review was not required to which Mr . Frost replied that for the area variance , it was not . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . No one appeared to address the Board . • Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Chairman Austen and Attorney Kent discussed the frontage , and Attorney Kent stated that the talk of the frontage was independent of the structure of the house and the two units . He said that , even considering the frontage , the Board could be applying the 280a criteria to allow the deviation in the frontage and / or the Board could be applying the usual area variance criteria in their decision . He further stated that he felt that it might make sense to note that the Board applied both criteria that is appropriate . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED , recognizing that the requirements of the law with respect to the frontage on a public highway do not require an environmental assessment , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant to the Appellant , Gregar Brous , representing the owners , at 109 Drew Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28 - 1 - 34 . 23 , a variance from the application of Section 280a of the New York State Town Law which otherwise requires frontage on a public highway in access of 30 feet , with the following findings : 1 ) This lot was created as part of a subdivision of lands in the Town of Ithaca , having an access road 30 feet in width and approximately 235 feet in length from Drew Road to the major portion of the lot . • 2 ) That the photographs of the premises show the road to be ample and adequate to service the needs of the house and for any emergency vehicles that may be required to travel the property , that it is a straight road with no bends or turns in it , further evidence that it could accommodate emergency vehicles . 3 ) That the Board is applying the usual criteria under the Zoning Ordinance for the variance as well as Section 280a under New York State Town Law . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion on the frontage carried unanimously . There was general discussion as to the width and surface of the road with Mr . Frost stating that the width is probably 12 - 15 feet from bush- to -bush , the gravel being 8 feet wide . He stated that two truck loads of gravel were put down , therefore probably 36 ton of gravel is on the surface . Mr . Hines felt that one salient fact is that the house had been in place for a number of years ( 20- some years ) and no problems had arisen with the road , and Mr . King stated that it appears to be adequate , judging from the photograph from the zoning officer . Environmental Assessment • Chairman Austen reviewed the environmental assessment . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • RESOLVED , that what makes a minimal environmental impact is the size of lot and its relative seclusion , that the Board is therefore essentially acting on the application for a two - family house on a lot with 2 . 3+ / - acres , that in addition to other factors which Mr . Frantz has commented on in his report , that a negative determination with environmental significance and for the maintenance of the two- family structure on the premises of 109 Drew Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 34 . 23 , as is presently situated as appeared in the photographs submitted , it is almost irrelevant that it violates the zoning law as is exists and dealing with the environmental situation . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . Hines asked Mr . Frost why the owners could not subdivide such a large lot without coming before the Planning Board , to which Mr . Frost replied that Mr . Hines was correct . After more discussion , Mr . Frost said that the owners could subdivide and not necessarily with the approval of the Town , but by just subdividing the land . He commented further that this does occur . Mr . Scala said there is access from Longview Drive . Mr . Brous spoke about the small creek located there . Mr . Frost said that it is not possible that it could be subdivided by any of the other lots to which Mr . Hines • said that by observation , it makes the next variance rather obvious because it is such a large lot that other houses could easily be created on the same lot . Mr . Brous told Mr . King that the size of the house is 1600 square feet , with each of the units being approximately 800- 900 square feet . Mr . Frost said that the building permit did not lend itself to letting one know what was built originally . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant the appellants a variance from the strict enforcement of the zoning law of the Town of Ithaca to permit the maintenance of a 2 - family structure on the lot of 109 Drew Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 28- 1 - 34 . 23 , each unit of which is approximately equal in size rather than the requirement that one be one -half the size of the other , with the following findings and condition : 1 ) That the lot on which this structure is located is 2 . 3 + acres in a relatively secluded area of the Town . 2 ) That two separate family structures could easily be erected on that lot and conform to the zoning law . 3 ) That no increase density of living seems to be created as a result of this variance . 4 ) That there are obvious difficulties in trying to accommodate the structure to the zoning law which is in regard to completely re - gutting and rebuilding to accomplish it . 5 ) That the neighbor immediately adjacent to this property , Sharon and Peter Cafferillo , consented to the application being granted . Tom of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 6 ) That no one else having appeared in opposition to the application and sufficient reasons being otherwise shown . 7 ) That the variance being granted is an area variance as to the size of the second dwelling unit , it being equal in size to the primary dwelling unit . 8 ) That the benefits accrued the owner as a result of granting the variance far outweigh any detriment to any neighbors . 9 ) That the variance is granted on the condition that the lot not be subdivided . Mr . Scala asked if the Board is allowing the variance because the property has been there so long and the property is so big . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . The third Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF DOROTHY CANFIELD , APPELLANT , THOMAS H . CANFIELD , JR . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIRII4ENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 AND 23 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH HAS 30 FEET OF FRONTAGE AT THE STREET LINE ( 100 FEET REQUIRED ) , LOCATED AT 180 CALKINS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32-2- 13 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND . A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 20 , MAY ALSO BE REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 23 1 / 2 FEET + ( 15 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Canfield when the building was built . Mr . Canfield , Jr . currently residing at 180 Calkins Road , replied that originally the property was an abandoned farm which his parents bought in the spring of 1970 . He said that of the two buildings , the main house was a remodeling of an existing house that had been there since the 1940 ' s . That house was remodeled by the Canfields from 1971 through 1973 . The second building , the guest house , which is the main subject of the appeal was built by the Canfields in 1973 - 1975 . Mr . Frost said that there was a building permit on file for the primary building but there was no building permit found for the accessory building . Mr . Canfield said that he was the carpenter on the entire job and he thought his father had gotten the permit for the entire project , as perhaps his father thought the same . However , the research does not show that . Mr . Hines asked if the entire lot was 103 acres . Mr . Canfield answered affirmatively . He said that this was actually one of the Revolutionary War Land Grant farms . He said the Calkins family had a representative there until 1969 . He said that the Canfields bought the farm from the Calkins ' . Mr . Canfield said the property is ® surrounded by seven adjacent parcels , of which four are vacant land ( two of which are for sale ) and two parcels that adjoin the Canfields on Calkins Road are vacant . He said their nearest neighbor on Calkins Road is the Jacobs family , approximately 600 feet , door- to- door distance . Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Mr . Hines discussed the previous Brous Appeal which was somewhat similar to Mr . Canfield ' s Appeal . Mr . Hines explained that he felt that the appropriate avenue to pursue would be to have a subdivision done of his property , getting a site plan review , and things that the Planning Board can give input since they have some expertise . He felt that this Board deals with unnecessary hardship , difficulties and so forth . Mr . Hines said that he felt what Mr . Canfield was proposing was perfectly fine , proper and appropriate , but it seems to him that it involves a level of activity which transcends what this Board deals with . Mr . Canfield stated that what they want to do is put a kitchen and bath in the structure , and Mr . Hines said that he understood , but the practical effect , of it is that two dwellings are created on one lot . He said that he would like to hear from his fellow Board members about this because he said he would feel better if he learned that Mr . Canfield was going to the Planning Board to subdivide the lot and getting approval with the site plan review . Mr . Hines stated that he knew that it would be quite detailed in that manner , but he argued that for Mr . Canfield to come in and say that he had practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship would be difficult . Mr . Canfield said that the hardship involved his mother . Mr . Hines said that at some time Mr . Canfield would not be there , and the Town would then have a big lot with two houses on it . Mr . Hines said that there was nothing wrong because of the 100 acres , however it seemed to him that the procedure should be somewhat different . He further stated that he understood and believed that it was a meritorious act with which he has no problem . Mr . Canfield said that he and his sister would be the eventual owners , and their only interest was to keep the property in one piece . Mr . King said that he , too , thought that the Planning Board would be the place to go , but after looking at it a little more , looked at the dimensions and the architect ' s renderings , he said that by dealing with such a small area with plenty of room between the two buildings to meet all the criteria for two building lots of 30 , 000 square feet each in this zone , maybe the Canfields do not want a line through it , they do not want to split it up . Mr . Hines said that you could subdivide and still retain ownership of the subdivided parts . Mr . King said that he was not sure if the Canfields would gain a lot by doing it that way and that the Canfields seemed to have covered all the bases here , even by enlarging the septic system . Mr . Hines said that , here again , the result would be exactly the same . He asked where does the Board find legal criteria versus a variance . He said that this was of personal merit but the property has to sustain the difficulty , not the people . Mr . Scala stated that the houses were already there on the property . Mr . King asked the nature of use of the accessory building to which Mr . Canfield answered that for the past 22 years it had been used as his father ' s studios his father died in April . It has been used as a guest house . Mr . Frost said that the problem arises by having the Canfields put in a kitchen . Mr . Frost further stated to the Board that the reason this is before this Board was in order to have the full living facilities , to become a full dwelling unit . He said that an option would be to maintain it as an accessory building about which he had some questions at a later time relative to a height variance . Mr . Canfield said that , in terms of hardship , first of all he was advised to come ® to the Zoning Board of Appeals by Town staff . Secondly , in checking in the beginning , this whole question came up , and he was under the impression that subdivision was a much longer process . Mr . Canfield said that they were going to have a real hardship this year if they cannot potentially get this building occupiable before winter . He said that his mother would have to winter out there , alone . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 iMr . Scala asked if Mr . Canfield ' s mother owned both houses . Mr . Canfield said that it was all one lot , and yes , she did . Chairman Austen asked who was proposing to move in to the house . Mr . Canfield said that , for the short term , he and his sister alternately for the trips up here or , potentially , to get someone who could live in there and help his mother through the winter or for a long- term basis . Mr . King asked if the residential quarters would be all on one floor? Mr . Canfield answered affirmatively in that everything residential would be on the top floor of that structure , that the bottom floor would remain the garage . He said that the only thing they would be putting on the lower level would be a 90- 100 square foot utility room for a water heater and a small furnace . Mr . Canfield answered that his mother is 77 years old to Mr . King ' s question . Mr . Scala said that she would continue to live at the old residence to which Mr . Canfield answered that she would try to stay there for as long as she can . Mr . Scala said that the chances of her climbing up to the kitchen would not be too good . Mr . Canfield said that she would continue to live in her house . Mr . King supposed if the Board would grant a variance for 15 years to meet the emergency situation , and in order to continue after that , if the Canfields wanted to , would have to go through a subdivision process . Mr . Frost said that , in a similar vein , there are " Granny Shacks " which provide for these kind of moveable homes that move on to a property for the duration of the parent ' s life . When the parent dies , the building is moved to another lot to another situation . Mr . Hines stated that he was really sympathetic , but he just did not want to have someone come to this Board and say • that they wanted to put a bathroom in their garage and the Board would not let them . Chairman Austen said that the Board has been very reluctant to grant such variances . Mr . Frost said that he can recall where one such variance was granted . Mr . Canfield stated that there is a house less than ten years old , down on his road to which there was discussion about the George Sheldrake property . When the discussion turned to conditioning the variance relative to the current owner , Mr . King said that the Board can condition it with a time condition , not a title condition . Chairman Austen said that if the Board did grant the variance that it certainly would have to be done with a time limit . Mr . Scala asked if this would not be considered a category called " spot zoning " ? Mr . Hines said that spot zoning deals with changes in quality of use rather than what this Board would be doing . Mr . Scala pointed out that the Board had denied such a variance and has accepted such a variance , Mr . Frost said that the case that was denied several months ago was slightly different . He said that he was not trying to influence the Board in any direction , but the circumstance here is different than the other , someone just died whereas in the other case there was no death involved ; the particulars in this case are different than in the last one . Mr . King asked if the primary use of the rest of the acreage is agricultural to which Mr . Canfield answered that it is vacant , wild . He said that it has not been a farm since the late 1960 ' s . He said that it is pretty much all wilderness , as far as you can walk , in all directions . Mr . Scala said that he was inclined to favor the simple process of subdivision to stay within the law and not to come up with a variance . Chairman Austen asked for a motion . Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance for a limited time of 15 years to the Appellant , Dorothy Canfield , to permit the improvement of her existing accessory building at 180 Calkins Road , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 13 , the improvement consisting of adding a bath and a kitchen to the second floor of that existing studio building for the purpose of permitting the occupancy of an unidentified person who would be caretaking of Mrs . Canfield who is now 77 years of age but such a purpose notwithstanding the variance to continue for 15 years , with the following findings and condition : 1 ) That it would be an unnecessary hardship to not permit the use of this accessory building in such a fashion , having been used as an auxiliary bedroom for many years since the Canfields owned the property . 2 ) That in appearing there is ample space between these buildings , namely about 120 feet , for fire protection . 3 ) That both buildings are served by the extension of an asphalt driveway from Calkins Road , northerly so that there would be no problem of access by emergency vehicles . 4 ) Appearing that there is ample room to the south , east , west and north of both • buildings to provide a minimum size lot of 30 , 000 square feet with each building centered almost in the middle of the lot so that the Board is not creating a hazardous situation by having two dwelling units too close together . Chairman Austen commented that he had neglected to open the public hearing , and then did so asking if there was anyone who wished to speak on the motion . With no one wishing to speak , he closed the public hearing . Mr . King continued with the findings of the proposed motion : 5 ) Upon finding that the granting of the requested variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood in any way . 6 ) That the hardship had not been self- created . 7 ) That the variance being specifically from the requirements from Section 68 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as an incidental height variance , if necessary , for that secondary building which might violate Section 20 as being in excess of 15 feet high . Mr . Frost stated that if the Board were to grant the approval of a second residential building , then there would be a height problem . In any event , he thought that in agricultural zones , there might not be any limit . He said that one could have any building up to 30 feet in height . 8 ) With the improvements to conform to the detailed plans submitted . Town of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Chairman Austen asked if there was any further discussion to which Mr . Scala said that he would argue that there was no hardship involved , and certainly none if the proper sequence was gone through by having it divided which would allow for the two separate houses . He said that there was plenty of room to do that , and he said that it is obvious that it is setting up postponing the problem in 15 years time . He said that there will have to be another appeal for another variance , therefore postponing the ultimate decision which is probably dividing lots . He said Mr . Canfield was advised to go ahead with the Appeal , but Mr . Scala could not see what advantage there was to not subdivide . Mr . Hines said that it could be argued that , absent the relief which the Board is proposing , that the Appellant is respectfully deprived from the full utilization of improving on the lot which has a character which is something greater than its accessory building . He said that he understood Mr . Scala ' s point , but he felt the other point could also be argued . Mr . Scala said that there is a precedence for denying this . Mr . Hines said that he knew , but that Mr . Canfield would get exactly the same if he would subdivide . Mr . Hines said that he could not foresee anyone not approving the subdivision . Mr . Frost brought up the point that if Mr . Canfield did subdivide , he would have to create the road , and Mr . Frost said that no matter what the Board did tonight , the Board would have to address the road frontage as it would deal with the second building . Mr . Frost said that if Mr . Canfield was to subdivide , the road would then have to be extended in some fashion . Mr . Frost said that he scaled approximately 30 foot frontage along the very end of Calkins Road . He said that he did not know how • this came to be but there was no cul - de- sac there either . Mr . Frost said that it was rather an odd situation . Mr . King asked that because the Board is creating a second , fully residential building , this point had to be addressed? Mr . Frost said that the Board would be making a change to a non- conforming lot . Mr . Canfield said that , as it stands now , it is non- conforming and that is the way it was when they bought the property . He said that it is an old condition and that it has been that way since the road was cut through . Mr . Scala said that if the Board puts a time limit on it , he fails to see what is being solved . Mr . King said that after 15 years , the use of the dwelling has to stop unless Mr . Canfield gets further relief . Mr . Scala said that then there would be a hardship in giving up the use of the house . Mr . King said that when Mr . Canfield accepts the 15 year limited variance in the first place , accordingly , Mr . Canfield knows what he is doing . Mr . Canfield has 15 years to amortize the cost . Mr . Scala replied that the problem was not being solved , but postponed . Mr . King answered that the Board would be solving an immediate problem , which , he added he knew was unusual for any Town official . Mr . Scala stated that he could see that if there was no time limit , the problem would be solved . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Hines to withdraw his second to the motion in order for him to go through the environmental review . Mr . Hines withdrew his motion . Environmental Assessment Chairman Austen reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Chairman Austen posed the question as to what Mr . Frantz meant when he wrote that the Itproposed request , if granted , may thus set negative precedent for future requests " ? Mr . Scala said that it means that it is negative , period . He said that it is the same argument that he , himself , was using . Discussion ensued about the size of the 103 acre lot . Attorney Kent asked if he could suggest that it may be worth noting that the Board ' s determination on the environmental declaration would be independent of this condition , to clarify that regardless of what the motion is granting with the condition , that the review of the environmental declaration would be minus that condition so that the Board would not run into the problem of approving a limit condition which would require the Board to go another month and so forth . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that this Board accept the recommendation of the Assistant Town Planner that the proposal as presented would not pose any threat to the existing plans , air quality , and so forth , as previously recited in the Town Planner ' s report and that the Board therefore makes a negative determination on environmental significance for the proposed action at 180 Calkins Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 13 . Chairman Austen asked for further discussion , and Mr . Scala wanted to make sure that it was emphasized that Mr . Frantz ' s comment in C4 that such a request sets a precedence . • A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Austen . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Mr . King renewed his previous motion for granting the variance to permit the proposed construction for the improvement of the accessory building , and Mr . Hines seconded said motion . With no further discussion on the motion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Hines , Ellsworth , King , Austen . Nays - Scala . The motion carried by a 4 - to- 1 vote with a 15 year limit on it . Chairman Austen read the following Appeals of Thomas Overbaugh : APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . EHRHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE %II , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT , LOCATED AT 1027 ELMIRA ROAD , ® TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 35- 1-7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35- 1-7 . 2 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE FACILITIES AND BUSINESS SPACE FOR G . W . EHRHART INC . , A PROPANE GAS SUPPLIER . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . EHRHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 41 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO DEVELOP A RENTAL STORAGE FACILITY AT 1027 KU41RA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 35- 1- 7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35- 1-7 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . Kathryn Wolf , Agent for Mr . Overbaugh , described the project for the Board . She stated that a month ago they went before the Planning Board and , at that time , they received a negative declaration on environmental assessment , preliminary and final subdivision approval , and preliminary site plan approval . She said there were a number of conditions on the preliminary site plan approval and those have been incorporated into the site plan that the Board will receive . She said she will point out what those conditions were . Those conditions are reflected in what the Board will see . Ms . Wolf said if they obtain the variance and special approval , they would return to the Planning Board for final site plan approval . Its . Wolf explained the map , orienting the Board to the exact parcel in question . Ms . Wolf explained that the reason they are there is that Mr . Overbaugh needs to expand his facility , it cannot be accomplished on a one acre parcel . Therefore , he needs to purchase the adjoining parcel and unfortunately the seller will only sell this 19 acre parcel , which includes 5 acres in the Town of Newfield and 14 acres in the Town of Ithaca . She said that the Town of Newfield portion is predominantly wetlands which cannot be developed . She said that Mr . Overbaugh does not want to buy the Newfield acreage , however that is how the parcel comes . Ms . Wolf stated that all of the development is being proposed on the Town of Ithaca parcel . She again reviewed the • location of all the sites on the map . She explained that in 1951 this facility was established prior to zoning . At that time the small building had an office and retail outlet where they sold gas stoves . In 1973 the retail sale of stoves moved to Trumansburg and the main office for the facility is now located in the Village of Trumansburg . They have continued to sell gas cylinders for grills as well as pressure regulators out of this small office , but the main retail function is actually located in Trumansburg . She explained that the situation that prompts the expansion is that currently the gas for this region comes on a pipeline from Bellevue , Texas to Watkins Glen , and then continues on to Connecticut . But Watkins Glen is the area where they have underground storage for gas in this region . So the propane suppliers have their allotment for the year of gas that they can get from the facility in Watkins Glen . What has happened for the last four years in a row is that during the peak heating season , the gas company has put the pipeline on allocation . Meaning that they are not receiving 100% of their allotment , instead they are receiving 70% of their allotment . The situation is very unreliable due to Mr . Overbaugh ' s company being put on allocation for the gas . Therefore , Ms . Wolf further stated the whole purpose for Mr . Overbaugh being there is to expand the storage capacity . The existing storage is for 2 - 3 days during peak heating season . She said that the intent is to increase the storage capacity so that the company is less vulnerable to being put on allocation on last minute notice and , also to insure that customers can receive uninterrupted service during the peak heating season . ® Mr . King asked what the increased tank capacity would be . Ms . Wolf and Mr . Overbaugh answered that the tank capacity would increase from 3- 6 days to approximately 20- 30 days . Mr . Overbaugh stated that the propane business is expanding . Mr . Scala asked if the Board was talking about propane , not natural gas to which Mr . Overbaugh replied affirmatively . Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Mr . King asked if Mr . Overbaugh is bringing any propane in by rail at the present time . Mr . Overbaugh said that he does not . He said that he presently does not have a rail siding , but that it is proposed in this plan . Ms . Wolf showed the Board old tank sites , the proposed new tank sites , as well as the railroad siding plan . She explained how the change would take place and how the new tanks would be serviced by the railroad siding which gives Mr . Overbaugh more flexibility regarding his sources . General discussion took place as to the suppliers and location of the propane source and the question of allocation of the supply . Mr . Scala asked if Mr . Overbaugh would have a spur , a siding , or both . Mr . Overbaugh said that it would be a siding , parallel to the tracks . Ms . Wolf said that this is what the company would like to do immediately , they would like to have it functioning for this coming season . Ms . Wolf said that in the first phase a proposed garage is to be built . She explained how delivery trucks are scheduled , and the garage is to serve for the delivery trucks . She said that this first phase would be completed late 1993 , early 1994 . She said that the first phase also includes landscape screening as required by the Planning Board . Ms . Wolf went on to explain that the later phase , in approximately five years , is to build a separate larger garage , relocate the truck storage to the larger garage , relocate the Trumansburg office and showroom , and convert that area into the office and retail showroom , thus having the entire operation operate out of this area . It would mean that five employees would relocate to this site , stating that it would be a minimal traffic issue . Ms . Wolf explained the DOT plans to reconfigure the road at Shady Corners . She said that they have been working closely with DOT to • develop a plan that would work . She also said that , if the plan never happens , Mr . Overbaugh ' s plan would function as shown . Ms . Wolf said that everything she has talked about was relative to the special approval they are seeking . Mr . Ellsworth said that due to the nature of what is being stored in the tanks , he wanted to know about the regulations relative to certain distances . Mr . Overbaugh said that there were plenty of regulations , and he and Ms . Wolf explained them to the Board . Ms . Wolf then said that since the purchase of the whole parcel was necessary for the expansion , the reason they were before the Board is that in order to make the project viable , Mr . Overbaugh needs to develop something else on the property . Ms . Wolf explained the process Mr . Overbaugh went through for uses on the site . According to Ms . Wolf , since the nature of the business is propane gas and considering the excellent safety record of Mr . Overbaugh ' s business , everything is going to be built according to regulations and codes ; there was no reason for anyone to think there would ever be any accidents or problems . However , she continued , due to the nature of gas , Mr . Overbaugh felt that it would be prudent not to have a lot of people in the vicinity and not put himself in the situation of having people wander into the plant . Therefore , rather than have a lot of industry there , rental storage usage was decided upon by Mr . Overbaugh because of minimal personnel and reduction in risk factors . Mr . Ellsworth asked if the storage would be general rental storage , and Mr . Overbaugh said that it would be mini storage . Mr . Overbaugh said that the maximum size of a unit would be 10 foot by 30 feet long , with less than 8 feet in height . Mr . Ellsworth discussed the amount of people coming and going to the units at different ® times . Ms . Wolf said that the traffic could not be compared to a business being operated . Mr . Overbaugh stated that in talking to people who run rental storage businesses , the amount of traffic is approximately one person a day . Ms . Wolf said that there would be a chain link fence around the area and it would probably be controlled by a card access system . Tom of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Mr . Scala asked if this is now a non- conforming use to which the answer was affirmatively by Mr . Frost . He said but it is legal , presuming that it is pre - existing . However , he said it is not an industrial use . Mr . Scala then said that Mr . Overbaugh would be expanding the non- conforming use , and , in addition to that , Mr . Overbaugh has the rental storage . Ms . Wolf went on to explain about the site plan , pointing out the area where Mr . Overbaugh has no plans for anything . However , she did say that , in five years from now , who knows if Mr . Overbaugh may not have ideas as to what he may like to do in that specific area . Ms . Wolf said that the Planning Board ' s condition was that any future development would have to be confined to a specific area so that the " blank " area , as shown on the site plan , any future development would have to be confined to that area . She said all the other areas would have to remain undeveloped . Ms . Wolf said that another condition of the site plan approval was a " no cut zone " along the property line where no vegetation could be cut down so that a vegetation screen would be created along the property line . Mr . King asked if the storage units would be part of Phase Three . Ms . Wolf said that the storage units would be part of Phase Two , and Phase Three includes the construction of the second larger garage and relocating the Trumansburg office to this site . Mr . Scala and Ms . Wolf discussed the size of the garage and the contents of the building . Ms . Wolf said the 2 , 400 square feet would house a garage , five employees , offices and a showroom . Ms . Wolf said that there are a total of sixteen employees , of whom , six drive trucks . Mr . Frost reminded Ms . Wolf that what has not yet been discussed is the need for a sprinkler system . There was a general discussion as to where the public water system is located , stating that it was almost to Turback ' s . The present construction along the road is for the water pipes . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Overbaugh if he had tanker trucks , and Mr . Overbaugh stated that he does not own any and that he hires them . He explained that the trucks are common carriers which carry approximately 2 , 000 gallons of gas . Mr . King and Ms . Wolf discussed the location of Routes 96 and 13 and where the new roads would possibly exist if DOT went ahead with the new road construction . Mr . King was concerned about the " runaway" trucks and where they would end up as it relates to the proposed plan of Mr . Overbaugh . It was stated that the purpose of changing the road configuration was to eliminate such happenings . Mr . Frantz explained DOT ' s plan extending the length of the grade , thus reducing steepness of the road and also reducing the sharpness of the curve . He said that , actually , most of the runaways were due to the loss of the brakes rather than the road . He said the road will have a very wide arc , thus will greatly reduce the accidents . Mr . Scala read the statement that by granting a variance a precedence would be set for similar operations in other light industry districts in the Town of Ithaca . He wanted to know if it applied to the other 160 acres behind the property . He was told that it was zoned light industrial . General discussion followed relative to the • probability of this not happening because of the creek and because the slope is in the range of 25 percent . The area is wooded with very steep slopes with rock outcrops . Ms . Wolf explained further that Mr . Overbaugh does have road frontage on Routes 34 and 96 . Chairman Austen asked if this property goes to the end of Babcock ' s property , and Ms . Wolf said there is an intervening owner . Town of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Mr . Scala wanted to know if everything towards Ithaca was zoned light industry , and Mr . Frost answered that it was a mix of light industry , agricultural , and Business C . Mr . Frantz stated that the light industrial zoning boundary was believed to be Enfield Creek . Further , the light industrial boundary follows Enfield Creek and wraps back around and follows the inlet to the railroad grade . Mr . Scala stated that both Turback ' s and the produce sales place are all residential . Mr . Frost said that Business C is located a little ways up and across the road . Mr . Frost said that it is zoned light industrial by Wonderland , Mancini ' s , and Anderson Moving . Mr . Frantz stated Business C and light industrial zoning are around Calkins Road . Chairman Austen addressed Mr . Frantz relative to the concerns of the Planning Board . Mr . Frantz said that the Planning Board ' s concerns were pretty well spelled out in its resolution granting preliminary site plan approval and making the recommenda- tions to the Zoning Board of Appeals . He said the major concern of the project was the visual impact of the additional propane storage tanks and the mini warehouses , especially on the Robert H . Treman Park and the part of the Finger Lakes Trail . The mini storage would be just outside the northern boundary . Mr . Frantz said that caused the Planning Board to put in a condition of the resolution , the no- cut zone and also , in order to insure some control on the density of the site , required that the future development be limited to the light green space as shown on the map ( 210 feet by 230 feet area ) , just to the north of the mini warehouse . Mr . Scala wanted to know if there was any reason why the tanks could not be camouflaged relative to color , and Mr . Overbaugh said that the white reflective color • was necessary due to the pressure / temperature relationship . Mr . King asked Mr . Overbaugh how tall the tanks are , and Mr . Overbaugh said the ones he presently has are 10 feet and 11 feet and are approximately 3-4 feet off the ground . He said he believes the new tanks will be 12 feet in diameter and 96 feet long , being the same distance off the ground . He said that the only change would be there would be uniformity . Mr . King said that it appears that the tanks will be 16 feet above the ground to which Mr . Overbaugh agreed . Mr . Austen said that Mr . Overbaugh was showing B- 10 feet on the Trowbridge & Wolf ' s letter . Ms . Wolf said this was diameter , not height . A question was posed if there had been any kind of environmental studies done on the property to determine what might be of significance , such as a dump site or buried tanks , and Mr . Overbaugh said that the property had been farm property for some time . Mr . Overbaugh said that , as far as his end of the business , they are non toxic and are exempt from the rules and regulations because they do not contaminate . It was asked if Ashland was fuel or propane , and Mr . Overbaugh said it was the propane company that was on that site . Mr . Frost said then , for the record , it is unlikely that there is any kind of petroleum substance there . Mr . Overbaugh said he was not concerned about it because he knows the history of the property , he felt that if anything was there , it would have to have been there even before it was farmed . He said that would take the concern of the property back a hundred years . Mr . Scala wanted to know if there was any likelihood of a pipeline being built to this area . Mr . Overbaugh indicated that there was definitely not any reason to believe that the pipeline would be extended . He said he discovered at a meeting over the summer that the pipe line people have no intentions of increasing that line . He said their statement was that if Mr . Overbaugh and people like him could increase the demand ® on the line , they would increase the line . Mr . Overbaugh said that the problem is that the line is pumping to full capacity now , therefore , how could they increase the demand . Mr . Overbaugh said that it was a vicious circle and that the pipe line people would not be increasing anything . Mr . Overbaugh said that the last underground storage is at Watkins Glen in salt caverns . He said there is another take - off in Oneonta , but Town of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • there is no storage either underground or above . He said the last take - off is in Selkirk , New York , near Albany in two - 60 , 000 gallon tanks which is identical to what Mr . Overbaugh has . He said whatever comes up the line is what comes off the line . Mr . Scala said that a number of years ago , the 100 year flood came , and he watched propane tanks float down the river in Connecticut . He stated that Mr . Overbaugh has a valley on the site , being a 100 year flood plain . Ms . Wolf said that the he was out of the plain level and that Mr . Overbaugh ' s property was significantly higher that the Cayuga Inlet plus the raised railroad beds are between the inlet and the tanks . Mr . Overbaugh explained that the point is to have as many options as possible for getting the propane . He wants to maintain the ability to get the fuel by truck as well as by going rail . Potentially , he feels , he can save money by having the flexibility of going by rail or by truck . If shipped by rail , the fuel can come from almost any place in the United States ; it would not come from Watkins Glen by rail . Mr . King stated to Mr . Frantz that Mr . Jeffrey McDonald of the State Office of Parks letter on May 28 , 1993 had several comments about the proposal : ( 1 ) proposed entrance drive does not agree to the current Department of Transportation plans at Shady Corners intersection . Mr . Frantz said that the design corresponds to the existing road configuration ; however Ms . Wolf and Mr . Overbaugh have been in contact with DOT and the design is done in a way that DOT will be able to tie Mr . Overbaugh ' s facility into the reconfigured Route 13 , Ms . Wolf demonstrated on the map the way the roads and driveways would converge . • Mr . King said that the second comment was about not detailing drainage . The park system would like to see as much of the increased runoff as possible , either retained or detained on site rather than being dumped directly into the inlet . Mr . Frantz said that this plan actually shows more detail than the one they would provide . He said the drainage does , in fact do , exactly what they requested that it does . Mr . King asked if that meant that it would be retained on the site , and Mr . Frantz said that it was anticipated that all of it would be retained on the site . It was stated that the soil has very good drainage and that there is very little prospect of any water draining from the site into the inlet . In reviewing the third concern relative to the screen plantings , Mr . Frantz said that had been discussed and Mr . Overbaugh is trying to strike a balance between screening the property and maintaining a certain level of security by having some visibility from the road so that the property would be partly visible from the road . Although a suggestion from the parks was that of letting the vegetation all grow up around it trying to totally screen the site , there still had to be some sense of security for Mr . Overbaugh ' s property . Ms . Wolf said that Mr . Overbaugh wants it to look neat , and therefore she explained the areas which would be kept as meadows , mowing approximately once a year , keeping that natural appearance that the parks were looking for , and yet , mowing once a year , it does not get out of control . Mr . King asked about the north- south line of the property , by the tanks , and Ms . Wolf said there would be a line of trees which would include varieties of evergreens . Ms . Wolf informed Mr . King that the trees were likely to reach 25 - 30 feet at 25 - 30 feet . Town of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 • Mr . Scala inquired as to the fencing around the area . Mr . Overbaugh said that presently he has one acre totally fenced in , and when the project was completed , the area would still be totally fenced in . Ms . Wolf demonstrated on the map as to the location of the fence , explaining that the trees would be totally outside the fenced area . Mr . Scala reviewed the concept of visibility and security . Lighting was discussed , and Ms . Wolf said that lighting was also a concern of the Planning Board and that would be worked out at the time a Building Permit was issued . She said lighting plans would have to be submitted for approval before a building Permit would be issued . Mr . Frantz explained that another reason for the proposed landscaping is the proposed change of Route 13 . He explained that Route 13 is proposed to be 10 or 12 feet higher . He said that the existing roadway will have a fairly gentle angle . Chairman Austen said that traffic would be looking down on the project and not at grade level . Mr . Frantz said that this would probably be the case with Route 13 northbound , and it was correct that Routes 34 and 96 would not be raised . Mr . Frantz stated that many of the trees are rapid growers , for example , the Austrian Pine , in five years could go from 5 - 6 feet to 10- 12 feet in height . Mr . Scala wanted to know if the Town guideline for landscaping applied to this project . Mr . Frantz answered the guideline is for a business district , not light industry . However , Mr . Frantz and Ms . Wolf suspected that the number of trees shown on the drawing exceeded the guideline . Mr . Frantz commented that one idea added to the project was the 20 foot wide no- cut zone along the northern boundary in order to provide a better screen between the Overbaugh development and the Finger Lakes Trail . He said that Mr . McDonald , in his letter , states that when the bridge is rebuilt across Enfield Creek , DOT is going to design it in a way to allow the Finger Lakes Trail to go under Route 13 and under the • bridge , continuing eastward to Lick Brook Gorge and up to South Hill , Thus , Mr . Frantz continued , the idea behind the 20 foot no - cut buffer is to let it grow up with the native brush , trees and the like . Mr . King said that the fourth point of the park ' s consideration of the conservation easement feel a need for that . Mr . Frantz said the restriction of any future development of the 210 feet by 230 feet area was the Planning Board ' s reaction to the recommendation of the parks , as well as the recommendation of the Departmental Review Committee of the Town . Mr . King said that they are not actually requiring the conservation easement but that it should be taken into consideration . Mr . Frantz agreed to that statement . With no further questions , Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Environmental Assessment MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . WHEREAS 1 . This action , in consideration of a special permit application for the proposed expansion of the G . W . Ehrhart Bulk Storage Facility and the development of the rental storage facility , which is a variance on the Town of Ithaca Tax ® Parcels , as set forth in the application is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Appeals is the Lead Agency in the environmental review ; and Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 2 . At this Public Hearing on July 14 , 1993 , the Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form , prepared by the applicant , Part II and also Part III with the recommendations by the Town Planning Staff for a negative determination of environmental significance ; and 3 . Based on the preparation of the Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects ' plans dated May 6 , 1993 and revised June 9 , 1993 , and other application materials , and the Town ' s Planning Staffs ' recommendation of a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed action , and no persons having appeared to present any evidence to the contrary ; NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals , as Lead Agency , hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act in the above - referenced action , as proposed . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . • The next appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . EHRHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE %II , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT , LOCATED AT 1027 EU-URA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35- 1 -7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35- 1 -7 . 2 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE FACILITIES AND BUSINESS SPACE FOR G . W . EHRHART INC . A PROPANE GAS SUPPLIER . Mr . King commented that this Appeal is relative to the enlargement of a non- conforming use in both directions . He said that it is to include the additional propane storage and the other storage . Mr . Frost corrected him to say that the second one would be a use variance . Mr . Frost explained that in the first instance Mr . Overbaugh is extending the specific non- conforming use which is the propane business and the second item would be a use variance for the new addition of the mini storage . Mr . Frantz said that the extension of the existing non- conforming use would be relocating the two tanks , having four new tanks , and then building the 2 , 400 square foot garage for trucks , office and retail showroom , and the 7 , 200 square foot garage proposed .for Phase 3 . Mr . King wanted to know the date of the final site plan to which Mr . Frantz answered that the dates were May 6 , 1993 , revised June 9 , 1993 and further revised June ® 16 , 1993 . Tom of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 Mr . Scala wanted to know if the retail sales would be limited to propane sales . He wanted to know if there was any significance to the fact that it would be only propane gas and not natural gas . Mr . Overbaugh stated there was quite a difference to which Mr . Scala agreed . However , Mr . Scala wanted to know if there was any significance to Mr . Overbaugh and if the limitation is acceptable to Mr . Overbaugh . Mr . Overbaugh stated that the one thing people were concerned about was that he would not be selling tires , cars , and things of that nature . MOTION : By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant to the Appellant , Thomas Overbaugh , d / b / a Ehrhart Inc . , a special approval for the enlargement of a non- conforming use under Article XII , Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , located at 1027 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 35- 1 - 7 . 1 and a portion of 35 - 1 - 7 . 2 , with the following findings and condition : 1 ) The enlargement is to consist of the expansion of the number of propane tanks from two to six . 2 ) The enlargement of the capacity and relocation of those tanks to the south . 3 ) The construction of a 2 , 400 square foot garage to the west . 4 ) Eventually , the construction of a 7 , 200 square foot garage to the north of that . 5 ) For all the various reasons found and approved by the Planning Board . 6 ) The enlargement to conform to the final site plan which was approved by the Planning Board , that being the original plan dated May 6 , 1993 , revised June 9 , 1993 , and finally revised June 16 , 1993 . ' 7 ) That this Board , in so approving the extension , find that the expansion plan would conform in all respects to the requirements of Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a-h of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen directed the Board to the Appeal regarding the rental storage facility : APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . EHRHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 41 , OF ® THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO DEVELOP A RENTAL STORAGE FACILITY AT 1027 EL I RA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35- 1-7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35- 1-7 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals July 14 , 1993 MOTION : By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant to the Appellant , Thomas Overbaugh , d / b / a Ehrhart Inc . , a variance from the strict application of Article VIII , Section 41 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit the construction and maintenance of a rental storage facility on the premises as described in the application with the followings findings and conditions : 1 ) Assuring the use of the property is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance ; i . e . , Light Industrial would not be compatible to the operation of the storage of propane . 2 ) The public would be better served by less an intense use of the property as otherwise submitted . 3 ) The storage facility seems to be an appropriate , economic use of the property . 4 ) The appellant is entitled to receive a reasonable return on the use of this property , and such demonstrations have been made . 5 ) The Planning Board having reviewed the site plan for the proposed structure and accommodated the aesthetic considerations by the planting of trees , and so forth , and other requirements of green space . 6 ) That whatever requirements the Site Plan approval of the Planning Board be met as a condition of granting the variance for the year of construction and maintenance of these facilities . 7 ) Incorporation of the Planning Board requirements for the Site Plan Approval as set forth in the Planning Board ' s Minutes . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Hines , Ellsworth , King , Scala Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . With no further business , Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 8 : 50 P . M . Aria 2ZYR� Roberta H . Komaromi Recording Secretary COU A /1 .-�p QoLAI ® iard Austen , Chairman TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JULY 14 , 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 , July 14 , 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 CHRISTOPHER MULLER , APPELLANT ', JAMES HILKER , D . B . A . J & L BUILDERS , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 37 FEET + ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . SAID BUILDING IS TO BE LOCATED AT 1 JOHN STREET , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 56 - 3- 13 . 29 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF GREGAR BROUS , ET AL , APPELLANT , CHARLES GUTTMAN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUEST VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE V . SECTION 18 , PARAGRAPH 2 , AND SECTION 23 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND SECTION 280A OF NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING SIDE BY SIDE TWO-FAMILY HOME , WITH EACH DWELLING UNIT HAVING AN EQUAL FLOOR AREA , ON A BUILDING LOT HAVING ONLY 30 FEET OF WIDTH AT THE STREET LINE ( AS WELL AS THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK LINE ) . THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 109 DREW ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 28 - 1 - 34 . 23 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 . SAID ORDINANCE REQUIRES THE PRIMARY UNIT OF A TWO-FAMILY HOME TO BE TWICE THE FLOOR AREA OF THE SECOND UNIT AND BUILDING LOTS TO BE 100 FEET WIDE AT THE STREET LINE AND 150 FEET WIDE AT THE MAXIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK . APPEAL OF DOROTHY CANFIELD , APPELLANT , THOMAS H . CANFIELD , JR . , AGENT , REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE XI , SECTION 51 , AND ARTICLE V , SECTION 18 AND 23 , ARTICLE XIII , SECTION 68 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON A PARCEL OF LAND WHICH HAS 30 FEET OF FRONTAGE AT THE STREET LINE ( 100 FEET REQUIRED ) , LOCATED AT 180 CALKINS ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 32 - 2 - 13 , AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ( RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 REGULATIONS APPLY ) . SAID ORDINANCE PERMITS ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND , A VARIANCE FROM ARTICLE V . SECTION 20 , MAY ALSO BE REQUESTED TO MAINTAIN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 23 1 / 2 FEET + ( 15 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ) . APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . ERHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO ENLARGE A NON- CONFORMING USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT , LOCATED AT 1027 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35 - 1 - 7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35 - 1 - 7 . 2 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL STORAGE FACILITIES AND BUSINESS SPACE FOR G . W . ERHART INC . , A PROPANE GAS SUPPLIER . APPEAL OF THOMAS OVERBAUGH , D . B . A . G . W . ERHART INC . , APPELLANT , KATHRYN WOLF , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE VIII , SECTION 41 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO DEVELOP A RENTAL STORAGE FACILITY AT 1027 ELMIRA ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 35- 1 - 7 . 1 AND A PORTION OF 35 - 1 - 7 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT . Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all persons On 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 : July 7 , 1993 Publish : July 9 , 1993