Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1993-07-28 fRW TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF -ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dat o JULY 28 , 1993 The following matters were heard by the Board on July 28 , 1993 : APPEAL OF ROGER M . SPANSWICK , APPELLANT , HENRY THEISEN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 12 . 4 FOOT SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILD - ING SETBACK ( 15 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) AT 104 PINE VIEW TERRACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 53 - 1 - 15 . 23 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 , GRANTED . APPEAL OF JONATHAN 0 . ALBANESE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING ON A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING LOT AT 1040 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 19 - 2 - 10 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . THE ENLARGE - MENT CONSISTS OF 200 SQUARE FEET + ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF SAID BUILDING WHICH HAS SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACKS OF 1 . 7 FEET + ( SOUTH SIDE ) AND 4 . 4 FEET + ( NORTH SIDE ) , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS REQUIRED . SAID BUILDING LOT HAS A WIDTH OF 30 FEET + , WHERE 100 • FEET IS REQUIRED . GRANTED , APPEAL OF FAUST AND CHARLINE ROSSI , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZA - TION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING / LOT AT 210 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 66 - 2 - 13 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A 12 X 14 FOOT PORCH TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING . SAID BUILDING LOT IS NON - CONFORMING SINCE IT CONTAINS TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS , WHEREAS ONLY ONE IS PERMITTED ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND , GRANTED , APPEAL OF KENNETH A . POYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 , ADJOURNED TO SEPTEMBER 8 , 1993 . • FUM 1 TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN or 4THACA , Dat �3 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o JULY 28 , 1993 PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Robert Hines , Pete Scala , Harry Ellsworth , Town Attorney John C . Barney , and Zoning Enforcement Officer / Building Inspector Andrew Frost , OTHERS : Roger and Helen Spanswick , Henry Theisen , Jon Albanese , and Charline Rossi . Chairman Austen opened the meeting at 7 : 418 P . M . and stated that all posting , publication , and notification of the public hearings have been posted and that the same are in order . Chairman Austen said that with Kenneth Poyer not present at the opening of the meeting , the Board would move on to the second appeal on the agenda . Therefore , the first Appeal to be heard by the Board was the following : APPEAL OF ROGER M . SPANSWICK , APPELLANT , HENRY THEISEN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 12 . 4 FOOT SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ( 15 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) AT 104 PINE VIEW TERRACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 53 - 1 - 15 , 23 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 , Henry Theisen , Esquire / agent for Roger M . Spanswick , indicated that the Spanswicks were present but that he would be speaking for them . He said that the house has been on the property for twenty - three years and that it was only recently discovered that there was a deficiency of approximately 2 - 1 / 2 feet from the sideline . It should be 15 feet from the sideline and it is 12 . 4 feet . Mr . Theisen said this was discovered when the Spanswicks were selling the property , and the sale is contingent upon obtaining a variance of the setback . Chairman Austen stated that it was difficult to see where the lot line is just looking at the property . Mr . Theisen asked if the Board had a copy of the survey map , to which Mr . Frost indicated that they did . Mr . Frost and Mr . King went over the map , indicating the funny angle that was involved with this variance . Chairman Austen said that the Board was looking at just a little over 2 - 1 / 2 feet from the lot line , to which Mr . Theisen agreed . Mr . Theisen explained that when the Spanswicks purchased the property about twenty years ago , there wasn ' t a survey that indicated the location of the house , it was a kind of " rough " survey , as they did back then . It showed the boundary lines but it wasn ' t too specif - is showing the distance from the sidelines . Therefore , the Spanswicks did not know , until very recently , that there was a problem . Mr . Frost directed the Board to the building permit in their packet issued Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 on June 6 , 1967 . Mr . Theisen said that if one looks at the permit , there was no indication as to where the house " sits . " It was a rough sketch . Mr . King noted that it is only the southerly corner which is I n violation . Chairman Austen asked if the other houses set back a considerable distance from it , to which Mr . Theisen answered that there were no other structures nearby the property . Chairman Austen commented that there were no letters , one way or the other , from the neighbors of this property . Mr . Theisen stated that the Spanswicks and the buyers are anxious to have the closing which is tentatively scheduled for early next week , hoping that the variance will pass by then . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Since no one wanted to speak to the Board on this matter , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . It was noted that this application was not required to have an environmental study . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that this Board , grant to the Appellant , Roger Spans - wick , a variance to permit the continued occupancy of the property at 104 Pine View Terrace with the structure 12 . 4 feet distant from the southerly boundary line as depicted on the map submitted with the application made by Manzari & Reagan , Surveyors , dated June 15 , 1993 , with the following findings : 1 ) The property has been in the present form since 1968 . 2 ) There has been no adverse response from the neighbors . 3 ) The hardships that would be sustained by not permitting the variance and the benefits accrued to this property far out - weigh any possible imposition of difficulty on the neighbors . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth , Hines . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . While waiting for Mr . Poyer , the next Appeal to come before the Board was as follows : ® APPEAL OF JONATHAN 0 . ALBANESE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZA - TION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING ON A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING LOT AT 1040 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 19 - 2 - 10 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF 200 SQUARE FEET + Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF SAID BUILDING WHICH HAS SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACKS OF 1 . 7 FEET + ( SOUTH SIDE ) AND 4 . 4 FEET + ( NORTH SIDE ) , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS REQUIRED . SAID BUILDING LOT HAS A WIDTH OF 30 FEET + , WHERE 100 FEET IS REQUIRED . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Albanese about the south side and north side building lots , wanting to know if they were reversed . Mr . Albanese answered no , that the south side is 1 . 7 feet and the north side is 4 . 4 feet . Chairman Austen then questioned that the fence on the north side is not the lot line . Mr . Albanese said that the fence is the lot line . Mr . Albanese stated that he owns two properties there , indicating that there are two property lines . Chairman Austen asked if Mr . Albanese owns the property to the south of it , to which Mr . Albanese confirmed . Mr . Frost said that there are actually two tax parcels . He said that on the survey map there is a house to the east , in front of them . He further said that the Board might note in the description of the lot , there are other non - conforming aspects . He said that he put together a rather general description and the lot coverage is also non - conforming of the house . He said this appeal did not necessarily increase the footprint of the building , but that ' s also non - conforming because we have greater than 20 percent lot cover - age . Chairman Austen asked if the building to the east is on a separate parcel . Mr . Albanese stated that it was , and it was so noted that they were all separate parcels . Attorney Barney asked if the ten foot strip of land is attached to the easterly portion . Mr . Albanese said that it was a deeded strip . Attorney Barney asked how one gets access , and Mr . Albanese said that there is a right - of - way for both the house to the east and the house in which he lives across the house to the south ' s driveway . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Albanese if he lived in the house about which the Board was talking , and Mr . Albanese said that he did and that he has now lived there for seven years . Mr . Albanese discussed the number of times he has appeared before the Board relative to this Property , explaining the history of the property and the reasons he appeared before the Board . Since the Albaneses are expecting another child , they are looking for additional space for Mr . Albanese to have his den , study , lounge , and home office off the master bedroom . The new child will be taking over the space he previously used as his den , home office , etc . Mr . King asked if the proposal was to build westerly on the second floor without enlarging the footprint , and Mr . Albanese said that was correct . Mr . Albanese said Mr . Frost had taken some pictures of the house , showing the open deck on the second floor , off the lakeside . He indicated that this would be covered by this addition . He said that it would almost be like a sun porch , only heated and insulated . Mr . King asked if the area would be 200 square feet , and Mr . Albanese said that was approximately the square footage . Mr . Albanese said that the original plan was to enclose the open deck on the first floor , but because the flood was taking place at the time the plans were being made and the area was completely surrounded by water , Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 therefore we temporarily abandoned that idea , only to move the plans upstairs . Chairman Austen asked about the water level , and Mr . Albanese said the water came up to the bottom of the floor joist of the house . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . With no one wanting to speak on the matter , he closed the public hearing . Addressing the Environmental Assessment Form which was reviewed on July 23 , 1993 by Floyd Forman , Town Planner , Chairman Austen partially read Mr . Forman ' s Part II , Section C4 , Paragraph 2 , indicating to the Board that they should be aware and read this paragraph . He read Mr . Forman ' s statement in Paragraph 3 of Section C4 . Chairman Austen read Section C5 which he asked the Board to take into review . Chairman Austen read from Part III - Staff Recommendation , Determination of Significance which stated that a negative determination is recommend - ed . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . , RESOLVED , it being obvious that the proposed extension would not have any significant environmental impact by itself , and in view of the nature of the surrounding properties , move to adopt the • recommendation of the reviewer , Town Planner , Floyd Forman and that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed addition at 1040 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 - 10 . During the discussion , Mr . Scala stated he was disturbed by the fact that this comment that was made on the environmental significance was not made with the previous reconstruction after the fire . They had to use a shoe horn to get the equipment in to be able to do the work . At that time , he could see a complaint the likes of which is being made here , but to put that statement in now on the second floor , is nonsense . Previously , one might have had an argument , even though it was a rebuilding , it was a larger total footage . Chairman Austen didn ' t think it was Floyd Forman who did the previous assessment . Discussion ensued , and Attorney Barney stated that the history on this environmental review was interesting in that the initial reviewer determined that it was positive and recommended a finding that it was of positive environmental significance based on the comments , then the reviewer shifted , and he has a sneaky suspission from reading this review , that the last paragraph was remitted , but there was not any revision of the earlier paragraphs . Therefore the review is not consistent . He further explained the reviewer who signed this review felt that there is a positive environmental significance here , or at least the possibility such that it should be positive , and that ® decision was reconsidered by the higher ups in the Planning Depart - ment , and as a result , the reviewer that signed this , differed from the reviewer who originally signed the review . Attorney Barney said that he believes that when this was signed , the last sentence was changed from the recommendation of a positive determination to that of Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 . the recommendation of a negative determination , but " they " did not go back into the body of the review because there is still language in there which suggests , in terms of governmental goals , rules and regulations , a significant environmental effect . Attorney Barney stated that the Board is free to act in any way it wishes , but he wanted to give the historical background to explain why the Board was getting the divergent statements . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth , Hines . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing by reading into the record the following letter addressed to Mr . Andrew S . Frost from David B . Gersh , dated July 28 , 1993 , who owns the property immediately north of the residence of Mr . Albanese at 1040 East Shore Drive : " Dear Mr . Frost : " I own property immediately north of the residence of Jon Albanese , which is at 1040 East Shore Drive . " I wish to advise the Zoning Board of Appeals that I have no objection to the authorization Jon is requesting to enlarge his residence so as to allow sufficient room for a second child whose birth is anticipated shortly . " The prior enlargements that Jon has made to his residence have resulted in general improvements and are an asset to the community . I have every confidence that the improvements that Jon is now requesting of the Board will be no exception . " Accordingly , I respectfully urge approval of Jon ' s appeal . " Sincerely , " David B . Gersh " With no one else speaking on this matter , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Robert Hines . RESOLVED , that this Board grant to Jonathan Albanese the Special Approval to enlarge a non -- conforming lot and structure , located at 1040 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 19 - 2 . 10 , by the addition to add to the second floor level on the westerly side , one more room , approximately 200 square feet in area with the following findings : Town of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 1 ) That the enlargement does not increase the percentage of use of the lot itself and does not increase the footprint of the building . 2 ) That it would add significantly to the utility of the resi - dence . 3 ) That the proposed addition will not adversely impact or violate the criteria set forth in Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub - paragraphs a - h of Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth , Hines . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . Chairman Austen moved on to the Appeal of Faust and Charline Rossi because Mr . Poyer was still not present . He read the following Appeal : APPEAL OF FAUST AND CHARLINE ROSSI , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHO - RIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE A NON - CONFORMING BUILDING / LOT AT 210 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 66 - 2 - 13 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A 12 X 14 FOOT PORCH TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING . SAID BUILDING LOT IS NON - CONFORMING SINCE IT CONTAINS TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS , WHEREAS ONLY ONE IS PERMITTED ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND . Chairman Austen asked Appellant , Charline Rossi , if both pieces of the property were hers to which she answered affirmatively . It was purchased by the Rossis as one parcel , and they regard it as one parcel . She explained that when it was built in 1910 , the house was built so that it sat on both lots . Mr . Frost circulated a picture , commenting that the Board should carefully read all the notes he made on the picture so that there would be less confusion . Ms . Rossi also passed around a picture relative to the site of the sliding glass doors . She explained that the doors were already there when they bought the house . Mr . King asked if the lot was still divided into two tax parcels . Ms . Rossi stated that the previous owner consolidated them into one lot for tax purposes . Mr . Frost stated that action , according to the Assessment office , took place in 1990 . Ms . Rossi stated that they owned the property since May of 1992 , moving into the property in August 1992 . Mr . King asked if they had one tax bill , and Ms . Rossi answered affirmatively . Mr . King asked Ms . Rossi the correct dimen - sions of the proposed addition of 12 X 14 feet to which she explained that the 14 foot dimension ran along the side of the building , with the 12 foot dimension going out from the house . She explained that the porch will be a screened - in porch . Mr . Frost explained the sketch and its directions . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 Mr . Frost tried to clarify the map relative to the property line shown on the map . He said that the map the Board had in front of them shows the property line running along the side of the house in ques - tion , when that property line was there , that house was much too close to that side lot line . Sometime in 1990 , the parcels were consolidated , and therefore what the Board sees is 210 and 212 , but it is really one tax parcel , but in the process of that consolidation , one now ends up , theoretically , with a single parcel of land with two separate buildings on it , which makes it non - conforming . He explained that before the consolidation , it was non - conforming due to the lot line , and after the consolidation it was non - conforming because of the two buildings . Answering Mr . Ellsworth ' s question , Mr . Frost stated that to all intents and purposes , the property line does not now exist , but that there are two buildings on one parcel . Ms . Rossi further explained the history of the property . Mr . Frost pointed out that he asked Ms . Rossi to bring the deed due to Mr . Rossi ' s suggestion that this may be described as two separate parcels by deed . They agreed upon the fact that , as in the deed , it is described as two separate parcels . Ms . Rossi passed the deed around to the Board members . Mr . Scala asked if the tax map now no longer has the line in question . Ms . Rossi said that she did not know the answer to that , but she said that she knows that she now receives only one tax bill . Mr . King said that consolidating it as a single tax parcel has no legal significance as far as the title goes . Mr . Frost said that the Town has taken the position that if you consolidated , then you need to go through subdivision approval . Mr . King agreed that he believed that this should be the case here that the consolidation is made legal by some commitment of . which is put in writing , acknowledged and recorded that these two lots will not be treated as one lot . Attorney Barney said that by consolidating in one piece , there has been a creation of a violation of the zoning ordinance because you are allowing a valid , legal non - conforming use . When you consolidate , you. now take affirmative action against the zoning ordinance and you have now put these in a non - conforming situation which he is not so sure that it is a legal , non - conforming situation . Mr . Scala asked who approved the consolidation to which Attorney Barney said that it was done by the assessment office for tax purpos - es , as a change for subdivision purposes . The two lots were consoli - dated for tax purposes when they were previously treated as separate lots ; they are now one lot , and if there is going to be a further division of those lots , it will require sub - division review . Mr . King asked about the apartment building to which Ms . Rossi answered that it is their garage . She said that she believes it was originally a barn . She said that , upon talking to the neighbors , that there was an apartment over the garage at least prior to 1973 . However , precisely when it was could not be determined because the present neighbors had not lived there that long . She said that the third owner , who sold the house in 1973 , had an apartment in the house at that time . She said that somewhere between 1945 and 1973 there was an apartment over the garage and has been ever since . Ms . Rossi said Town of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 • that they still park the car in the garage . Mr . King asked about the work being done in the apartment , and Ms . Rossi said that there was painting being done on the apartment , and she said that this is nothing relevant to the addition on the house . Mr . King commented that there was a carpenter at the apartment when he was there , and Ms . Rossi said that it was repair work relative to the painting , getting the place in order for the new tenants . No structural work is being done to the apartment . Attorney Barney said that the map itself was revised in 1984 . He said that it seemed like , that prior to 1984 there was a division over sub - division . Mr . King stated that , for the record , the deed to Mr . and Mrs . Rossi was dated May 26 , 1992 , recorded in Liber 675 of Deeds on Page 99 . The deed describes the parcel as two parcels in that deed . Attorney Barney asked that the Board not make an assumption as to the parcels of land without getting the facts straight . Attorney Barney said that there is a non - conforming use either way - - either because the boundaries are too close , there is a non - conforming use , or because there are two buildings on one lot , is the other non - conforming use . Chairman Austen referred to the short Environmental Assessment Form . He opened the public hearing , and because there was no one there to speak on the matter , he closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen spoke about the environmental review which was reviewed on July 22 , 1993 by George Frantz , the Assistant Town Planner , Chairman Austen read Part III of the review , stating that a negative determi - nation was recommended . Environmental Impact MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board support the recommendation of George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , on July 22 , 1993 and adopt the conclusion for the negative determination of environmental signif - icance with respect to the contemplative action proposed by the Rossis ' property at 210 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 2 - 13 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth , Hines . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . After checking further , Mr . Frost so noted that the current tax maps show it as one parcel . He said that the line shown as a solid line on the map before the Board is now shown as a dotted line on the current tax map . He reiterated that there is a building permit on Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 • file which was issued in 1985 for what used to be renovations . The same map the Board has before it is the map attached to the building permit ; from 1984 , it shows the apartment . Mr . Frost said that , when speaking to assessment , they say their records , prior to 1981 , start to become somewhat sketchy . MOTION By Mr . Robert Hines , seconded by Mr . Edward King . RESOLVED , that the Board grant the Appellants , Faust and Charline Rossi , Special Approval , authorizing the construction of a screened porch at the present property at 210 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 2 - 13 , as described in the appli - cation dated July 14 , 1993 with the attachments to that applica - tion shown on the proposed construction with the following find - ings : 1 ) That the premises are occupied in a non - conforming manner by the appellant . 2 ) That the construction proposed is fairly consistent with the architectural character of the neighborhood . 3 ) That the construction proposed is fairly diminuous in terms of the total structures on the building . 4 ) That , given the character of the land , the structure would be hardly visible . 5 ) That the non - conforming nature of the property is not a contributing factor because the additional structure does not , in any way , otherwise , violate the zoning laws ; i . e . , either side yard setback or lot occupancy . 6 ) That the Board is making no finding with respect to whether the occupancy of the apartment is a legal or non - legal occu - pancy . 7 ) That there has been no person from the neighborhood to come forth to express any objection to the contemplated construc - tion . 8 ) That this application meets all the other requirements in Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub - paragraphs a - h . 9 ) That the findings made herein expressly exclude any findings with respect to the occupancy of the apartment . 10 ) The excludings made in granting the special approval do not grant any rights otherwise not possessed by the occupant . After further discussion relative to the non - forming use of the apartment on the property , Mr . Scala stated that the issue could be laid to rest by having the Board assume that , even though the deed Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals July 28 , 1993 talks about two lots , the map shows two lots , that the Board recogniz - es it to have been changed to one lot , with the map going to be corrected to show that . It was stated that the only record would be the fact that someone had to go to the Assessor ' s Office , make a written application , and the change was therefore made . Attorney Barney stated that the question was critical relative to the variance which is being given . He stated that the Board would probably have to assume that they are dealing with a single lot . Attorney Barney stated that he was uncomfortable with the lack of knowledge on the status of the apartment between 1954 and 1973 , seeing 1954 being the Board ' s operative date . If it was occupied as an apartment in 1954 , it is a legal , non - conforming use ; if it was not so occupied before 1954 , it is not a legal non - conforming use . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : Ayes - King , Austen , Scala , Ellsworth , Hines . Nays - None . The motion carried unanimously . With Mr . Poyer not present , Attorney Barney recommended that action be taken to make every effort to have Mr . Poyer available to represent himself on the appeal . According to Mr . Frost , there are already five cases to be heard at the August 11 , 1993 meeting . Therefore , Attorney Barney recommended adjournment on the Poyer Appeal until September 8 , 1993 , asking that Mr . Frost make every effort to contact Mr . Poyer about the variance and his presence at the meeting . Chairman Austen read the following Appeal of Kenneth A . Poyer : APPEAL OF KENNETH A . POYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R - 15 . Noting that Mr . Poyer is not in the audience , Chairman Austen opened the public hearing on the Poyer Appeal . There being no one present to speak on the matter , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . Mr . Barney recommended that the matter be adjourned until September 8 . Chairman Austen adjourned this Appeal until the Septem - ber 8 , 1993 meeting . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 8 : 20 P . M . �fiZ& tDiO Roberta H . Komaromi ® Recording Secretary Edwar Austen , Chairman • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY , JULY 28 , 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 28 , 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 KENNETH A . POYER , APPELLANT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 6 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 36 FEET + IN HEIGHT ( 30 FEET MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERMITTED ) AT 10 EVERGREEN LANE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 22 - 1 - 1 . 26 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF ROGER M . SPANSWICK , APPELLANT , HENRY THEISAN , ESQUIRE , AGENT , REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE IV , SECTION 14 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO BE PERMITTED TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A 12 . 4 FOOT SOUTH SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK ( 15 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ) AT 104 PINE VIEW TERRACE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 53- 1 - 15 . 23 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . APPEAL OF JONATHAN 0 . ALBANESE , APPELLANT , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING ON A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING LOT AT 1040 EAST SHORE DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 , 19 - 2 - 10 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF 200 SQUARE FEET + ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF SAID BUILDING WHICH HAS SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACKS OF 1 . 7 FEET + ( SOUTH SIDE ) AND 4 . 4 FEET + ( NORTH SIDE ) , WHEREAS 15 FEET IS REQUIRED . SAID BUILDING LOT HAS A WIDTH OF 30 FEET + , WHERE 100 FEET IS REQUIRED . APPEAL OF FAUST AND CHARLINE ROSSI , APPELLANTS , REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS UNDER ARTICLE XII , SECTION 54 , OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , TO ENLARGE A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING /LOT AT 210 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 66 - 2 - 13 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 . THE ENLARGEMENT CONSISTS OF THE ADDITION OF A 12 X 14 FOOT PORCH TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING . SAID BUILDING LOT IS NON-CONFORMING SINCE IT CONTAINS TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS , WHEREAS ONLY ONE IS PERMITTED ON A SINGLE PARCEL OF LAND . 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 : July 20 , 1993 Publish : July 23 , 1993