HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1994-10-26 FINAL
TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 26 , 1994
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 , October 26 , 1994 , 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 Carl Sundell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of
Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be
permitted to construct a 4 ' wide by 7 ' 4 " long room addition to the southwest side of
the non- conforming residential building located on the southwest side of a non-
conforming parcel of land containing four residential buildings ( only one residential
building allowed ) at 310 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3- 10 ,
Residence District R- 15 . The room addition will be 9 + feet from the side property line
( 15 ' building setbacks required ) . Said building is currently located 13 ' 6 " from the
southwest side property line , with a stairwell foundation located 7 + feet from said
property line .
Appeal of John L . and Margaret W . Bracewell , Appellant , requesting authorization from
the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to reposition a non-conforming garage / accessory building at
225 Stone Quarry Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 40- 3- 10 , Residence District R- 9 .
The garage is currently located 11 + feet from Stone Quarry Road , whereas a 25 foot
building setback from the roadway is required .
Appeal of Roy A . Luft , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article V . Section 20 of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building
with a height of 24 ' ( whereas a maximum 15 ' height is allowed ) at 1317 Trumansburg Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 24 - 3- 6 , Residence District R- 30 .
Appeal of Dana Potenza , Appellant , 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 building / lot at 831 Taughannock Boulevard , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 37 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of
the construction of an enclosed stairway on a building with a north side yard setback
of 11 . 8 ' ( 15 ' required ) on a parcel of land 69 . 5 ' wide ( 100 ' width required ) .
Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time , 7 : 00 p . m . , and said place , hear all
persons in support of such matters or objections thereto . Persons may appear by agent
or in person .
Andrew S . Frost
Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement
Officer
273- 1783
Dated ; October 18 , 1994
Publish ; October 21 , 1994
TOWN OF ITHACA FILED
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ITHACA
WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 26 , 1994 uu
[Date- la
rkDQc�. �-t� `TQc�
• The following Appeals were heard by the Board on October 26 , 1994 :
APPEAL of Carl Sundell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals
under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
construct a 4 ' wide by 7 ' 4 " long room addition to the southwest side of the non- conforming
residential building located on the southwest side of a non-conforming parcel of land
containing four residential buildings ( only one residential building allowed ) at 310 Forest
Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 . The room
addition will be 9 + feet from the side property line ( 15 ' building setbacks required ) . Said
building is currently located 13 ' 6 " from the southwest side property line , with a stairwell
foundation located 7 + feet from said property line .
GRANTED .
APPEAL of John L . and Margaret W . Bracewell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the
Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance ,
to be permitted to reposition a non- conforming garage / accessory building at 225 Stone Quarry
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 40- 3- 10 , Residence District R- 9 . The garage is currently
located 11 + feet from Stone Quarry Road , whereas a 25 foot building setback from the roadway
is required .
GRANTED .
APPEAL of Roy A . Luft , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article V . Section 20 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building with a
eight of 24 ' ( whereas a maximum 15 ' height is allowed ) at 1317 Trumansburg Road , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24 - 3- 6 , Residence District R- 30 .
GRANTED WITH A CONDITION .
APPEAL of Dana Potenza , Appellant , 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 building / lot at 831 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No . 25 - 2 - 37 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of the construction of an
enclosed stairway on a building with a north side yard setback of 11 . 8 ' ( 15 ' required ) on a
parcel of land 69 . 5wide ( 100 ' width required ) .
GRANTED .
•
FILED 1
TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF�ITI-IACA
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Date-L' aJ 95
WEDNESDAY , OCTOBER 26 , 1994 !�Q}� �
LClerk�tL���X'
*RESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Edward King , Harry Ellsworth , Pete Scala , David Stotz , Town
Attorney John C . Barney , Zoning Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector Andrew
Frost , Town Planner Jon Kanter .
OTHERS : Roy A . Luft , Gerald D . Hall , Carl H . Sundell , Louis E . Pendleton , Jeff Fredrickson ,
John & Margaret Bracewell , Dana Potenza .
Chairman Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 PM and stated that all posting ,
publication , and notification of the public hearings had been completed and the same were in
order .
The first appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows :
APPEAL of Carl Sundell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of
Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be
permitted to construct a 4 ' wide by 7 ' 4 " long room addition to the southwest side of the
non-conforming residential building located on the southwest side of a non-conforming
parcel of land containing four residential buildings ( only one residential building
allowed ) at 310 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66-3- 10 , Residence
District R- 15 . The room addition will be 9 + feet from the side property line ( 15 '
building setbacks required ) . Said building is currently located 13 ' 6 " from the
southwest side property line , with a stairwell foundation located 7 + feet from said
property line .
WChairman Austen invited Mr . Sundell to the microphone and requested that he tell the
ard what he wanted to do and his reasons . Mr . Sundell said they wish to extend an existing
porch on the side of their house in order to make room for a washer and dryer for the
specific purpose of making it possible for his wife to have access to both of those machines
on the same floor and to remove the necessity for her to carry heavy loads of wet clothes
down narrow and steep cellar stairs . His wife has degenerative arthritis , severe sciatica ,
spinal stenosis and diabetes and he has arthritis and spinal problems that prevent lifting
and carrying anything but the lightest loads . His wife has already fallen several times in
carrying baskets of clothes down the cellar stairs . The less important part of their purpose
in making this appeal is to upgrade the structure and enhance the appearance of their house
on that side . The present porch structure was built over 62 years ago and was constructed
by his father of used materials . Over the years , the foundation under it has broken down and
the porch and its appearance has degraded .
Mr . Sundell said they have looked at other options to place the washer and dryer but all
of them would entail massive and expensive interior or exterior construction and relocation
of gas , electric , water , and sewer lines which are now all adjacent to the porch in their
cellar . Also , that would eliminate the bedrooms they now use . Mr . Sundell said he had a
prescription from his wife ' s doctor which says , " The patient has difficulty in going up and
down stairs due to spinal stenosis " and signed by Dr . Louis W . Munchmeyer .
Mr . Sundell read an additional letter from another neighbor saying , " Please accept this
letter as a mark of my support for the proposed change in your house in order to have laundry
facilities on your first floor . I do not see how this can but add to the convenience of your
home and I find the improvement does not detract in any way from our community" . . .
Sincerely , Roger Garrison . Mr . King asked where Mr . Garrison lives in relation to their
ouse and Mr . Sundell replied that he ' s 4 to 5 houses down the street . Mr . King asked who
he neighbor is who owns the property immediately west of them which would be most affected
by this and Mr . Sundell said that is Mrs . William Sprague . Mr . King said he didn ' t believe
they had heard from her and Mr . Frost agreed that was correct , he didn ' t think they had heard
either for or against the case from her .
Town of Ithaca 2
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Chairman Austen asked if that was the one listed as Pendleton ' s property prior and Mr .
jBrost said , on the 11 " x 14 " survey map , it ' s shown as immediately to the west . He said ,
ust to clarify , the map the Board is looking at shows four structures and those are all
along the same tax parcel that Mr . Sundell owns . Mr . Frost said , if you look at the photo
being passed around , there ' s a white house shown and that ' s a back building ; this addition
is to the front building .
Chairman Austen noted they had letters which had been mailed to the Zoning Board from the
following , all in favor of the variance being granted :
1 . Richard F . & Ann B . Pendleton , 326 Forest Home Drive , dated October 22 , 1994 .
2 . Bruce Brittain , 135 Warren Road , dated October 22 , 1994 .
3 . Liese Bronfenbrenner , 108 McIntyre Place , dated October 5 , 1994 .
4 . Alan M . Fletcher , 300 Forest Home Drive , dated October 5 , 1994 .
5 . Margery M . Shipe , 236 Forest Home Drive , dated October 4 , 1994 .
6 . Karl Pendleton , 320 Forest Home Drive , dated October 4 , 1994 .
Also received was a copy of a statement by Dr . Louis W . Munchmeyer , dated June 21 , 1994
explaining Mrs . Sundell ' s condition . Mr . Sundell said his immediate neighbor on the other
side , Louis Pendleton , is at the meeting in person and he is also in support of the variance
being granted .
• Mr . King then asked if the proposed structure would not extend the building further west
than it is already at some point and Mr . Sundell said that ' s correct . Mr . Frost said the
stairwell foundation that he references in the notice doesn ' t come much more than
approximately 18 " or less above the ground and asked if Mr . Sundell if that was correct ; Mr .
Sundell replied it was less than that . Mr . Frost said the wall of the existing porch is now
13 ' 6 " . Mr . King asked if that was from the side line and Mr . Frost said that ' s correct .
Mr . Frost then said that the stairwell foundation is nearly invisible but , in fact , is part
of the house and comes within 9 ' or 7 ' .
Chairman Austen asked if this would affect their being able to drive in their car . Mr .
Sundell replied , not at all . Mr . Frost said , having been in Mr . Sundell ' s house , he could
attest to the fact that there are not a whole lot of alternative locations and he did see the
cellar stairs and they are rather steep , antiquated kind of stairs . Chairman Austen asked
if this was actually going to include stairs down into the basement then and Mr . Frost said
no , this will just enable them to move the dryer ( which is now in the cellar ) upstairs .
Mr . Jeff Fredrickson from Crown Construction stated he had some photos if the Board cared
to look at them . He has been working with Mr . Sundell on and off for probably the last two
years , trying to figure out a solution to this problem . He had two sets of photos showing
the existing structure and the side of the porch which Mr . Sundell had explained was in a
somewhat dilapidated condition and which he would like to improve the appearance of . Mr .
Fredrickson stated it ' s his belief that this will increase the value of the neighborhood with
the addition . Mr . King asked if part of the porch was going to be enclosed and Mr .
Fredrickson said yes , and the little jutting shown in the photo is the existing one presently
there which comes out 4 ' and then Mr . Sundell wants to come out another 4 ' . Basically , they
Giould knock down the existing and redo it , increasing it by 4 ' . Mr . King asked if they will
then be extending 4 ' closer to the westerly direction and Mr . Fredrickson agreed that ' s
correct . Mr . Fredrickson pointed out in the photo the Bilco door which Mr . Frost had
Town of Ithaca 3
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
mentioned previously . Mr . Fredrickson also noted one of his photos gives a clear view of the
*
eighbor ' s property immediately affected . There is a full driveway and then a fence which
is basically within a couple inches of the property line . Mr . Fredrickson then pointed out
the back side of Mr . Sundell ' s driveway showing that it would come out another 4 ' , so it
still would be in about 2 ' from the Bilco door .
Mr . Fredrickson said he took the next shot from the street , showing the neighbor ' s house .
You can barely see that 4 ' addition there and , with another 4 ' , as far as visibility , if
anything , Mr . Fredrickson thought it would increase the neighbor ' s pleasure as far as looking
at a nicer structure . They would end up with approximately 7 ' of driveway at the end which
they now use just as a walkway . They don ' t pull their car up ; the driveway is in the front ,
and they ' ve fenced that off and just use it as a walkway .
Chairman Austen noted they have something they haven ' t had in awhile and that is a form
from the New York State Office of Parks , Recreation , & Historic Preservation . Chairman
Austen asked if this building was historical and Mr . Frost said it ' s not but it may be
referenced in the EAF and the Planning Department should look into that , then asked the Town
Planner to answer the question . Mr . Kanter said there ' s a brief reference to it and they did
some quick research on it . The State Office of Parks , Recreation , & Historic Preservation
has done a survey of the area . They ' ve basically looked at all structures 50 years of age
and older , but this particular structure was determined not to have any particular historical
significance . These forms which are included with the packet are filled out on a standard
basis when the State or County does this kind of surveying , so it ' s really kind of
informational .
Chairman Austen then opened the public hearing , asking if there was anyone present who
9SC
fished to speak . Mr . Louis Pendleton of 316 Forest Home Drive said he had grown up with the
undell ' s and Mr . Sundell was sort of like a second father . He saw no problem with this and
does see the need to move the washing machine or whatever upstairs . Mr . Pendleton said he ' s
been down those steps and they are tight and rickety . Chairman Austen asked if this would
affect him in any particular way and Mr . Pendleton said not that he could see .
With no others present to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen noted that the environmental assessment form was reviewed by JoAnn
Cornish , Planner II and dated October 19 , 1994 . Jon Kanter , the Town Planner , then offered
to summarize as follows . The important point was , basically , there were no significant
concerns identified . With regard to Part II , C4 . of the environmental assessment , there ' s
a reference to the fact that there are four existing residential buildings on the one tax
parcel . Just as sort of a little warning , it was noted that this particular action has no
environmental significance but any other changes to structures on the property should be
carefully monitored . Other than that , the recommendation is for a negative determination of
environmental significance .
With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made on the
environmental assessment .
MOTION
• By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendation of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II dated
October 19 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the
appeal by Carl Sundell for the property at 310 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 .
Town of Ithaca 4
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
With no additional discussion required , Chairman Austen then asked that a motion be made
on the appeal .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Carl Sundell , special approval under
Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
construct a 4 ' wide by 7 ' 4 " long room addition to the southwest side of the non-
conforming residential building located on the southwest side of a non-conforming parcel
of land containing four residential buildings at 310 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3- 10 , Residence District R- 15 , with the following findings :
1 . With the understanding that the room addition is for a washing machine and dryer and
that the building and construction will be substantially as proposed and limited to
this application .
2 . That the appearance and construction of the room addition will be in keeping with the
rest of the structure .
3 . That this matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
Chairman Austen then asked for a vote on the motion which resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The second case to be heard by the Board was the following :
Appeal of John L . and Margaret W . Bracewell , Appellant , requesting authorization from the
Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning
Ordinance , to be permitted to reposition a non-conforming garage / accessory building at
225 Stone Quarry Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 40-3- 10 , Residence District R-9 .
The garage is currently located 11 ± feet from Stone Quarry Road , whereas a 25 foot
building setback from the roadway is required .
Mr . John Bracewell stated that the Board could see , from the package in front of them ,
what they had requested is permission to reposition the garage . Essentially , they wish to
rebuild the structure and move it to a position which allows them a better access from Stone
Quarry Road into the entryway to the garage . They have noted several times that , either they
have to pull into the garage and stop for a moment before going all the way in , or people
Oull in and there ' s no room as in the case of the last couple of winters when the snow was
Town of Ithaca 5
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
very heavy and only the access to the garage had been shoveled . Any car that stopped there
Isnd couldn ' t get all the way into the garage was left hanging slightly out into Stone Quarry
oad . This is , obviously , not a safe situation if you are familiar with that roadway .
Mr . Bracewell said they have a situation with the garage at the moment where it is
beginning to show signs of deterioration so they either have to repair the garage as it
stands or their preference would be to move the garage . They would actually shrink the size
of it , but they would not actually improve its setback from the road on one corner . However ,
by turning it , it would mean that only one corner of the garage would be that 11 + feet from
Stone Quarry Road , whereas the rest of the garage would go back approximately 13 or 14 feet .
That obviously does not fall within the parameters of the nominal setback required by the
zoning ordinance , but it does improve it somewhat . It would also give them the opportunity
to get the full length of a car in ( in front of the garage ) and well off the road to help the
safety situation somewhat .
Chairman Austen asked if they would be demolishing the present garage and Mr . Bracewell
agreed that , essentially , they are going to demolish the existing garage and rebuild .
Mr . King noted that the applicant had attached a statement to the appeal explaining why
other locations around his lot are impossible . Mr . Bracewell said he felt that to be
somewhat appropriate simply because , if you look at the map of the land which he had included
with his appeal , you will see that there ' s a considerable amount of land around the house .
However , the road slopes down rather steeply at that point and the land runs out flat . At
the point where the garage and their current driveway exists , this is the only point where
the land and the road really meet at a convenient place . If they moved the garage to the
other side of the house , the situation they face is having to come up a very steep incline
•( which is , of course , inconvenient in winter ) and really is a much poorer location of the
road for access into traffic . The other problem becomes that there is no place they can put
the garage that does not require them , in driving a vehicle , or construction trucks bringing
in the necessary materials and supplies and concrete to cross either the leech bed for the
septic system or the septic tank itself . Mr . Bracewell said he didn ' t think either of those
would survive having heavy equipment cross it .
Mr . King said he took it , from the picture provided , that the line of sight along the
highway is probably best where the garage is placed now and Mr . Bracewell agreed and said
it ' s much easier to see cars coming . There ' s a slight curve just up the hill from them by
the neighbor ' s house and a slight curve below . If you go further down , you might gain a
little better view up the hill with a little more time but you ' re much closer to a downhill
curve .
Mr . Scala asked if , between the garage and the house , the applicants have some provision
for parking now and if they would continue that and Mr . Bracewell said yes . Mr . Scala asked
if he was correct in stating that the problem of the leech bed , etc . is not in that area and
Mr . Bracewell agreed that is correct , it ' s not in that area but on the north side of the
house . Mr . Scala asked , out of curiosity , why the garage is not attached to the house in the
new construction . Mr . Bracewell said that is also addressed in the statement he had written
which is attached to his appeal . One of the reasons is that the south side of the house is
really the only side that gets a great deal of good light . There are windows in that side
of the house and there is also an access way for purposes of getting wood to a wood burning
furnace ( it goes in through that south wall ) . The major entrance they also use to the house
is the back porch entrance which faces west on the south side of the house . Placing the
garage or any other structure against that south side of the house would block the windows ,
•would necessitate finding a new way to get wood into the cellar to feed the furnace , and
would probably alter their use of that access way through the back porch .
Town of Ithaca 6
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Mr . Stotz said he noticed , in the difference between the existing drawing and the
�
roposed drawing , the garage had been turned slightly . In relation to the small retaining
Wall , it ' s also moved back into something called Old Quarry Lane . Mr . Bracewell said no ,
it ' s not moved back into the Quarry Lane itself . The Quarry Lane itself is behind what he
had marked as the high retaining wall . The lot line he had drawn there in dash lines ,
theoretically goes up the exact center of Quarry Lane , so there ' s actually a rather steep
slope that comes down from that high retaining wall , to the small retaining wall that is
adjacent to the present garage . Mr . King asked if the lane was at a higher elevation than
the garage and Mr . Bracewell said yes , approximately about 10 ' to 14 ' higher than the
elevation by the garage itself at present .
Comparing the two drawings ( proposed and existing ) , Mr . Scala said the proposed building
will be a couple of feet closer to the house but it will still pivot 11 ' from the Quarry
Road . Mr . Bracewell said that is correct , but the new building is actually smaller than the
older building and is 22 ' by 22 ' ( not the 20 ' by 22 ' shown on the drawing ) .
Mr . Stotz asked what would be involved in leaving the garage as it ' s proposed but moving
it further back towards the high retaining wall . Mr . Bracewell said that would involve a
great deal more excavation and , as it sits , the back of the existing garage is literally
against about anywhere from 2 ' to 3 ' of earth . If they turn the garage , they dig what would
be the northeast corner of the garage somewhat further back into the hillside but that brings
the back wall of the garage out of the earth probably within 6 ' of that northeast corner .
Mr . Scala said he took it that this is still a two car garage and that they currently
have to back into part of the road to get out and that they would continue to do the same .
Mr . Bracewell agreed that ' s correct but said what this will do is allow them to get out and
Wee a little more clearly because that angle is giving them a better approach . Mr . Frost
said he supposed it wasn ' t alot but , by pivoting the garage slightly , there is less of a
facade closer to the road . Mr . Bracewell said it ' s not alot but , because of the strange
shape of the land there ' s not alot he can do at that point . Mr . Frost said , so perhaps the
applicant is taking something which is non- conforming and making it just a wee bit less non-
conforming .
Mr . Scala asked if the appearance of the garage will match the house and Mr . Bracewell
said it will come closer , the lower story of the house is white stucco and the upper story
is green metal siding . They plan to put a white vinyl on this garage and assume it will have
a green asphalt shingle roof . It will at least be a great deal tidier than it is now .
Mr . King said it sounds as though the plan doesn ' t make the non- conforming condition any
worse than it is at the moment and probably slightly less . Chairman Austen said it would be
nice to even gain another foot or so from the roadway and Mr . Bracewell said it would help
a great deal and the other thing that rotating the garage slightly does is , anytime they have
more than 2 or 3 people coming to the house ( especially if they come in separate cars ) , there
is rarely enough room to park . This will give them at least an additional single car space
on the south side of this garage so , to that extent , they are at least improving some of the
access for people who need to come to the house when the garage is full . Chairman Austen
said it doesn ' t seem as if they were moving it enough to do that and Mr . Bracewell said they
do simply because , by turning it that slight distance , it opens up the distance between the
corner of the garage and the drainage ditch just enough so that there ' s good , clear access
with no danger of anyone going into the ditch to get to that south side of the garage .
Mr . King asked if they had considered an overhead door on the garage and Mr . Bracewell
Waid yes , the new one will have a 16 ' x 7 ' overhead door . The present garage does not have
a door and it is not possible to put one in . If nothing else , the fact that in order to stop
and open the door even with an automatic opener , one would still hang out a few feet into
Stone Quarry Road waiting for that door to open .
Town of Ithaca 7
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing . With no one present to address the Board ,
Ohairman Austen closed the public hearing . Chairman Austen noted for the record that a
etter dated October 10 , 1994 had been received from Richard and Deborah Mandl stating they
have no objection to the variance .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen noted that the environmental assessment form had been prepared by JoAnn
Cornish , Planner II and dated October 19 , 1994 . Mr . Kanter , the Town Planner , again offered
to summarize as follows . The review identified no significant environmental impacts and
basically confirmed the description by the applicant in terms of repositioning the garage .
Mr . King added that the reviewer also notes in Part II , C2 . that the existing garage is in
a state of disrepair and demolition will improve the character of the neighborhood
aesthetically . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen then asked that a motion be made .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II dated
October 19 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the
appeal by John L . and Margaret W . Bracewell for the property at 225 Stone Quarry Road ,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 40- 3- 10 , Residence District R- 9 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
• AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
With no additional discussion required , Chairman Austen then asked for a motion on the
appeal .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . David Stotz .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicants , John L . and Margaret W . Bracewell ,
approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be
permitted to reposition a non- conforming garage / accessory building at 225 Stone Quarry
Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 40- 3- 10 , Residence District R- 9 , with the following
finding :
1 . The current garage will be demolished and a new garage will be built substantially
as shown on the drawings submitted with the appeal .
Mr . Frost commented that he thought this was a well thought out , nicely prepared
application . With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion
which resulted as follows :
• AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Town of Ithaca 8
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows :
• APPEAL of Roy A . Luft , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article V , Section 20 of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an accessory building with
a height of 24 ' ( whereas a maximum 15 ' height is allowed ) at 1317 Trumansburg Road , Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 24-3-6 , Residence District R-30 .
Roy Luft introduced himself and explained , currently on his property as his letter to the
Board dated October 5 , 1994 states , he has an existing barn which is already in violation of
the height requirement . The existing barn is between 19 ' and 20 ' high . What he ' s hoping to
do is build a new barn around the outside of the old barn and then dismantle the old barn
from the inside . This will save him the trouble of relocating all of his tools ( which he
said Mr . Frost could tell them the barn is jam packed full of ) . They moved into the house
at 1317 Trumansburg Road last December thinking that the barn was going to be in very fine
and useable shape for his wood shop and stained glass studio . Last March when the snow load
got heavy with some rain , all of the rafters on one side of the barn roof snapped ( he passed
around a photo showing this ) . The newer looking wood in the photo was put up there in March
to keep the roof somewhat afloat and he ' s unsure , with another winter of heavy battering like
last winter , whether the bracing that was put up is going to keep that roof up or not .
Mr . Luft said , originally , his plan was just to have a new , stronger roof put on the
barn . Unfortunately , you get some surprises when you buy a new property and one of them was
revealed this summer when woodchucks dug under the bar and showed that the only foundation
on which the current barn is built is one course of cinder blocks laid on bare earth ( he also
passed around a photo showing this ) . Along with the swayback ( you might not be able to see
clearly from the photos ) , Mr . Luft said Mr . Frost ( who was at the property ) could attest that
Whe front wall of the barn is also bowing significantly , showing that the post and beam
structure of the barn is nowhere near substantial enough and , presently , he has in effect
structural siding .
The only way he can see to readily take care of this on a somewhat timely basis would be
to encapsulate . Other advantages of encapsulating are that it would give him the opportunity
to take down the existing barn carefully and reuse the siding to help keep the new barn very
much in the same character as the neighborhood . Although the zoning only permits a 15 '
accessory building in this particular zone , Mr . Luft said he would like to state that area
of Route 96 certainly would be more agricultural areas rather than downtown neighborhood
areas . If you start at the apartment buildings closer to town , there is not ( on their side
of the road ) a single residence which conforms to this concept of single - family home - - it ' s
the apartment buildings , the hospital and there are several other barns in the immediate area
of which his is currently one of the shortest .
Mr . Scala asked if there was a shed behind the barn to the east side and Mr . Luft said ,
yes . Mr . Scala then asked if he planned to leave that alone and Mr . Luft said he was going
to poke a few holes through the roof of it to extend the posts up to support the new roof ; '
then , once the new roof is on and that wall is rebuilt , then he ' s going to extend the shed
back the 14 ' that it currently does go from the barn now . Mr . Scala said he knew Mr . Luft
was going to build around the barn , then asked if he was also going to build around the shed .
Mr . Luft said no , building around the barn will require putting up some posts for the new
barn through the roof of the current shed . Once the new barn is completed , he would want to
build a similar shed to what he currently has off the back of the new barn . Mr . Scala said ,
in other words , there are going to be two new buildings and Mr . Frost said there ' s nothing
inappropriate or illegal with the shed . Mr . Scala said he was just asking if the shed was
•going to be as long as the barn and Mr . Luft said that it ' s one unit . It ' s not a separate
building , they share a common wall . Mr . Scala said he noted on the drawing that it ' s shown
as a separate building and Mr . Luft confirmed what lir . Scala was referring to is a completely
different greenhouse potting shed ( not involved with the shed attached to the barn ) .
Town of Ithaca 9
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
� Looking at the drawing , Mr . Scala said it showed the shed attached to the barn and
iondered if Mr . Luft was going to end up taking it away or adding the shed to the barn . Mr .
Luft said he would end up moving the shed backwards so that it will be supported by a
foundation , as opposed to the lack thereof . Mr . Scala said he took it then that what was
planned is a pole barn construction . Mr . Luft said what he plans to do is put in a
foundation of a pole barn nature going down to cement poured in the ground , come out of the
ground with #6 pressure treated wood up to a few inches above grade and create a sill of
pressure treated wood at grade , then frame up from there . Mr . Scala asked if he was going
to do it himself and Mr . Luft replied he hoped not and that he would subcontract as much as
possible .
Mr . Stotz said the material with the appeal indicates that Mr . Luft ' s hobby is
woodworking and Mr . Luft agreed . Mr . Stotz said that ' s a big hobby to have a great big
building like that for woodworking . He then asked if Mr . Luft sold the pieces he makes and
Mr . Luft said he sold one piece a few years ago but , generally , just for his own keeping or
for gifts . Mr . Frost noted stained glass pieces are also done and Mr . Luft agreed and said
that also takes up some room . Mr . Frost said he thought what Mr . Stotz is alluding to just
a little bit is that the zoning does regulate home occupations and provides for some
limitations on the area that you can use for conducting business .
Mr . Scala asked if there would be heat and water in the building and Mr . Luft said ,
eventually , he would like to have water for the stained glass . Mr . Scala asked if there was
heat or water there now and Mr . Luft said no . Mr . Scala said , of course , the power line is
there but is there a plan to heat the building? Mr . Luft answered that this new building
will be insulated as opposed to the other building which is not readily insulatable . Mr .
Scala asked if Mr . Luft had said he was going to try to reuse the siding for the outside of
91thebuilding and Mr . Luft said , as much as possible . Mr . Stotz asked what kind of machinery
he has and Mr . Luft replied he has a table saw , a band saw , a lathe , a jointer planer , a
radial arm saw , several routers , an additional smaller lathe , a sander , and a host of other
tools . There is also a sand blast cabinet which he uses for the stained glass and an exhaust
hood which he uses for stained glass .
Mr . Scala said Mr . Luft was talking about a loft to do the other work with regard to
stained glass ; does that mean , in addition , the pole barn will have some provision for the
second floor? Mr . Luft said there is currently a loft in the existing barn and there will
be in the new barn , as well .
Mr . Stotz said , counting the shed area , they would be ending up with almost 3 , 300 to
3 , 400 square feet of hobby space . Mr . Luft said the shed will be used to store a sailboat ,
utility trailer , and garden mower . Mr . Frost asked if he had any intention of ultimately
down the road operating a business from this building and Mr . Luft said no , not unless he
hits lotto . Mr . Stotz said that would be his main concern , that obviously Mr . Luft knows how
to work with wood , he has the equipment , and probably does very professional work , and
there ' s a limitation as to how much he can make for himself . With those kinds of skills and
that kind of space and equipment , one would be quite naturally led to believe that maybe
articles would be offered for sale . Mr . Luft said there ' s also quite a limit to the amount
of time that one in this day and age has to devote to this .
Mr . Scala said he was still a little puzzled - - he understood the 32 ' x 38 ' dimensions
but wanted to know what the size of the shed that ' s going to be attached is and Mr . Luft
replied it would be 14 ' x approximately 381 . Mr . Frost said the shed he was in when he
W
isited the property had an old wood stove and wondered if that would ultimately be connected
o the new structure . Mr . Luft replied no and Mr . Frost said he was also a little confused
now , too . Mr . Luft said there is a lambing shed in the back of the existing barn . Mr . . Frost
said there were some cows in the back and Mr . Luft confirmed that was the lambing shed .
Town of Ithaca 10
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Mr . Ellsworth asked if the final products of the stained glass work he does were just for
tris own use and Mr . Luft confirmed that they ' re for his own pleasure and gifts for friends .
Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing and stated letters had been received from
the following :
1 . Letter received October 20 , 1994 ( no date ) from Gerald D . Hall , 1307 Trumansburg Road
in favor of the Board granting this variance ( Chairman Austen also noted that Mr .
Hall was present at the meeting and was welcome to speak if he wished ) .
2 . Letter dated October 22 , 1994 from Nancy Howland , 1321 Trumansburg Road suggesting
the Board grant this request .
Mr . Luft stated the above were his two neighbors on either side of the property along
Trumansburg Road . Mr . King said then they would be the ones most affected by any change in
height . Mr . Luft said directly across Trumansburg Road is a cemetery and he couldn ' t imagine
any problem there .
Mr . Scala said the only thing that hasn ' t been discussed is the height which is the key
point . Since it ' s proposed to have a height of 24 ' where a maximum of 15 ' is allowed , then
this 24 ' is really dictated by the height for the loft . Mr . Luft disagreed , saying it ' s
dictated by the height of being able to erect trusses over what ' s currently there without
having to tear down first . Mr . Scala asked if it was a span that ' s free of posts and Mr .
Luft said yes . Mr . Frost said you could have trusses that would lower the roof pitch but
you ' d have to go well beyond the proposed footprint to get around the existing walls and
ou ' d probably end up with the highest roof yet .
�
Mr . Stotz asked if Mr . Luft was going to be disassembling the building then with the
equipment inside it once the new one is erected . Mr . Luft agreed that is true , it ' s going
to leave him with a cement floor in the center of the new barn and 4 ' of grass and dirt
around where it will be a little harder to wheel the tools and , eventually , he ' ll floor that
over also . Mr . Stotz asked how he would disassemble that building in that space without
damaging the equipment because it ' s already half collapsed and asked if he would do it board
by board . Mr . Luft said it ' s built board by board and you take it down board by board . The
roof is a plank roof . Mr . Scala said you can ' t put the trusses in without taking off the
roof and Mr . Luft said he ' s going to use scissor trusses and they ' ll go up over the existing
roof . Mr . Scala wanted to know if he wouldn ' t have to take the roof out to put the trusses
in and Mr . Luft said no , and that ' s why he needs the extra height .
Attorney Barney asked if he could take the roof off and put in trusses and Mr . Luft said
not without leaving everything in the barn open to alot of weather damage . Mr . Scala said
what he ' s substituting then is alot of labor for cost to do this construction over a
construction because the installation of the trusses would be hampered . Mr . Luft said the
old one would come down anyway . Mr . Scala said you can ' t get the old one down until you get
the new one up and , to get the new one up , the limiting feature is assembling the roof .
Chairman Austen said he hopes Mr . Luft has scaffolding inside for it and Mr . Luft said that ' s
why he ' s allowing the 4 ' between the two buildings all around to give room to work .
Attorney Barney said the concern that the Town might have is that they ' re taking what is
already a nonconforming use of 19 ' and , really for the convenience of how he ' s going to
create the structure , asking for a variance to enlarge that nonconforming use by 25 percent
• going up another 6 '
by goor so . Attorney Barney said he didn ' t think the size of the structure
is a problem in terms of floor dimension but the height is really what the zoning ordinance
is directed to . Attorney Barney asked if there wasn ' t some other way that the construction
could be done , either in a phased manner or one end of the building comes off or where
perhaps the shed gets built early on and the equipment moves out to the shed before the roof
structure has to be dealt with . Mr . Luft replied , not easily that he could see .
Town of Ithaca it
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Mr . Scala said this will be almost completely visible from the road . Mr . Frost said this
•7ill be perhaps somewhat limited ( as shown in the picture ) but he thought , on the back side
where Dates Drive is , it conceivably could be very visible although he hasn ' t been down there
himself . The visibility will be on the opposite side . . . where Mr . Luft said it ' s
approximately 1 , 200 feet away to Dates Drive .
Mr . Kanter said , during the environmental review when staff went out to look at the
property , basically , it ' s a pretty limited view from the road as Mr . Frost had stated . They
did identify a potential blockage of view from the neighbor to the north , the Howlands , but
their letter indicates they have no problem with the variance so the Board can weigh that for
themselves .
Chairman Austen asked if they are actually looking for two 8 ' stories on the building ,
then the trusses set on 16 ' high and 32 ' wide ( Mr . Luft agreed that is correct ) . Mr . Scala
asked how tall the house is and Mr . Luft said the house is two stories and the land also
slopes downhill from the road to the house to the barn such that it ' s a significant drop from
the road to the barn and it ' s also a significant drop from the house to the barn itself ( near
8 ' ) . It ' s maybe another 4 ' to the road ( Mr . Luft didn ' t remember the numbers off the top of
his head but said they were in the environmental review ) .
Mr . Scala said he ' s going to assume that the height is dictated by the requirement for
a loft and , secondarily , because of Mr . Luft ' s proposed procedure of assembly and
disassembly . Attorney Barney said that ' s contrary to what ' s in the application because the
application has it the other way around . In other words , the primary reason for the height
is to be able to construct the new barn over the present roof . Mr . Luft said he believes
!building with the trusses is going to be the fastest way to get the barn safe for the winter
3o that it doesn ' t further deteriorate .
Mr . Stotz said Mr . Luft indicated in his letter that considerable financial burden and
unnecessary hardship would be eliminated by being allowed to build a structure around the
present barn , thus allowing him to keep the equipment there because he doesn ' t have a place
to move it to . Mr . Stotz said he assumed , if a building was built that in effect duplicated
in size the one that presently exists , there would be some savings over building the
structure that Mr . Luft is proposing . Mr . Luft said there would be less materials but there
isn ' t a logical place , however , to put it . Mr . Stotz asked if those savings then would
enable him to accommodate the equipment and the materials present in the building in some way
temporarily and Mr . Luft said he didn ' t believe so . He believed the savings he was going to
see from being able to reuse the siding and alot of the other materials from inside the
existing barn and by having the time to take it apart slowly board by board , would far
outweigh the extra size costs for building the barn slightly larger .
Mr . Scala asked if he had previously built a pole barn building where you purchase
trusses and lir . Luft said he has built a building on piers before and built a deck ( the deck
wasn ' t built as a pole structure ) . Mr . Scala asked if the trusses he was going to be buying
were pre - fab and Mr . Luft said he was going to be buying engineered trusses . Mr . Scala then
said he was confused by the term scissor truss and Mr . Luft said a scissor truss is a truss
where , instead of having a horizontal bottom member which would require that the side walls
of the new structure extend up higher than the peak of the current structure , it creates on
the inside of a building ( in effect ) a cathedral ceiling . With lower side walls , you can get
up higher over the peak . Attorney Barney asked what gives the truss the support and Mr . Luft
said , instead of a straight bottom cord that ' s horizontal , there are two bottom triangles in
'Weffect that are being created . The outer one has one slope and then there ' s a lower slope
or the inside of the truss for what ends up on the inside of the building . The roof would
end up with a 6 ' in 12 ' slope which is approximately what the current building has , and the
inside would have a 3 ' in 12 ' slope .
Q
Town of Ithaca 12
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Chairman Austen also noted for the record that a letter dated October 20 , 1994 had been
*eceived from the Tompkins County Department of Planning by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner
of Planning .
Mr . Gerald Hall , residing at 1307 Trumansburg Road and the next door neighbor to the
appellant , stated he wished to speak regarding this appeal . As far as he can see , there
won ' t be a significant change in the outward structure appearance and felt it would blend in
nicely . At present , their residence is directly south from the existing barn and he feels
Mr . Luft ' s sketches seem to be well thought out and should go together all right . Mr . King
asked if he felt the increased height in making the barn another 4 ' to 5 ' is going to impact
on their view and Mr . Hall replied that he felt it would blend in with the surrounding trees .
Mr . Frost inquired how high the barns on Mr . Hall ' s property are and was told they are
somewhat taller and considerably older , too . Mr . Hall said Charlie Jones erected this
structure around 1941 ( Mr . King stated this was before the zoning ordinance and Mr . Hall
agreed that it was quite awhile before that ) . Mr . Luft said that was before they had
building codes for foundations , too , and Mr . Hall said the barn was put together in a hurry
just using 2 ' x 4 ' rafters and wouldn ' t stand very much snow . Mr . Frost asked if that was
a working farm when Charlie Jones was there and Mr . Hall said it was just a small farm with
a cow , a horse , and a few steers from time to time . He had heart trouble and had to sell the
farm he had which was the Artificial Breeders place up on the corner of Sheffield and Hayts
Roads . He and his wife moved down there , and his wife was a school teacher . Chairman Austen
noted that there used to be barns all the way up that road and most of them have either
fallen down or been tore down .
Mr . Scala then said he had a couple of comments - - in the appellant ' s write -up for the
appeal , he talks about wanting to build with a wall height of 19 ' . Mr . Luft said that was
0.efore he discovered scissor trusses . The scissor trusses are the trusses that create the
cathedral ceiling and , therefore , he couldn ' t do it with a lower side wall . Mr . Scala said
the drawing given to the Board throws you off a little bit - - the appellant had shown an 8 '
16 " dimension on the triangle end , was he now saying that the wall height is not 19 ' high?
Mr . Luft said that is correct , it no longer is . Those sketches were drawn after he submitted
the initial application and , in between the time the initial application was submitted and
the time he did the sketches , he discovered scissor trusses . Mr . Scala said , so the 8 '
height for the roof ( Mr . Luft said this was for the gable end ) would leave you roughly 17 '
if your overall height is 25 ' . Therefore , the walls would be on the order of 17 ' high . Mr .
Scala asked if he had a bid on this or a drawing and Mr . Luft said no , he didn ' t have bids
on it . Mr . Ellsworth asked who would be tearing down the old barn and Mr . Luft replied ,
conceivably , he would be but he wasn ' t sure and it would depend on the bids that come in .
With no others present to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
At the request of Chairman Austen , Mr . Kanter reviewed the environmental assessment form
stating that , overall , no significant negative environmental impacts were identified . In C2 ,
they did raise the question ( as he mentioned before ) of the possible impact on the view from
the neighbor to the north , the Howlands . Otherwise , the location of the barn is not very
visible from the roadway . They did point out that , if the siding of the original barn could
be used as much as possible to reside the new barn , that would be a positive factor with
keeping things in character with the area ( Mr . Luft stated that is his objective ) .
Mr . Kanter said there was some discussion before about home occupations . They also
10) Mr .
out , in the environmental review , the provisions of the zoning ordinance that deal
with home occupations just as a signal that - - if this is used for home occupations - - it
should be according to what the zoning ordinance requires . Mr . King said the requirements
Town of Ithaca 13
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
were mainly that you can ' t employ anybody in the business in production of the products or
*iake any sales from that location ( Mr . Luft said this is understood ) . Mr . Frost said
additionally , though , in order to be considered a home occupation , the area used for the home
occupation is limited to 200 square feet . That may be changed to increase because that
doesn ' t seem very practical but Mr . Frost couldn ' t say that it would be changed to
accommodate 1 , 000 square feet . Mr . King then inquired as to Mr . Luft ' s main occupation and
was told he ' s a salesman , he sells women ' s shoes .
With no further discussion required , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made on the
appeal .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II dated
October 20 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the
appeal by Roy A . Luft for the property at 1317 Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 24 - 3- 6 , Residence District R- 30 .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
• The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen then inquired as to how big a parcel of property this is and Mr . Luft
said it is 10 . 25 acres . Chairman Austen said it ' s almost a farm then , and Mr . Luft said it
I
s a farm in that the back 6 acres are used for grazing cattle .
Mr . Frost said he had a question as a follow-up to what Mr . Kanter said . When Mr . Luft
constructs the building around the existing building , he would have siding on there to begin
with so his question was how do you take the siding off the old barn and utilize it on the
new structure because the structure is already built . Mr . Luft replied that it will be
sheaved in OSB and the old barn siding will go over that . Mr . Ellsworth said , from what he
understood , there was 4 ' on there and Mr . Luft said that ' s correct . Mr . Scala said a pole
barn can have a roof on it without having siding . Mr . Frost said that ' s true but he didn ' t
think that was Mr . Luft ' s intent . Mr . Luft said that is not his intent ; his intent is to
make this a building which seals tightly and can be insulated and warm . Mr . Frost pointed
out that this actually goes beyond a typical barn with posts and siding and that ' s it .
Typically , a barn wouldn ' t have OSY & B or something similar , then wood siding outside of
that . You generally don ' t see barns built that way , there ' s usually just one outside wall
and that ' s it .
With no further questions for the applicant , Chairman Austen asked that a motion be made .
MOTION
By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
• RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Roy A . Luft , a variance from Article V ,
Section 20 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct an
accessory building with a height of 25 ' ( whereas a maximum 15 ' height is allowed ) at 1317
Trumansburg Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 24 - 3- 6 , Residence District R- 30 , with the
following findings and condition :
Town of Ithaca 14
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
• 1 . That the applicant will restructure the existing non- conforming use barn from its
present 19 ' height to build a new barn over it with dimensions of 32 ' x 38 ' and with
a height not exceeding 25 ' . There will be a 14 ' x 38 ' shed attached on the east side
of the barn . This is a total of 1 , 748 square feet .
2 . That the applicant ' s proposed method of construction is conservative to preserve the
existing looks of the building using siding materials from the present building and ,
at the same time , allowing him to build without first removing the existing barn or
moving his equipment from it .
3 . That the neighbors ( the Howlands ) most seriously impacted , if at all , would consider
it an insignificant difference whether that barn is 19 ' or 25 ' and have written the
Board approving and supporting the request for the site variance .
4 . Conditioned on the new structure not being used in violation of the existing
regulations for home occupation .
It was suggested by Mr . Stotz that the following be added to the resolution . . . That the
newly constructed structure may not be used for the manufacture of any goods that are sold
for an amount in excess of the value of the materials used . Mr . King said he wasn ' t sure he
understood the amendment and Mr . Stotz suggested that it would enable the manufacturer of the
stained glass or furniture to make items for other people but not beyond the value of the
materials that are in the product ( not including time ) . In effect , he can ' t be in business .
Mr . Frost said , if the applicant wasn ' t asking for the height variance and he had a
tructure or accessory building that was 15 ' or less in conformance with the ordinance , he
ould be allowed to do business . Just for Mr . Luft ' s information , the Board could ( in
granting an approval ) impose conditions that go beyond what he might be allowed to do . Mr .
Frost said he just wanted to make the point that , if there wasn ' t a height involved , he ' d
have that ability . Mr . Ellsworth said what they ' re concerned about is this is a very large
structure with alot of square footage and alot of construction costs that they don ' t want to
turn out to be a business in a residential district . He believed that to be the Board
members concern here because of the large square footage and the well insulated and heated
building .
Mr . Frost said 200 square feet could have been exceeded ( which is the current limitation
set upon home occupations ) if he wasn ' t in front of the Board for a height variance and
construct the building 15 ' or less in height . Theoretically , he could do that using 200
square feet and conduct a business .
To address the amendment Mr . Stotz had suggested , Mr . King said he thought it would be
sufficient to indicate that the new structure will not be used in violation of existing
regulations for home occupation . Mr . Frost said , as a clarification since he enforces the
regulations , an amendment was suggested that put a limitation on the selling price of
products the applicant might manufacture . What that is suggesting is that , as long as he
doesn ' t violate the zoning ordinance , he can sell something for a price . Mr . Stotz said
there ' s a big difference between a facility that allows manufacture that ' s limited to 200
square feet and one that is going to be 3 , 300 square feet . Perhaps something should be
included with regard to more of the scope or the kind of activities which will take place in
the building ; potentially ( and Mr . Stotz said he doesn ' t know what goes into manufacturing
fine cabinetry or stainless glass , etc . ) , he would think this could be a facility that could
rank out quite a bit of furniture or whatever rather than a 200 square foot facility .
Town of Ithaca 15
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Attorney Barney said to the extent that it ' s used for that purpose or there starts to be
commercial enterprise run from there , that becomes a violation of the zoning ordinance if
more than 200 square feet is being used for that purpose . Initially , what would happen is
someone in that neighborhood would complain saying they think something is going on that
smacks more of a business than just a simple hobby woodworking place . That would then
provoke Mr . Frost to visit the premises and take a look ; if he walks in and sees all this
equipment and there ' s 1 , 700 square feet of space that ' s being used for manufacture , that ' s
a clear violation . Mr . Frost said he couldn ' t have employees , he has only so much space as
a single individual although his immediate family living in his house could participate . You
couldn ' t have your brother living next door coming over to participate . Mr . Frost said he
thinks Mr . Stotz has made a very valid point and that is his concern as well .
Mr . Stotz said, the ordinance states that mechanical trades to be conducted in the
basement of a dwelling or in the garage are not to exceed 200 ' . That puts severe limitations
on the scope of that commercial activity which this wouldn ' t have . Attorney Barney said it
has the same limitation in the sense that , even though the facility is set up for more than
200 square feet in size ; if more than 200 ' of those 1 , 700 square feet are used in a business ,
they are in violation of the zoning ordinance . That ' s the limitation , but enforceability is
not the easiest under those circumstances . You don ' t necessarily go straight from black to
white , but you can certainly tell if you ' ve gone well beyond the gray area if the entire
footage is being used . Mr . Luft confirmed that is not his intention . Attorney Barney said
it isn ' t always just the applicant ' s intention . The problem is , if the Board so chooses ,
it ' s allowing a structure - - Frank Prudence and his F . T . Distributing up the road is a prime
example of a building that is stuck in the middle of a residential area and is now being used
for a commercial operation to the distress of some of the neighbors up there . Therefore , by
�
aving a building that ' s another 6 ' higher and considerably larger than the current building ,
he door is open whether the applicant does it or whether he sells it and someone else buys
it because , once it ' s granted , that ' s the end of it .
Mr . Frost said the other question he wanted to ask was , when it comes down to the
construction should this happen , the Board ' s motion stated that the applicant would be
utilizing the siding on the existing building to be put on the new building . Is the Board
then looking for essentially all the siding on the present barn ( or , as much as is usable )
to be used on the outside of the new building? Mr . Frost said he also wanted to assure that
Mr . Luft fully understands the Boards intentions on this , as well . Mr . Luft noted that there
will be more wall on the new building than there is on the present one . Mr . Frost said you
can end up doing two or three walls of the new building with the siding that ' s on the old
building and , if that ' s what is intended by Mr . King ' s motion , then that is what Mr . Frost
will be looking for when Mr . Luft gets his building permit .
Mr . Scala said the principal intention is to make sure that the appearance is in
conformance with the house and the surrounding area whether the applicant uses the old or new
material . Mr . Frost said , if the Board is going to make that a part of the resolution , he
attempts to enforce the zoning according to the word of the Board ' s approvals so would like
that clarified - - do they want the siding now on the present building to be used on one , two ,
or three walls? Attorney Barney said he believed the motion was that the siding would be
used to the extent practicable and there would be some judgment calls on Mr . Luft ' s part .
Chairman Austen said , when you start tearing off some of the siding , it would no longer be
usable and Mr . Frost then said he believed that answered his question indirectly .
Attorney Barney then expressed a wish to remind the Board of the criteria for an area
ariance before the Board voted and did so . He said , if the Board chose to proceed , he
anted them to proceed knowing the framework in which they are supposed to be operating . It
was noted that the criteria is from Section 267B , Paragraph 3 dealing with area variances .
This is New York State Town Law , as opposed to the Town of Ithaca Town Law .
Town of Ithaca 16
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
With no further discussion required , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which
•resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
The last case to be heard by the Board was as follows :
APPEAL of Dana Potenza , Appellant , 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 building / lot at 831 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 25-2-37 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of the
construction of an enclosed stairway on a building with a north side yard setback of
11 . 8 ' ( 15 ' required ) on a parcel of land 69 . 5 ' wide ( 100 ' width required ) .
Mr . Frost wished to clarify for the Board members that the width at the street is
required to be 60 ' . As you get to the maximum front yard setback which is 25 ' back from the
street line , the lot is supposed to open up to 100 ' and the applicant has a width of 69 . 5 ' .
Mr . Dana Potenza stepped to the microphone and introduced himself . Mr . Scala asked which
of the two drawings with red markings was the Board supposed to look at . Mr . Potenza said
he believed he had labeled them Plan 1 and Plan 2 , and the Board should be looking at Plan
1 , with the red marking around the deck , which is on the south end of the house ( Mr . Frost
said this was facing most immediately Taughannock Boulevard ) . Mr . Frost noted that one plan
Dias shown to the south side of the building where the deck is located and another plan facing
more directly Taughannock Boulevard . Mr . Potenza confirmed that the plan which he is
submitting first is the plan facing south which is not facing Taughannock Boulevard ( Mr .
Frost said this is on the side of the house and asked if this was his preferred location and
Mr . Potenza agreed it was .
Mr . Scala asked if that now has a deck there and Mr . Potenza said there is an existing
deck . Mr . Scala asked if he was going to build over that deck or replace it and Mr . Potenza
replied that he will remove the deck and extend the house . Mr . Frost noted that he was
passing around a picture to the Board members and asked if that location is visible in the
photo just so the Board has a better sense when they see the picture . Mr . Potenza confirmed
that it was exactly as shown in the photo and Mr . Frost noted that it could be seen on the
right-hand side of the picture .
Chairman Austen asked if the deck he would remove is the one suspended probably 10 ' or
12 ' off the ground and Mr . Potenza confirmed that is correct ( at one end ; the other end would
be against dirt ) and the house is on a bank . Mr . Scala said the deck is attached to the
house ( Mr . Potenza agreed ) , there ' s a door there , and asked if that would be closed in . Mr .
Potenza said what he is going to do is basically extend the house to build an addition on the
house to the dimensions it is right now , only to give him enough to build an enclosed
stairway to the basement . Mr . Scala asked what it would have besides the enclosed stairway
and Mr . Potenza said it would have a foyer to enter his house . Mr . Scala asked if it would
just be a foyer and stairway then and Mr . Potenza agreed that is correct .
Mr . Frost pointed out that the applicant should also verbalize his reasons for wanting
•*- o build the stairwell . Mr . Potenza apologized saying he was new to this , then continued
:hat the interior dimensions of his home right now are 26 ' x 29 ' which is roughly 800 square
feet . Unless he wanted to not be able to have a couch in his living room or remove a closet
from his bedroom , he wouldn ' t have room in a two- bedroom house to make an interior stairway
Town of Ithaca 17
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
to get to the basement . He has had alot of hardship with the stairway outside as of right
•iow . He has a daughter who , at one time , he was carrying down the stairs outdoors with one
leg in front of him and one leg behind and fell and broke her leg . It would be a great
advantage to him to be able to walk down the stairs to do his laundry , to repair his furnace ,
or whatever he might need without having to walk outdoors . At this time , he is also going
to be connecting to Town water and sewer . It ' s very hard to get any excavation done on the
hill where he lives . He was hiring somebody to dig the trench and , as long as they had a
backhoe coming over this large hill to start out with , he thought he might as well have them
do the excavation to build this interior stairway . It would save him a great deal of money
and time .
Mr . Stotz asked if the exterior on that enclosed stairwell would match the rest of the
house and Mr . Potenza agreed that ' s correct , there ' s Texture 111 up on the exposed areas and
there would be a concrete wall where it would be underground .
Chairman Austen asked if the width of the deck that ' s presently there would be exceeded
and Mr . Potenza agreed it would be the same width . Mr . King asked if that width would be 13 '
and Mr . Potenza said , correct . Chairman Austen asked if the deck is sitting on the retaining
wall now and Mr . Potenza said he honestly doesn ' t remember but there ' s dirt immediately under
it . Mr . Scala asked if he had to put in the footing for the new addition and Mr . Potenza
agreed that ' s correct . Mr . Kanter asked if the excavation could be done without disturbing
the retaining wall in there and Mr . Frost said , given the size of this stairwell , you
probably could excavate without getting the backhoe that close . Attorney Barney asked what
would support the retaining wall during excavation and Mr . Potenza replied that there are
presently two retaining walls . One is perpendicular to what he ' s going to be working on and
he ' s not familiar with the lingo but there ' s a railroad tie running back in and another
ailroad tie connected to that . . . it ' s like a T , then the dirt is put on top of that which
holds it in and , actually , that ' s consistent with the entire retaining wall .
Mr . Stotz asked if his access to the stairs going down to the shore line would be from
the lower level then . In other words , he ' d have to come out and go down the stairs inside
this new addition and then go out at grade level to these stairs going down . Mr . Potenza
agreed that ' s correct and , eventually , he ' d probably build a stairway from the existing
retaining wall where it ' s perpendicular to the house just to get to the lower level outdoors .
It would be nice to have that , also . Mr . Frost asked if the door to the house or the
farthest basement cellar of his house now is on the lake side and Mr . Potenza said it ' s
directly under where he would be building . Mr . Frost said , for so many houses on the lake ,
to get to your furnace , hot water heater , or the basement or cellar of the house , you ' ve got
to go outside of the building and around and down . Mr . Potenza said this new area would also
provide him with space to put the holding tank for his sewage .
Mr Scala said , if he understands it , they ' re looking at a structure that ' s 8 ' x 20 ' and
asked how high the structure would be . Mr . Potenza said Mr . Scala was looking at a drawing
from Plan 2 and the dimensions for the plan he would prefer to use are 13 ' x 20 ' . Mr . Scala
asked how high it would be and Mr . Potenza replied that it would be exactly the height of his
house at present . Chairman Austen asked if it would be the same roof line and Mr . Potenza
said yes , the same roof line . Mr . King asked if it was in effect a two story and Mr . Potenza
replied that it would be one story with a cellar below it . Mr . King said that the cellar is
primarily underground and Mr . Potenza agreed that ' s correct . Mr . Scala asked , when you go
down these steps , where are you coming from and Mr . Potenza pointed out on the drawing where
the top of the stairs would be , the 4 ' landing , and then you would be going down to a 4 '
anding . Mr . Scala still was unclear as to the exact layout , so Mr . Potenza flipped to the
ext drawing included with the application and pointed out his living space and his basement .
Mr . Scala said you go down to the basement on the inside , then how do you get to that
stairway that goes to the water? Mr . Potenza said he would have to put a doorway in going
Town of Ithaca 18
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
outside somewhere in that lower level that he is building . Mr . Scala asked if it was
&ntended then to be able to go downstairs and go out or come inside and Mr . Potenza said the
door to go outdoors wouldn ' t necessarily have to be in the new space where he ' s building .
That would be wide open as to where he could put a door .
Chairman Austen asked if the cellar or basement would be masonry built up and the same
level as what the present foundation is ( Mr . Potenza agreed that ' s correct ) .
Referring to Plan 2 , Mr . Potenza said he drew another plan just as an alternative if the
original one wasn ' t accepted . Chairman Austen asked , if he went with Plan 2 , if he would
leave his deck and Mr . Potenza said yes , he would leave the deck with Plan 2 . Mr . Potenza
said why he shied away from Plan 2 was because , on that side of the house , there ' s a great
deal of bedrock or shale that would have to be dealt with . Mr . King said he ' d also be
building closer to the road if you built on the west . Mr . Potenza said there ' s only 9 ' of
his land on that side as opposed to , on the side where he wants to build right now , he has
15 . 9 ' so he thought it might be more acceptable . Chairman Austen said that it ' s certainly
less obtrusive there to his way of thinking .
Chairman Austen opened up the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public
hearing was closed .
Chairman Austen said , actually , nothing is being added to the dimensions of the present
building with the deck and asked if Mr . Potenza was going to continue that deck on around .
Mr . Potenza said , other than removing the deck , he ' s not going to change any of the deck .
Mr . Scala said the drawing shows the deck coming around , but the only thing he ' s going to do
is keep the deck as he has it now . Chairman Austen noted that this just takes place of that
art of the deck .
Chairman Austen noted for the record that a letter dated October 20 , 1994 had been
received from the Tompkins County Department of Planning by James Hanson , Jr . , Commissioner
of Planning .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Chairman Austen asked that Mr . Kanter summarize the environmental assessment form
reviewed by JoAnn Cornish , Planner II and dated October 19 , 1994 . Mr . Kanter said this was
very straightforward and reviewed Parts II and III , noting that a negative determination of
environmental significance had been recommended . Chairman Austen then asked for a motion .
MOTION
By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . David Stotz .
RESOLVED , that the Board adopt the recommendations of JoAnn Cornish , Planner II dated
October 19 , 1994 and find a negative determination of environmental significance for the
appeal by Dana Potenza for the property at 831 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 25 - 2 - 37 , Residence District R- 15 .
With no further discussion , Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion which resulted
as follows :
• AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Town of Ithaca 19
Zoning Board of Appeals
October 26 , 1994
Chairman Austen said it appeared to him that safety was a major consideration of this new
,tairwell and knowing how slippery it can be , especially along the lake with the leaves and
everything , this would be a much safer set-up than most of the stairs down through that area .
Out of curiosity , Mr . Scala asked how many steps there were and Mr . Potenza said , from the
road to his house , there are 71 . Chairman Austen then asked for a motion to be made on the
appeal .
MOTION
By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth .
RESOLVED , that the Board grant the applicant , Dana Potenza , a special approval under
Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to
enlarge a non-conforming building / lot at 831 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No . 25- 2 - 37 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement consists of the
construction of an enclosed stairway on a building with a north side yard setback of
11 . 8 ' ( 15 ' required ) on a parcel of land 69 . 5 ' wide ( 100 ' width required ) , with the
following findings :
1 . The enclosed stairway attached to the building would have dimensions of 13 ' x 20 ' and
would be on the south side of the house .
2 . That , in the process , the present retaining wall would not be damaged and that proper
precautions would be taken against drainage as this is on a slope .
3 . That the enclosed stairway would have a roof which is in line with the current roof
and the exterior materials would be in keeping with the existing house to preserve
the general appearance .
4 . That the present deck which is on the south side of the house would essentially be
removed and the enclosed stairway would replace part of that deck .
5 . That this matter is in compliance with Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Subparagraphs a- f of
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance .
A vote on the motion resulted as follows :
AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stotz .
NAYS - None .
The motion was carried unanimously .
Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9 : 10 PM .
W rim 0 100 .
YoJanda M . McLaughlin
Recording Secretary
4dward Austen , Chairman