Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1995-11-08 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGSA L WEDNESDAY , NOVEMBER S . 1995 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 , November S . 1995 , 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 the Bible Broadcasting Network and the Tabernacle Baptist Church , Appellant , Everett A . Robinson , Agent , Richard D . Baker , Landowner , requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XI , Section 51A of the Zoning Ordinance , to site an 8 ' diameter ground level satellite dish receiver and a radio transmission tower consisting of a 60 ' + wooden pole and 36 " transmission antenna proposed to be located at 383 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 4 . 2 , Agriculture District . APPEAL of Lynne and Jeffrey Worsfold , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a privacy fence with a varying height , up to 9 ' 3 " ( 6 ' maximum height allowed ) , at 320 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 8 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Davide Sayada , Appellant , Lucia and Douglas Armstrong , Landowners , request authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit in the basement of an existing one - story , non- conforming single - family residence and to construct a new second story on said home at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 32 , Oiot esidence District R- 15 . The building and lot do not conform to the zoning requirements for width or side yard building setbacks . APPEAL of Savino Ferrara , Jr . , Appellant , requesting the modification of a previously approved variance , from the requirements of Article V . Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a single - family residence having an east side property line building setback of 20 ' + ( 40 ' setback required ) at 145 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 2 -4 , Residence District R- 30 . The previous approval allowed for an east side building setback of 24 ' and is to be modified with . the proposed construction of a new garage . 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 . Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs , as appropriate , will be provided with assistance , as necessary , upon request . Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing . Andrew S . Frost Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 273 - 1783 Dated : October 31 , 1995 Publish : November 3 , 1995 • N' A L F:o!dr9:1TMACA7TO N TOWN OF ITHACA Data i • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY , NOVfMER 8 , 1995 The following appeals were heard by the Board on November 8 , 1995 : APPEAL of the Bible Broadcasting Network and the Tabernacle Baptist Church , Appellant , Everett A . Robinson , Agent , Richard D . Baker , Landowner , requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XI , Section 51A of the Zoning Ordinance , to site an 8 ' diameter ground level satellite dish receiver and a radio transmission tower consisting of a 60 ' + wooden pole and 36 " transmission antenna proposed to be located at 383 Bostwick Road , Toch of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 -4 . 2 , Agriculture District . GRANTED WITH A CONDITION . APPEAL of Lynne and Jeffrey Worsf old , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article XIII , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a privacy fence with a varying height , up to 9 ' 3 " ( 6 ' maximum height allowed ) , at 320 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66 - 3 - 8 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . APPEAL of Davide Sayada , Appellant , Lucia and Douglas Armstrong , Landowners , request authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town • of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit in the basement of an existing one -- story , non- conforming single - family residence and to construct a new second story on said home at 975 ^laughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 - 2 - 32 , Residence District R- 15 . The building and lot do not conform to the zoning requirements for lot width or side yard building setbacks . SECOND DWELLING UNIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS . SECOND- STORY ADDITION REQUEST WITHDRAWN , APPEAL of Savino Ferrara , Jr . , Appellant , requesting the modification of a previously approved variance , from the requirements of Article V . Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a single - family residence having an east side property line building setback of 20 ' + ( 40 ' setback required ) at 145 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44 - 2 - 4 , Residence District R- 30 . The previous approval allowed for an east side building setback of 24 ' and is to be modified with the proposed construction of a new garage . GRANTED . • FlUD 1 WWN OF ITHIACA TOWN OF ITHACA Ia ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS �'-- NOVEMBER 8 , 1995 • �a PRESENT : Chairman Edward Austen , Harry Ellsworth , Edward King , Pete Scala , David Stotz , Director of Building and Zoning Andrew Frost , Planner II JoAnn Cornish , Town Attorney John C . Barney . OTHERS : Everett A . Robinson , Lynne and Jeffrey Worsf old , Mr . and Mrs . Luke Pennelton , Davide Sayada , Joe and Patty Francis , Douglas Armstrong , and Savino Ferrara , Jr . Chairman Edward Austen called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 PM , stating 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 the Bible Broadcasting Network and the Tabernacle Baptist Church , Appellant , Everett A . Robinson , Agent , Richard D . Baker , Landowner , requesting a Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals , under Article XI , Section 51A of the Zoning Ordinance , to site an 8 ' diameter ground level satellite dish receiver and a radio transmission tower consisting of a 60 ' + wooden pole and 36 " transmis- sion antenna proposed to be located at 383 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32-2-4 . 2 , Agriculture District . Mr . Robinson explained the purpose of their appeal . What they propose to do is install a satellite , which consists of an 8 ' receiving dish similar to a television dish , • as well as a pole that ' s now been modified . They modified their proposal to meet neighbors ' concerns ; it ' s now a 50 ' pole . It also consists of a little transmission antenna on top of that pole that is about 3 ' . Actually , it is off the side of the pole . The purpose is to receive the Bible Broadcast Network ' s signal , which will provide the Ithaca area with a distinct Christian radio sound . This includes programming for children , teens and adults . This will enhance family values and community pride . He especially wanted to express their appreciation for George Frantz , who worked with them in developing this proposal as it is modified ( to meet the concerns of the neighbors ) . Chairman Austen asked if this is strictly an FM station . Mr . Robinson said it is . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Robinson if he meant FM radio . Mr . Robinson answered affirmatively . There was some discussion concerning a mark on the plans that represents the above - mentioned pole . Mrs . Cornish stated that the mark is to scale . It shows the height of the pole . Chairman Austen referred to the recommendation from the Planning Board meeting on November 7 , 1995 . 11r . Frost brought one of the handouts to the Board ' s attention . It was a memo from Mr . Frantz stating that they had amended the site map . The memo was dated November 8 , 1995 . Mr . King mentioned a recommendation from the Planning Board that they use a 50 ' high pole as opposed to a 60 ' pole . He asked if that would , in any way , interfere with the broadcast signal . Mr . Robinson said it would interfere only marginally . The higher the antenna , the more coverage there is . To meet the concerns of the neighborhood the interruption of the view ) , they have agreed to reduce it to 50 ' . On the outside chance * that they really need 60 ' from an engineering perspective , they ' ve agreed to extend 10 ' by using a metal pole not greater than 2 " in diameter in order to obtain the extra foot . Town of Ithaca 2 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 However , they believe the antenna , when mounted on a pole 50 ' above the ground , will be • sufficient . It ' s a standard utility pole , approximately 12 " at the base and 8 " at the top . Mr . King asked if they would use the metal pole on top of the 50 ' pole in order to extend the extra 10 ' . Mr . Robinson stated that to be correct , and he believes that 2 " metal pole would not interfere with the neighbors ' view . Mr . King asked what is going to be on top of the pole . Mr . Robinson said there would be a 36 " antenna , which extends perpendicular to the pole , out toward the Ithaca valley from Bostwick Road . It would extend east by 36 ' . It would not be on top of the pole . Mr . Scala noted that it would look like a CB antenna . Mr . King asked if that is what it is . Mr . Stotz noted that , in some material they received , there was some discussion concerning the viewshed in terms of where the pole was located . Mr . Robinson said that was correct . They discussed a number of alternatives with the neighbors and with the Town Planner and the best solution for all would be , instead of shifting it to the south 50 ' , to actually move it as indicated on the map . That ' s alongside the barn , which puts it in line with a 35 ' silo and a 45 ' tree . They would all be in a straight line up towards the neighbors with a view . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Robinson if the display was his . Mr . Robinson said no , it was Mr . Frantz ' s . Mr . King wanted to know if Mr . Robinson meant the part marked as " shed " when he referred to alongside the barn . Mr . Robinson agreed with that . Mr . Stotz stated that he assumes this is a low-wattage transmitter . Mr . Robinson agreed . Mr . Stotz asked if there are any plans in the future to boost that signal or to increase the height of the antenna . Mr . Robinson indicated there are no such plans . The FCC permit would say not greater than 50 watts because that ' s the level the FCC has . Their intention is to actually use a 5-watt transmitter . That is sufficient for the • primary coverage area , this being the Town of Ithaca , including the valley where the city is located . It is not their intention to increase that . Mr . Scala asked if they already have the license . Mr . Robinson said no . They need to apply to the FCC . What they need first is a building permit . Mr . Scala asked , out of curiosity , what frequency it would be . Mr . Robinson said the FCC would supply that . It would be on the FM band , probably around 88 - 100 . Mr . Stotz asked if anyone has investigated the impact of the radio signal for the surrounding areas . Mr . Robinson stated that they have and there should be no impact . As a matter of fact , the FCC guidelines , and one of the Planning Board conditions , is that they ( the proposed station ) cure any interference at no cost to anyone being interfered with . They expect no interference . It ' s similar to any other FM frequency . It ' s different from cellular phones , television , hand-held phones or anything like that . If there should be any interference , they would cure that problem . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Scala asked if there are any guy wires on the pole . Mr . Robinson said there are not . It would be about 10 ' into the ground and they believe that to be enough support . Mr . Scala asked if the shed comes with the pole . Mr . Robinson said the shed is already existing . The proposal is for the proposed tower and the proposed dish , Everything else is existing . The dish will be right alongside the shed . One reason is that it makes it less visible by neighbors . Another reason is that it will serve as a windbreak . Mr . Stotz asked if there has been any response from the neighbors . Mr . Robinson said there has been . At least three neighbors attended the Planning Board meeting . One •neighbor did not speak , one expressed their support and the third expressed their support , contingent upon the modified proposal . The pole would be taken down if the transmitters are not used . Town of Ithaca 3 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen noted that the environmental assessment was reviewed on November 1 , 1995 by George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner . A negative determination of environmental significance was recommended . He then read from the environmental assessment form . Mr . Robinson noted that the present plans were slightly modified from the initial plans . The present plans , however , do fall within the 40 ' radius area that they wanted . Now they are specifying a location , putting it in line with the silo and the tree . Chairman Austen asked if there would be a problem with the antenna now due to its location in reference to the tree . Mr . Robinson said there would be no problem . Primarily their beam is a directional beam , going east . So , the tree being to the west , there will be no problem . Mr . Scala asked if the area is southwest of the lake . Mr . Robinson answered affirmatively . Mr . Scala then asked if they reach Stewart Park . Mr . Robinson said he is not sure . They would give up the west hill portion of the City of Ithaca because it drops off too steeply . It may be that the signal is sufficiently strong enough to send around the hill to Stewart Park or North Lansing , Mr . Scala asked if they have considered giving weather reports . He noted that it has been a serious problem , not receiving weather reports directly for the Ithaca area . Mr . Robinson responded that it ' s a satellite receiving transmitter and does not provide the opportunity for local programming . With no one else present to speak , Chairman Austen closed the public hearing . He then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . • MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the appeal of Bible Broadcasting Network and Tabernacle Baptist Church , Richard D . Baker landowner , concerning special approval to permit the siting of an 8 ' diameter ground level satellite dish receiver and a radio transmission tower consisting of a 50 ' wooden pole , not to exceed a total height of 60 ' , including a metal extension pole . There would also be a 36 " transmission antenna . 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 . Chairman Austen noted that the Planning Board has an adopted resolution from November 7 , 1995 . He also noted that everyone on the Board has a copy of that . He then read from that resolution and asked for any comments . Chairman Austen then read a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning . He then stated he believes that is the only information they have from outside of the • appeal . Chairman Austen then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . Town of Ithaca 4 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 • RESOLVED , that the Board grant a special approval for the Bible Broadcasting Network , Tabernacle Baptist Church , located at 383 Bostwick Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 32 - 2 - 4 . 2 , Agricultural District , to erect a 50 ' wooden pole with a 36 " transmission antenna . Also included in this special approval is a variance from the requirements of Section 51A ( 5 ) ( 2 ) ( G ) , to allow construction on an occupied parcel of land of 106 acres . This special approval is granted with the following condition : 1 . This is subject to the same conditions that the Planning Board suggested on November 7 , 1995 . Mr . Frost read the ordinance that states a radio transmission tower must be located on an unoccupied parcel of land . 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 second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Lynne and Jeffrey Worsfold , Appellant , requesting a variance from Article %IIT , Section 65 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a privacy fence with a varying height , up to 9 ' 3" ( 6 ' maximum height allowed ) , at • 320 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66-3-8 , Residence District R- 15 . Airs . Lynne Worsfold and Mr . Jeffrey Worsfold came forward to speak . Chairman Austen noted that the fence is already in existence . Airs . Worsfold agreed . Chairman Austen asked when the fence was erected . Mr . Worsfold explained that it was put up this past August . Chairman Austen asked the Worsfold ' s to explain why it was erected and why they feel they need a fence this high . Mrs . Worsfold said they moved into the house at the end of May , 1995 . At that time , they thought they needed a privacy fence . They saw a fence at the Robinson York Herb Garden that they really liked and thought would be appropriate for them . It would blend in with the surrounding area . They built it before realizing that 9 ' was more than the zoning laws allowed . They assumed that , because it was 9 ' at the Herb Garden , it would also apply to them . They felt it had to be that high so they could not see the neighbor from the living room . Chairman Austen asked if their living room is on the first floor . Mrs . Worsfold said it is . From there they can look right into the neighbor ' s front door . They feel like " peepers . " Also , the neighbor ' s place is very different . I•t ' s not something she enjoys looking at . Shortly after the Worsfolds moved in , the neighbors were arrested on possession of drug charges . They did have drugs in the house . The fence provided the Worsfold ' s a way to separate themselves from that . They did not want to get involved . Chairman Austen asked if the neighbors are still there . Mrs . Worsfold said they are . Chairman Austen then asked if it is rental property . Airs . Worsfold said that is correct . Mr . Scala asked if the owner of the rental property objects to the fence . Mrs . • Worsfold responded that she has never met the oemer . The people who live right next door didn ' t object , to her knowledge . Town of Ithaca 5 Zoning Board of Appeals NoveiTber 11 , 1995 Mr . Stotz asked for the width on the Worsfold ' s lot . Mr . Worsfold said it is 85 . 2 ' . 9Mr . Stotz then asked if anyone on the other side of their property has a fence . Mrs . Worsfold said no . Mr . Stotz asked if they had any plans on putting a fence on that other side . Mr . Worsfold said not at this time . Mr . Scala pointed out that the drawing shows shrubs on that side . Mr . Worsfold indicated that there are shrubs there . They do not feel the need for privacy from the neighbor on that side . Chairman Austen noted that the house on that side is much farther than the neighbor on the side where the fence was erected . Firs . Worsfold agreed with that and added that there are not as many windows on the other side . Mr . Scala asked , out of curiosity , why they didn ' t put in trees and shrubs as opposed to the fence . Mr . Worsfold said there are shrubs there . They were planning on planting more when they were notified that they were breaking the zoning laws . They then stopped doing anything to the fence . They haven ' t stained the fence and they haven ' t planted any shrubs . It is their intention to plant shrubs . Mr . Scala again asked whey they didn ' t plant shrubs and trees to begin with . Mr . Worsfold said it was because , for the immediate future , shrubs and trees couldn ' t provide the privacy that the fence will . Over time , the trees and shrubs would provide the needed privacy , and that ' s why they need the fence for the first few years . Mr . Stotz asked how long it would be before the trees and shrubs would be enough . Mr . Worsfold stated he has tried different angles . They have tried to figure out how to put in shrubs to reach a decent size . They are still looking at having to have something taller than 6 ' . He doesn ' t know how long it will take . He assumes 2 - 3 years . Mr . Stotz tried to clarify what he was hearing from Mr . Worsfold . He asked if the • Wdorsfolds really had two concerns , one being the privacy issue and the other having to do with aesthetics . Mr . Worsfold agreed with that . Mr . Stotz added that , concerning the aesthetics issue , the Worsfolds were dealing x7ith something that they were forced to look at but did not enjoy looking at . Mr . Worsfold again agreed . Mr . Scala asked if , basically , they just felt better with a fence up . Mrs . Worsfold answered affirmatively . She then added that the fence is a rather beautiful fence . Mr . Stotz said he has seen the fence , it is not a shoddily constructed fence . He also said that it is a good looking fence , as far as fences go , although the neighbor on the back side of the fence has only the benefit of seeing the frame . Mr . Frost stated that the frame can be seen from both sides . Hr . Stotz agreed . Mr . Worsfold said that he built it that way , in all fairness , because he doesn ' t find that unattractive . Mr . Stotz asked if the neighbor has said anything about the fence . Mr . Worsfold related that , when he talked to them , they seemed fine about it . Mrs . Worsfold added that the neighbor seemed pleased . 11r . King asked if the fence is 9 ' high from the ground at each point . Mr . Worsfold said it is 9 . 3 ' high at the highest point . This is at the top of the curve . The arch is run level and tapers down to 6 . 10 ' as it follows the grade . He added that 9 . 3 ' is the absolute highest point . Mr . King asked if that point is at the north end , the back part , of the property . Mr . Worsfold answered no ; he believes that is the south end , towards the road . Mr . Scala asked if there is a chance that they will erect a fence up on the other side . Mr . Worsfold stated he sees no reason to put a fence on the other side . Mrs . Worsfold agreed and added that they would just use bushes there . Mr . King noted that the house to the east of them appears to be about 70 ' away from the east side of the Worsfold house . Urs . Worsfold said one of the neighbors stopped by while they were building and * complimented them , and that same neighbor also complimented them after the fence was built . Tom of Ithaca 6 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Chairman Austen asked if the fence is built right on the lot line . Mr . Worsfold Waid there was already an existing fence approximately 60 ' long . He used the existing fence and then tapered the new part back onto their property . Chairman Austen noted that he sees an offset at the property line about 152 ' . He asked if that is an offset of the property line . Air . Worsfold said yes . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mr . Pennelton stepped forward to speak . He owns the property at 316 Forest Home Drive . He had a couple of concerns . He wondered what the fence might do to property value . Second , he wondered which side should the finished side be on . He also wanted to know if he can paint the side facing his property . Air . King asked Mr . Pennelton to repeat the second question . Air . Pennelton did so . He is concerned about seeing the framework . As far as either renting or selling the house goes , he wanted to know if that would detract from the value of the property . Mr . King asked if there is framework on the other side of the house as well . Mr . Ellsworth said no . Mr . King said he must have misunderstood . Mr . Pennelton said that he doesn ' t really have a problem with the height of the fence . Mr . King asked Mr . Pennelton if he was around when the Worsfold Is were erecting the fence . Air . Pennelton said he was not around very often . He would stop by occasionally , and he has seen the fence . Mr . King asked if Mr . Pennelton lives in town . Mr . Pennelton said he does not . He lives in the county , though . Mr . Frost stated that Mr . Pennelton used to live in the house . Air . Pennelton agreed with that . Air . Scala asked whose mummy was hanging from the tree ( referring to a picture shown • to the Board ) . Mr . Pennelton said he was not sure . Mr . Worsfold said it belongs to the neighbor . Air . Scala asked if it is still there . Mr . Worsfold said it is , he just took pictures of it before the present meeting . Mr . Stotz noted that it was there at 2 PM . He then asked Mr . Pennelton if there are any alternatives that he would be willing to consider . Air . Pennelton said he wouldn ' t have any problem if his side of the fence was finished . Mr . Stotz said he meant besides finishing that side . He understands Mr . Pennelton ' s concern about seeing the framework . He again asked if there was anything else that would satisfy Mr . Pennelton . Mr . Pennelton said not really because it just doesn ' t look good . He has just had a lot of work done on the house . It probably will be sold soon . Mr . Frost noted that there are graphics dram on the blue house as seen in the picture . He asked if Air . Pennelton or his tenants did that . Mr . Pennelton said the tenants did that . Air . Frost added that it was a little unusual . Chairman Austen asked if there are students living there . Air . Pennelton said they are art students . Mr . King asked if Air . Pennelton had made any rules or regulations for the students as to how they need to keep the house . Mr . Pennelton indicated that he told the students they needed to make the house conform to the rest of the neighborhood . He told them not to do anything " too wild . " Attorney Barney asked if the same three tenants are there . Mr . Pennelton said two of the original tenants are there and another , more recent , tenant is there occasionally . Attorney Barney asked if their names are Mr . Martin , Miss Harding and Mr . Dickerson . Mr . Pennelton said Mr . Dickerson is gone . Mr . King asked if Mr . Pennelton had any interest in putting face boards on his side . Mr . Pennelton said that would be fine with him . Mr . King said he was asking if Mr . * Pennelton would be willing to be responsible for doing that . Mr . Pennelton said he would not do that . Air . Stotz asked him if he would be satisfied with plantings on that side . Mr . Pennelton said the yard is rather small there . Attorney Barney asked him how he would feel if the applicants were willing to let the art students work on that fence . Town of Ithaca 7 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 • Air . Pennelton said he doesn ' t know . Mrs . Worsfold said they were considering staining it green . Mr . Pennelton said he would just want it to match . Mrs . Worsfold said the only reason they stopped working on it was because they realized that they did not conform . Air . Pennelton fully understands that . Mrs . Worsfold said they had definitely planned on staining it ,green . Air . Worsfold added that he is sure they can work something out . Airs . Worsfold expressed a concern over not letting the art students get " too creative . " Mr . Worsfold indicated that they would be willing to work with Mr . Pennelton to come up with a satisfactory resolution to the problem . Air . Pennelton reiterated that the height does not bother him . The houses are made 20 - 30 ' apart . Mrs . Pennelton said they just want it to look nice . Mr . King referred back to Mr . Pennelton ' s question concerning painting the side towards his house . 11r . Worsfold replied that it would be OK if he wanted to do it one color . He added that he would be a little nervous about turning the students loose on the fence . Mr . Pennelton would be nervous about that also , he said . Mr . Worsfold had no problem with it being done in one color . He offered to provide all of the material and labor to accomplish that . Mr . Pennelton stated that was his main concern . The fence just stands out too much the dray it is presently . Attorney Barney asked the Worsfolds what color they would paint the fence . Mrs Worsfold said green . Mr . Stotz reminded the Worsfolds that they wouldn ' t see the Pennelton side of the fence anyway . So , the color could be whatever Air . Pennelton would like . Mr . King noted that the rest of the neighborhood would be able to see it . Attorney Barney asked if the framing would blend in more if the fence were painted . Mr . Pennelton said it would blend in for sure . Air . Worsfold informed Air . Pennelton that they had thought about using a moss green which would blend in with the trees and grass and everything in the neighborhood . This was in the hope of making the fence less obtrusive . • Air . Frost asked if Mr . Pennelton ' s parents still live only a few houses away . Mr . Pennelton said they do . Air . Frost asked if they have objected to the fence at all . Mr . Pennelton replied that his father told him he should check on what it might do to the property value . Attorney Barney said he thinks Mr . Pennelton has other concerns . Air . Pennelton agreed . Air . Stotz stated that he assumes there is a reason for the fence ordinance . The precise reason has always escaped him , but he knows there is a reason for it . He is a little concerned about people in the community . Not everyone agrees with their neighbor . Some people like their neighbor , others don ' t . Some have disputes over site lines , some don ' t . If the Board approves this , they are saying it ' s OK to put up a fence in excess of the requirement if you : a ) can see into the neighbor ' s living room ( which many people can ) ; b ) if you don ' t agree with the dray the neighbor keeps his property and decorates his house . He asked someone to tell him if this was going to be a problem for the Town some time down the road . Chairman Austen commented that Air . Stotz was asking a very good question . He then read from Article XII , Section 65 , concerning fences . He added that it has , at times , been a problem . A 9 ' fence is an extremely high fence and he doesn ' t believe they have any that high that he can think of . Mr . Frost said there may be a few around town , but not too many . Chairman Austen stated that this fence would be one of the very fete that the Town would have . There may be one on Taughannock Boulevard , separating a couple of cottages . Mr . Frost said there ' s one out Danby Road , towards the end of the Town line . Vouser . Scala noted that the 9 ' is due to the rise in the ground . Mr . Pennelton said his is actually 3 ' ground level higher than the Vlorsfold ' s . From the kitchen porch , he can see right into their living room and they can see into his kitchen . Torn. of Ithaca 8 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Mr . Frost tried to clarify the issue by saying he gets a sense that the appellants • have a little greater concern than just being able to see into the neighbor ' s home . It ' s one of the more unique properties in the Town . They seem to have some concern over the police record of a couple of the current tenants there . He said the Board may consider a time- limited variance if they consider a variance at all . If Mr . Pennelton were to sell the house , the new owner may dispose of the current tenants and live there themselves . Some of the appellants concerns , at that point , would certainly be diminished . Attorney Barney said he wasn ' t quite sure that he can articulate the rationale for the fence limit of 6 ' as opposed to 9 ' . Much of what they do in Zoning involves a line being drawn . If you exceed that line , that ' s what this Board is here to determine - - whether or not it ' s a proper case . They are talking about what constitutes an area variance . There ' s a fairly recent Court of Appeals decision that just came down on area variances , which struck down the test of practical difficulties , which is what they had always previously operated under . It said they will now go by the statute language that was revised and adopted a couple of years ago . Really , what is done there is to balance the interests of the applicants versus the detriment to the community as a whole . The test is for an area variance . The test for a use variance is much more vigorous . For an area variance , the Zoning Board of Appeals would take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted , as weighed against the detriment to the health , safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community . He then read some more from that statute . He noted that they really are looking at a balance issue here . He doesn ' t believe Mr . Pennelton ' s concerned about the height issue . In terms of detriment to surrounding properties , basically there are 8 or 9 people living in the neighborhood saying that the fence is not a detriment in their views . Mr . Pennelton is saying it ' s not a detriment insofar as it relates to the height ; it ' s a detriment due to the fact • that he can see the frame . Attorney Barney pointed out that he could see the frame on a 6 ' fence , but it wouldn ' t be an issue before the Board at all . He doesn ' t see a problem with granting or not granting it . That ' s up to the Board ' s discretion . Mr . King asked Mr . Pennelton for the approximate distance between the east side of his house and the fence . Mr . Pennelton said the garage is 11 ' and the house is probably 20 - 25 ' . The garage is as close to the property line as it could be put according to the Zoning laws at the time the house was built . Mr . King asked if anyone lives in that garage . Mr . Pennelton said no . Chairman Austen stated the only thing he noticed when he drove by is that it seems to be coming out fairly close to the road . He asked if it needs to be as far to the road as it is . Could it go back one section? Mr . ��lorsfold said it could . It basically only screens the view of the mummy at this point . He has no problem with going back one section . Chairman Austen added that the problem with the mummy would take care of itself when it falls from the tree . Mr . Scala said it seems to him that Mr . Pennelton has mentioned the possibility of selling . He asked Mr . Pennelton if the students there are transient . Mr . Pennelton said they will be gone by next August . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Pennelton if he could then foresee the nature of the property changing in one or two years . Mr . Pennelton answered affirmatively . Mr . Scala said he , personally , would never buy a house with a Q ' wall nearby . That wouldn ' t be very attractive no matter what paint you used . However , that depends on the future buyer . Mr . Pennelton said the buyer may be his son . He has first choice . • With no one else present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Town of Ithaca 9 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Austen referred to the environmental assessment form prepared by JoAnn Cornish , Toem Planner II . Mrs . Cornish related that she believes the fence is a beautiful fence ; there ' s no question about that . Driving around the area , there are no other fences quite like it and , certainly , as high or solid in appearance . That area has a very distinct character . The fences are picket- type fences . Those fences are low and the area has a very charming character . The danger in allowing people to build fences this high is if everyone on that street built a high fence , it wouldn ' t be very attractive . Certainly neighbors would begin to say enough of these fences . It would be like building a wralled• . in neighborhood . That ' s the type of thing Mrs . Cornish was looking at - - neighborhood character . She does not believe this fence is in character with other fences in the neighborhood . She cautioned the Board to look dowm the road . People may look at the Worsfold ' s fence and decide they should be allowed to put up a similar fence . Certainly , the nature of the property may change . In which case , that fence may not be needed . She assumes the Worsfold ' s have already made a substantial investment in the fence . That , however , is not a consideration for the Board at this time . She noted that the property next door is not in character with the other houses in the neighborhood . So , there is that argument as well . She thinks there are situations where people don ' t like what they live next door to , but she agrees with Mr . Stotz . Many who face that situation do not go out and put up a 9 ' high fence . Chairman Austen asked if the fence would be less objectionable if it were back from • the road some more . firs . Cornish said that is a good point . She thinks it would not be as visually obtrusive if it were set back . Chairman Austen noted that it was quite obtrusive to him when he drove by . firs . Cornish agreed and said she didn ' t realize at the time she drove by that it was part of the problem . However , your eye catches it immediately . If it were set back , it wouldn ' t be quite so obtrusive . fir . King asked hoer wide each section of fence is . fir . Worsfold said 8 ' . Some are a little shorter due to interruptions in the fence line by trees . Mr . Scala referred to another case concerning a fence . This concerned firs . Kingsley . At that time , it was a very similar situation . That fence was to hide a clothesline . Mr . Frost agreed with that . fir . Scala recalled that the case was resolved by giving her a temporary variance . They allowed her three years to go ahead and put in the bushes . Mr . Frost noted that it was at that meeting that fir . Scala stated one of the most classic lines he ' s ever heard . The line concerned whether or not the wood was alive or dead . He continued by saying the Board should understand that every neighbor in the neighborhood could have a 6 ' high fence . You ' d still have a neighborhood full of fences , they would just be 6 ' high . Mrs . Cornish reiterated that it ' s still 3 ' above what is allowed . Mr . Frost agreed . Fe then asked the Worsfolds if they had the fence prefabricated . fir . Worsfold said they bought each plank , making it a rather expensive proposition . Attorney Barney asked if the Board granted a variance for a 10 ' fence in a step- down situation at the .lake . There was some concern , as there is now , about being able to look right into each other ' s houses . Chairman Austen confirmed this . Mr . Ellsworth noted that this happens in second- story houses anyway . Attorney Barney said in those cases you can use blinds . Mr . Stotz noted that , in California , there are 12 ' fences between everybody , but the lots are very narrow . fir . Scala said that roads now have fences for noise . That ' s not the point . There is a requirement here- that fences not be over 6 ' . You have to live with it , although there are exceptions . fir . Frost said if they got a time- limited variance , Town of Ithaca 10 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 ithey could always cut down 3 ' and still salvage a good part of the fence , even though they may not want to do that . At least for the time being , he believes the fence serves a reasonable purpose for them until something happens with that property . Mr . Scala assumed that everything next door is transient , including the drawings on the wall and the mummy . Mr . Frost stated that some people in the community think that it is attractive . The Board should not go too far in judging something that ' s different . Mr . Ellsworth asked if he was referring to the mummy or the drawing . Mr . Frost said probably all of it , he supposes . There are bicycles buried half way in the ground . Mr . Worsfold said there are vehicles rotting in the back yard . There are parts in the trees . There are neon lights that shine right into their house . He has lived in a small two- story house in the city before . You looked right into each other ' s houses . This is a little different situation . Mr . Scala noted that once you ' ve decided it ' s not what you want , then it ' s just not what you want . He proposed that the Board consider a three-year time limit . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . He noted that the Toem Planner II ' s recommendation is for a negative determination of environmental significance . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board , based on the submitted material , adopt a negative determination of environmental significance as to the existence of a fence up to • 9 . 3 ' on the west side of the property at 320 Forest Home Drive , 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 . Chairman Austen brought the Board ' s attention back to the fence . The remainder of the fence in the back is no more than 6 ' high . It ' s the new section that is more than that . He asked if there are any plans to make the back section higher . Mr . Worsfold said there are none . Mr . King asked what the Worsfolds believe the effect would be , concerning their privacy and view , if the southerly 8 ' section was removed . Mr . Worsfold said he would have no objection . Mr . King asked about removing two of the southerly 8 ' sections . Mr . Worsfold said if you remove the second one , the neighbors would again be seen from the living room window . Air . King noted that it ' s difficult to tell from the pictures . The angles are not clear . Mr . Worsfold said 8 ' would be no problem , 16 ' would be . Chairman Austen noted that 8 ' would help , even concerning the safety of entering and exiting the driveway . You almost have to be out to the road before you can see around the fence , especially if you are backing out . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal , • MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala . Tocm of Ithaca 11 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 • RESOLVED , that the Board grant the variance requested by Lynne and Jeffrey Worsf old , requesting to be permitted to maintain a privacy fence from various heights up to 9 . 31 , at 320 Forest Home Drive , with the following findings and conditions : 1 . This variance is given in recognition of the fact that there does not appear , at this time , to be any substantial change in the character of the neighborhood as a result of that fence . 2 . That there does not appear to be any detriment to any surrounding property owners , 3 . It is granted in recognition solely of the fact that there is a problem concerning the aesthetics of the adjoining property . 4 . Within five years it is to be either reduced to 6 ' or removed entirely , unless the applicants come before the Board again to ask for a further time extension to keep the fence height as is . 5 . One 8 ' section of the fence bordering the road shall be removed . 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 third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Davide Sayada, Appellant , Lucia and Douglas Armstrong , Landowners , request authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article %II , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit in the basement of an existing one- story, non-conforming single- family residence and to construct a new second story on said home at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 -2- 32 , Residence District R- 15 . The building and lot do not conform to the zoning requirements for lot width or side yard building setbacks . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Sayada to be seated by the microphone . Mr . Frost noted that Mr . Sayada is proposing to buy the house . He also noted that Mr . Armstrong is present . Chairman Austen said this property is not unfamiliar to the Board ; it has been before the Board a couple of times previously . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Sayada if he is planning on making this a two- family residence by putting an apartment back into it . Mr . Sayada said he just wants it to be legal to rent out the apartment . Chairman Austen noted that it was not a legal two- family dwelling . Mr . Frost said that was correct . The Board allowed the current owner to allow the tenants , at that time , to remain there through July . The house has been vacant since . Mr . King asked which apartment was not legal . Mr . Frost explained that there were law students in the lower level , cellar apartment . Since the law students were taking exams , the Board allowed them to stay through July in order to get through those exams . They had a ceiling height deficiency . The Board required an egress window Wo be put in one of the bedrooms . Mr . King tried to clarify . He asked if , when they say here is an apartment there now , do they mean the one on the lower floor . Mr . Sayada agreed . Mr . King asked what is on the second floor . Howe many bedrooms does the unit have ? Mr . Sayada said there are three bedrooms . Mr . King asked if that is a complete apartment . Mr . Sayada asked if he meant upstairs . Mr . King replied affirmatively . Mr . Sayada said yes it is a complete apartment . Town of Ithaca 12 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Sayada if he is proposing to put an addition on the top . Mr . • Sayada said no . The house is very dark and his concern is to bring more light into the house . He would do this by removing a fireplace at the front of the house that currently blocks the light . This would create a second story above and bring more light to the whole house . Mr . Frost said that , basically , they would be removing the roof and adding a second floor . Mr . Sayada agreed . Mr . Frost noted that aspect is somewhat depicted on one of the pages in each Board member ' s packet . Mr . Stotz asked if they would end up with an additional room or rooms . Mr . Sayada said yes ; there would be a bedroom there . Mr . Frost explained that one of the dilemmas is that , since Mr . Sayada has not yet purchased the house , the sale is somewhat contingent on whatever approval he may get . They accepted the rough sketches that Mr . Sayada has submitted , as opposed to an architect ' s plan , due to the additional cost that would produce . If Mr . Sayada does not get approved by this Board , he hasn ' t invested that additional money . Mr . Scala asked if Mr . Sayada is planning on the upper floor being 24 ' X 48 ' . Mr . Sayada said that was correct ; it would be whatever the top of the house is . Mr . Scala asked if that is for two-bedrooms and a bathroom . That ' s a lot of square footage for those purposes . Mr . Sayada said it would be a bathroom , a master bedroom and the stairs . He hasn ' t made any final plans . That ' s a long- term plan he wanted to guarantee himself . He thinks the most immediate concern , if he purchases the house , is to be able to rent the downstairs apartment in order to be able to afford the purchase . Mr . Scala noted that if Mr . Sayada adds a 24 ' X 48 ' space , he doesn ' t need the Board ' s permission . Mr . Frost said he does . The property is non- conforming . Any change , including height , is a change that requires Board approval . He added that they have not completed a building * to code review of the cellar space . There ' s a great likelihood that Mr . Sayada will have appear before New York State in order to seek some variances from building code . These were some issues this Board brought up when the case was heard a year or so ago . Mr . Stotz asked if this property permits an accessory apartment . Mr . Frost said that it does not necessarily permit that . It ' s not that the property is limited to a single - family residence , but the lot is undersized . He believes this property has the square footage in area that Mr . Sayada needs . He asked Mr . Stotz if he was asking if the property would be all right for a two -dwelling residence if it were a vacant piece of land . Mr . Stotz said he was asking why the building is non- conforming . Mr . Frost indicated that he had put a couple of things into the hearing notice that described the non- conforming nature of the property . Mr . King read from the hearing notice in reference to the non-conforming nature of the property . Mr . Scala asked if the reason for the apartment is to help pay for the house . Mr . Sayada answered affirmatively . Mr . Frost stated that , if this was vacant land , Mr . Sayada would be allowed to put a two- family residence on there , but he would still have problems maintaining the setbacks due to the width of the land . Mr . King said he would then need a variance . Mr . Frost said that was true , unless he had a very small house . Attorney Barney reiterated that it would have to be very narrow . Chairman Austen said it wouldn ' t be able to be much wider than 12 ' . Attorney Barney said his understanding , from reading the ordinance , is that you can have only a single- family dwelling on a non- conforming lot of less than the required size lot . He stated that he is unclear and that the wording in the ordinance could be susceptible to a couple of different interpretations . Mr . Frost said the ordinance would • require a 100wide lot and the property is only 50 ' . So , dimensionally , it is too narrow . Actually , he believes that if he were having a house proposed , he would be calling Attorney Barney for his opinion . Ifr . Ellsworth asked how many of the nearby lots are non-conforming . Mr . Frost said that many of them are . Mr . Ellsworth then asked if many of them have a second family in them . Mr . Frost stated that he could not answer that . He knows there are some , but he doesn ' t know how many . Town of Ithaca 13 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Mrs . Cornish said she did scan the tax rolls and she did not find many in the • vicinity that were two- family dwellings . Chairman Austen said that a lot of them have been eliminated by the Board . Mr . Stotz indicated he had gone through the minutes from the last time this property was before the Board . He believes that those minutes indicated some promise that the current owners would not attempt to make this a two- family dwelling . This would not apply to a new buyer , however . He thinks that it was the intent of the Board that this remain a single- family home . Chairman Austen said one of the problems was that the height in the lower level was insufficient for a legal apartment . Mr . Stotz agreed with that . Chairman Austen then said that it would require State approval . Mr . Scala stated that it would mean major construction in order to raise the lower part of the house so that it fits within the height requirement . Chairman Austen noted that it would not be practical . Mr . Frost asked for clarification on what Mr . Scala and Chairman Austen were saying . Are they concerned it will exceed the height limitation? Chairman Austen said no . They are concerned about the basement level . It is probably not practical to make it higher , neither to lower the floor nor raise the ceiling . Mr . Frost stated that , quite frankly , one of his concerns ( he ' d have to have a further survey of the building ) is if the building could structurally handle the second floor . It ' s possible that the building would collapse if a new floor and roof were added . However , the building does not seem in disrepair . It seems to be a well -maintained building . Chairman Austen asked if this is an old building that has been redone over the years . Mr . Frost said Mr . Armstrong could better answer when the house was built . He added that it seems in good repair . He has seen some buildings on the lake that do not even have a foundation tied into the ground . They are just sitting on bedrock , not • anchored into a foundation . He then asked Mr . Armstrong when the house was built . Mr . Armstrong said 30+ years from some given time . Mr . King asked when the flood was . Someone from the audience said the house was not built in the 1930 ' s . Attorney Barney said the 30+ means that it was built 30+ years ago . Mr . Armstrong apologized and said that he didn ' t understand that . Chairman Austen asked Mr . Sayada if he believes he does need to have an apartment there in order to purchase the property . Mr . Sayada replied that is how he feels . In order for him to afford it , he needs the apartment . Mr . Stotz asked Mr . Sayada if he would be living there . Mr . Sayada responded affirmatively . Mr . Stotz asked him if he would be there all year long . Mr . Sayada again responded affirmatively . Mr . Frost referred to a letter from the neighboring property , owned by Mr . Garrison . It was dated November 2 and received by the Town on November 7 . The letter asked what would happen if Mr . Sayada decided to move out , even though he may live there initially . Mr . Ellsworth said the Board could take care of that . Mr . Frost said he suggested that the Board would put some consideration into that . Chairman Austen asked if Mr . Garrison owns the property just to the north . Mr . Frost said he owns the property immediately to the north . Chairman Austen asked if he spends just summers there . Mr . Frost said that was true , according to the letter . Mr . Scala stated that , in order for approval , some engineering would need to be done to determine what construction has to be done . Mr . Frost asked if he means in regards to the second story . Mr . Scala said yes . He added that even the first story has to be • higher . Mr . Frost responded by saying that the chole existing building needs to have an engineer look at it to see whether or not it could withstand the new loads imposed with a second- story addition . Mr . Scala indicated that he is confused because it was his understanding that the first floor did not meet the height requirements . Mr . Frost agreed with that . He said the cellar apartment has some Code considerations that would Town of Ithaca 14 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 probably require some New York State variance . That ' s a separate issue . Mr . Scala asked • if that is likely . Mr . Frost indicated that answering that question would be like trying to predict what the Board is going to do at this meeting . Mr . Scala stated he would just like to know what Mr . Frost thinks about it , based on his previous experience . Mr . Frost agreed that was a fair question . He then said it ' s possible that they might be willing to grant the variance , depending on what kind of trade- offs there were , maybe regarding some fire safety systems . Mr . King asked for the square footage of additional floor space being proposed to add to the house . Mr . Sayada said he thinks it ' s 24 ' x 36 ' . Chairman Austen noted that it ' s 24 ' x ' 48 ' . Mr . Sayada said the 48 ' would go as far as the porch . The main part of the house would be 36 ' . He heard one of the construction people , when giving an estimate , say that the building may not hold the weight . He actually heard three people . Two said they think it ' s possible , by adding some poles . The third said the poles wouldn ' t hold , so they shouldn ' t even bother with them . Mr . Frost pointed out that anything is possible , it just depends on hope much money you are willing to put forth . Mr . King asked if that means going from 864 sq * ft . to 1 , 000 sq . ft . Mr . Sayada agreed with that . Mr . King said that would effectively add half again as much floor space as there is already there . He also noted that the addition could add a height variance problem . Otherwise , adding to the house in this fashion would not exacerbate the non- conformity of this property . The non- conformity has to do with side yard lines and setbacks . Adding a floor could not change that one way or the other . Chairman Austen added that , with the new height , there would probably not be any height restrictions either because it is at 38 ' now . Mr . Scala expressed his opinion that if they had to rebuild anyway to support the • second floor , it ' s going to raise it a foot or two . That ' s the kind of construction that they will be doing . They will be replacing major posts and beams . It seems to him they have more questions than variances . Mr . Sayada believes the first question to field is whether or not he will be able to rent out the downstairs . The next would be how to make it more light in there . There are many ways . One of the contractors told him he could put in skylights , fie could take out the fireplace in the front and put in a glass wall . He just wanted that option - - to be able to rent out an apartment . Mr . Scala stated that he doesn ' t see how the Board could approve any variance without some drawings , some plans that show structurally what ' s going to be done to meet all of the requirements . Mr . Stotz advised that the variance could be subject to the provision of some kind of engineering analysis presented to the Tom Engineer in terms of structural safety . Mr . Scala remarked that then the Board would be approving a pig in a poke . Mr . Ellsworth pointed out that , if it becomes a height problem , they would just have to come back before the Board when the plans are reviewed . Chairman Austen stated he could not , under the new ordinance , foresee a height problem . Mr . Frost spoke in terms of technical review as to whether it meets Code . He ' s not sure if the Board typically does that . There seems , to him , to be a lot of variables . It ' s going to take several thousand dollars , and that ' s probably not even the issue in regards to the merits of Mr . Sayada getting a variance . However , just to bring the cellar apartment into compliance is going to cost quite a bit of money . It ' s a question of how far they can get with that , even with a State variance . Mr . Scala said there would be no problem in reconstructing the house to meet the requirements , whether it ' s the basement , the upper floor , etc . There are enough exceptions in terms of variances for narrow lots that it could be approved . However , there ' s no plan ; there ' s nothing to really sink your teeth • into . Mr . Frost stated he thinks the larger , more significant issue is whether or not the Board will consider special approval for a cellar apartment , making it a two-- family residence . That ' s the greatest issue . Without that , there ' s no reason to discuss the Town of Ithaca 15 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 second floor . Mr . Scala said if all requirements are met , the two- family residence would Owasbe allowed . Attorney Barney agreed with this statement provided the two- family residence on a standard-- sized , or larger , lot . Mr . Scala replied with an emphatic no . He then asked if the Board can actually say that . Attorney Barney said they can grant it ; it ' s enlarging a non- conforming use in order to permit a second unit there . This Board has the authority to do that . Chairman Austen opened the public hearing . Mrs . Patty Francis addressed the Board . She is a real estate broker and a neighbor to the property presently being discussed by the Board . She ' s been working with Mr . Sayada and she ' s been working to sell the property for about five years . As a neighbor who went to a lot of work to redo a house in the area and who has a lot of students around her , she ' s very much concerned with the impact from apartments . She ' s certainly happy to see the changes that have taken place in the area due to the Zoning Board taking a closer look at the circumstances there . This property has had an apartment which was , apparently , illegal . It was sold to the Armstrongs some years back as an income property . Mr . Scala stated that it was sold as a single . Mrs . Francis disagreed with that . Mr . Scala said he ' s sorry , but that has already come up previously . He stated one of the problems was that the owner bought it with the intention of renting , but it was sold as a single . Mr . Armstrong interjected that the sales contract stated it was a two- family unit . Mr . Scala said OK . Mrs . Francis specializes in lake front property . In any event , since their purchase , the Armstrongs discovered the property was not legal , and there were a lot of problems with the property , including the tenants . They have been attempting to sell • this property . They couldn ' t find anyone who wanted to restore it as it is . There is an apartment there . There are neighbors to the south , Wally Wiggins ' tenants ( he has two tenant houses to the south and then there ' s his place ) . To the north is Garrison , who is there only in the summers and rents it out during the rest of the year . Mr . Lucente lives in the house to the north of that . Mr . Ellsworth asked if that is Steven Lucente . 11rs . Francis said it is . The Garrisons , Lucentes and the Armstrongs share a driveway . To the north of that used to be Mr . Lehr . That was just recently sold as a multi - income unit . It ' s a house with two apartments as well as a separate apartment . Attorney Barney asked for clarification . He asked if 11r . Garrison is immediately north . Mrs . Francis answered affirmatively . Attorney Barney asked if his place is a single - family house . Mrs . Francis said yes . He ' s a summer occupant , winter rental . Attorney Barney asked who is north of Garrison . Mrs . Francis stated it is Mr . Lucente . She added that they seemed happy when she spoke with them . At least that is what Pat Lucente said . They liked the idea of Mr . Sayada coming and doing what he proposes if he is going to be there all the time . He made that house look like the Lucente ' s . The other two houses down that driveway have been restored . They are also much higher . She went there and took some pictures . They show that the main level of this house is much lower than the other two . So , even if Mr . Sayada should put another level on his house , it would still be well below the other houses . They won ' t have their view obstructed . She added that what Mr . Sayada is talking about is another bedroom and bath upstairs with a loft , which brings the light into the living room below . It ' s a very dark house now . It ' s built into the side of the hill . Attorney Barney asked if Mr . Wiggins ' property is on the south side . Mrs . Francis said it is . He has two rentals . Attorney Barney asked if he had two single - unit buildings . Mrs . Francis answered that she believes that to be true . Attorney Barney asked if they were all on separate properties or on the same property . Urs . Francis had no idea as to the answer to that question . She would guess , due to the . sizes of the parcels , that each is on a separate property . Attorney Barney then noted that there were three single - family units . He was trying to understand the current character of the neighborhood . Toc_rx. of Ithaca 16 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Airs . Francis noted that north of McHugh Lehr , which is an income property , is Judd •Welch ' s property , which has two or three units on it . Air . Stotz asked if those two or three units are separate and occupied . Airs . Francis did not know , She only knows that Mr . Welch owns them and there are at least two , possibly three , houses there . Mr . Stotz said he was wondering whether each unit contained a separate family . Mrs . Francis believes that to be true . Mrs . Francis brought the Board ' s attention back to the property before the Board . It has a driveway that comes down and then there are three houses . At the top is a good parking area , no cne has to park by the road as they do around her house . Air . Ellsworth asked if the parking is beyond the guard rail that the State just put up . Airs . Francis said it is ; there ' s a guard rail south of the parking area . Mr . Sayada rioted that there is a deep parking section . Mrs . Francis reiterated that there ' s parking at the tcp , as well as below . Airs . Cornish said the parking issue was one of the questions they had . She wanted to know how many parking spaces come with the property . I•ir . Sayada stated that currently there are two spaces right next to the house . Mrs . Cornish asked if , because it ' s a shared space , they share: the parking or does each house have a certain number of spaces . Mrs . Francis said the ones that go with his house are above his house ; the ones that go with Garrison ' s are above their house , etc . At the top of the driveway is about a 50 ' run . She pointed out an area on the map . Mrs . Cornish asked if that 50 ' run goes with this property . Airs . Francis agreed . Mrs . Cornish asked for an estimate on the number of spaces available for parking that come with this property . Air . Armstrong said there are 12 . Mrs . Cornish , in order to clarify , asked if there would be 12 parking spaces for that property if Mr . Sayada purchases it . Mr . Armstrong said yes . Chairman Austen asked if that means 12 spaces for all three houses . Mr . Armstrong replied with an emphatic nov there are six or eight up off the road and four immediately above the cottage , as well • as one or two next to a small shed right above the house . There ' s more than adequate parking space . Airs . Francis pointed out that Mr . Sayada only wants a two- bedroom apartment . One of the bedrooms in the house may not even be a legal - sized bedroom . There are two 11 ' eg 12 ' bedrooms . Then there ' s a little room , which really doesn ' t constitute a bedroom . He would be adding the upper level and another bathroom and a loft , with a staircase going up . As it stands now , this property would only be a summer rental and go dot-in hill from chat it is noir . There aren ' t very many people that want to come along and do chat is necessary to improve this . She ' s been trying to sell it for five years so she is in a good position to know that . Air . Ellsworth asked Attorney Barney if the five , six or seven adjacent properties are predominantly single - family units . Attorney Barney said yes . If you go up and doern the lake , you will find more single - family houses than two - family houses . Mrs . Ccrnish pointed out that they are mostly single - family rental units . Hrs . Francis asked if t?zis property would be considered single- family with an accessory apartment . Mr . Frost said it would be considered a two- family residence . Airs . Francis asked why he would call it that . Air . Frost stated it would be called that because it ' s two dwelling units . By definition , a dwelling unit means you have a space that provides eating , sleeping , sanitary and cooking provisions . Mr . Stotz asked within what distance would this be the only house to have that arrangement . Mr . Ellsuorth said a two - family house . Mrs . Francis said the distance would only be about 50 ' . Attorney Barney said it ' s 100 ' . If you go south , the next three properties are all single - family properties . Airs . Francis said they are all rental units . Attorney Barney agreed , but added that they are all one - dwelling units . North is the Garrisons , the Lucentes and McHugh Lehr , The HcHugh Lehr property may be more * So , than one dwelling , but north of that is Welch , which. is a tiro or three-unit dwelling , within that range , there are two multi- dwelling units , but all the others are single - family units . He ' s sure that up and down the lake thence are others . Toval of Ithaca 17 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Mrs . Francis asked Mr . Frost if he said the State had made a change concerning • ceiling heights . Mr . Frost said there are changes that could apply , but he can ' t address them until he gets back into the building to survey it . Mrs . Francis said they may be OK with those changes . Mr . Frost reiterated that he doesn ' t want to come to any conclusion without getting back into the building . They certainly need to provide fire separation in the space as well , which is a multi - thousand dollar propositi well , on . Chairman Austen read a letter from William Garrison , asking the Board to reject the petition . Por . King noted that Mr . Garrison ' s request is on the ground that it would increase the density in the neighborhood to have even two apartments . The implication of the letter is that he ' s afraid adding another story would mean eventually the residence would become a multiple - resident dwelling . In other words , the additional space might be tempting to rent out as further rental units . Chairman Austen noted that was the only letter received on this matter . Mr . Stotz asked if there is any way to condition the variance on owner occupancy . If the property were sold again , it could still only be used as a two-- family dwelling , with one apartment being occupied by the owner . Attorney Barney stated that could , legally , be done . Ownership would need to be clearly defined . It couldn ' t be just a one percent ownership , it would have to be a person with at least 50 percent ownership . Chairman Austen noted that they still have to get back to the problem that the basement apartment would not be a legal apartment per New Fork State Code . Mr . Frosted stated any approval granted would have to be subject to any and all codes . Chairman Austen agreed with that . With no one else present to speak , the public hearing was closed . • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Mrs . Cornish stated she believes , in light of the current conversation , most of their concerns were answered . They wanted to make sure there was adequate parking should a second dwelling unit be approved . Another concern was owner occupancy . She did speak with Mr . Garrison at length . He was very concerned that , if the property was sold , it would become a two- unit rental . The problems they have had in the past would once again occur . She took a good look at whether or not the view would be obstructed from either house on both sides . It would not be . They are both two- story homes and the view would not be an issue . The house does sit very low . Chairman Austen added that the Town Planning Department has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance . He then asked for a motion on the environmental assessment . MOTION By Mr . David Stotz , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED , that the Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of the appeal of Davide Sayada and Lucia and Douglas Armstrong , requesting authorization to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit in the basement of an existing one - story , non- conforming , single - family residence and to construct a new second story at a home located at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca . • Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : AYES - Austen , Ellsworth , King , Scala , Stott . NAYS - None . ToxIn of Ithaca 18 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 The motion was carried unanimously . • Chairman Austen asked if the Board could grant this appeal subject to State approval , regarding having an apartment in the basement . Mr . King said it could have to be brought into compliance with all codes . Attorney Barney said the other question is whether the Board has enough information to talk about that . He reminded them of a case which they litigated on the east side of the lake . They put dormers on a fairly small house . Mr . King said there is also a danger if there is not a review required by the Board of exactly what Mr . Sayada plans , that he may then think the approval of the special approval gives him the right to go ahead with whatever he wants to do . Mr . Frost said there was a timing issue involved here . It would have been virtually impossible for them to get an architect to draw up plans in order to be ready for this meeting . The sale is something they want to get resolved . Mrs . Francis said she didn ' t feel comfortable asking Air . Sayada to go out and pay for an architect when he doesn ' t knot, yet whether or not he ' s buying the property . Pir . Frost pointed out that , at the same time , however the Board wants to word it , Mr . Sayada may now get a better sense of whether or not he wants to proceed with that investment . Mr . Scala noted it may be that Mr . Sayada can get enough of a preliminary plan with estimates , without getting into an extensive architectural drawing . He could maybe get enough to give him a feel of what he ' s getting into concerning cost . He couldn ' t speak for the Board , but the sense has been that they ' ve approved this type of arrangement for apartments before , assuming all of the requirements are met . This one has too many things that are rather vague and would not be accepted now . There ' s extensive work , which is not going to be cheap . You ' re rebuilding the whole place . You might have to loot; at the option of tearing it down and rebuilding . • 11r . Stotz asked Mr . Sayada if he heard correctly . Did Mr . Sayada say there are other alternatives in the event he can ' t go ahead with putting on the bedroom and bathroom? Mr . Sayada said his main concern is not size , but lighting . Mr . Stotz said then there are two concerns . One is getting the apartment approved and the other is the addition . He asked if there was some way the Board could grant a variance for one and not the other . Attorney Barney replied affirmatively . The Board could specifically say that , at this time , they are denying the variance for the second story due to insufficient information , without prejudice to renewing the application at a later date . Mr . Scala said they couldn ' t give a variance on the second apartment because it doesn ' t meet all the requirements . Attorney Barney related that this is the chicken and the egg situation . It ' s a question of whether you wait for the Code Enforcement people in Albany to give the OK or you give a variance conditioned on what Albany says . Traditionally , the Board has granted the variance conditional on it being approved by Albany . Mrs . Francis asked if it could be subject to the approval by the State for the apartment . Attorney Barney said that ' s what they ' re talking about . Mrs . Francis then asked if it could be subject to the approval by the Board of his future plans . This would mean he wouldn ' t have to pay another fee to reapply for the second story . Attorney Barney said the fee really covers the publication fee . They turn around and pay that to a newspaper for putting the ad in the paper . They have to re - advertise no matter hoer you cut it . Mr . Ellsworth asked if one of the tests for accepting this under R- 15 is that it stay within the character of the neighborhood . Attorney Barney said that ' s the Board ' s • call . Mr . Ellsworth again asked if that is one of the tests . Attorney Barney said that is one of the considerations . Town of Ithaca 19 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Mr . Scala stated that his reaction is that if Mr . Sayada had come in with a proper engineer ' s drawing , as well as estimates , and was willing to go ahead with those plans , We would be pumping a great deal of money into improving that property . That would be far better than how it exists now as an illegal facility . In this sense , the Board would certainly not discourage him . He has to be realistic about what it ' s going to cost to do it . Mr . King said that ' s not the Board ' s problem . Mr . Scala stated that , if the Board goes ahead and approves this , he could end up spending thousands of dollars on an engineering drawing . Attorney Barney reiterated that was Mr . Sayada ' s problem . Mr . Sayada stated he had another problem . If the Board denies the variance for the second- floor bedroom , are they denying any other means for him to get more light by moving the fireplace or putting in skylights , etc . ? Mr . Frost said if Mr . Sayada raises his roof , he still has to come back before the Board because the building is non- conforming . Changing the windows would not be seen as an enlargement . Attorney Barney pointed out that moving the fireplace is also not an enlargement . Mr . Frost agreed with that but added if he raises the roof to create a cathedral ceiling , changing the height of the building , that would be seen as an enlargement that would have to come back to the Board . Attorney Barney pointed out that putting in a skylight would not be an enlargement . Mr . Sayada asked if he has to come back before the Board in order to move the fireplace . Attorney Barney informed him that he mould not have to unless he put in a bigger fireplace . Mr . King asked if the fireplace is free standing . Mr . Frost noted that it ' s coming out from the middle of the building so it cannot be free standing . Mrs . Francis said it ' s amazing . They built the fireplace on the lake side , right in the middle of the wall on the lake side . It takes up half the view of the lake and makes the room very dark . It ' s a nice fireplace and she doesn ' t know why they put it on the lake • side . Chairman Austen informed Mr . Sayada that they don ' t have plans enough to give him a yes or no on raising the roof yet . He then asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . David Stotz . RESOLVED , that the Board grant an approval , under Section 54 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the maintenance of two dwelling units in the building at 975 Taughannock Boulevard , with the following conditions : 1 . The existing unit on the first floor has to be brought into conformity with all applicable codes , State and local , as well as construction and fire codes . 2 . Whatever has to be done to meet those codes Would not enlarge the footprint of the building on the lot . 3 . The owner of the property must reside on the premises . 4 . The deed must be presented to the Town Attorney and meet his approval before being finalized and recorded . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : • Ayes - Austen , King , Scala , Stotz . Nays - Ellsworth . Torrn of Ithaca 20 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 The motion was carried . ChaizTflan Austen asked if they wanted to make another motion concerning the second floor . Air . Frost as]-Wd if it would be to fir . Sayada ' s advantage to withdraw that request for right now , with the idea that he would come back . He knows other people have done that ; he ' s not sure if there ' s an advantage to it . Attorney Barney said it would make it easier . .-Irs . Francais asked if it would , indeed , make it easier . Mr . Frost replied that he would still have to come back and present plans with a request to add a second floor . The Board has expressed a desire that those plans be architectural in nature . Mrs . Fzancis pointed out that Attorney Barney made it clear that it would have to be advertised again anyvay . She asked if that was ccrrect . Mr . Frost said it was . 1-1r . Sayada said he would be willing to withdraw the request at this time as long as he would nou have no problem in adding more light to the house . Air . Frost said that was no problem . Attorney Barney clarified by saying that withdrawing at this time does not preclude Air . Sayada from getting the variance in the future . He has to come in with something more substantial than the sketches he brought to this meeting . It may no.- have to be an actual architect ' s plans ; it does have to be more substantial than what is here now . Mrs . Francis reitebated to F. ir . Sayada that he mould simply have to reapply due to the fact that the Board cannot give him an answer at this meeting . Hr . Frost said if Air . Sayada made a neer application and came back and the Board denied the right to put on the second floor , he would still be entitled to install skylights and to move the fireplace around , etc . Attorney Barney stated that , conversely , the skylights could be added and the fireplace moved without coming back to the Board at all . Air . Sayada said that was his main question . Firs . Francis said her understanding is that putting in the second story is a reasonable request , basically , if it doesn ' t obstruct the neighbors ' view , does not change the footprint of the lot and is reasonable , and does not congest the premises in general . She asked if this thinking is right , Attorney Barney said it would also have to be structurally sound . Mrs . Francis understood this . Hr . Ding said he , for one , would want to know exactly how it ' s going to be set up - - how many bedrooms? Are they planning baths , a kitchen , etc . ? They would want to know the details to be assured that it will never become a third apartment . Air . Frost said what could happen is they cculd look at the plans and decide they like it . They could then suggest some modifications to the plans . Mrs . Francis reiterated that she understands what the Board is saying . She had a house purchased in her neighborhood , a little south of where 11r . Sayada is . The people said their parents were going into the apartment . She believes the people there are absolutely not their parents . Air . Frost asked if she was referring to the place that is very tall . 11rs . Francis said it ' s reasonably tall . She ' s just saying that the person said they wanted an apartment to put their parents in and then they put in someone else . Attorney Barney asked Air . Sayada if he is understanding correctly that he is ^goer withdrawing the application for the second floor . Air . Sayada said that is correct . The final appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Savino Ferrara , Jr . , Appellant , requesting the modification of a previously approved variance , from the requirements of Article V , Section 21 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a single- family • residence having an ea.,,t sine property line building setback of 20 ' + ( 40 ° setback required ) at 145 East king Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 44--1 -4 , Residence District R-30 . The previous approval allowed for an east side building setback of 24 ' and is to be modified with the proposed construction of a new garage . Town of Ithaca 21 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 Mr . Frost brought to the Board ' s attention the fact that this property was . previously before the Board and a copy of the appeal is in everyone ' s packet . He then read the resolution from that appeal . He pointed out that now Mr . Ferrara wants to add a garage . After consultation with the Town Attorney , it was felt he needed to come back before the Board to modify , if anything , the side yard setback . The house is on an angle and the proposed garage will actually decrease the side yard . If this were a legal - sized lot and the current setbacks were legal , the garage could get as close as 15 ' , since this is an R- 30 zone . Mr . Ellsworth asked what the dimensions would be from the corner . Mr . Frost said he put down 20 ' on the notice , but he thinks it ' s actually 21 ' . This gives a foot to be safe . It ' s a fairly simple situation . Mr . Stotz asked if the house was originally skewed to align with E . King Road . Mr . Frost stated that it was . He pointed out that the ordinance was changed years ago , and before that the lot was of a legal size . With the change in the ordinance , the lot became of illegal size . So , they got a special approval for this non- conforming lot to build a house with a side yard setback which normally would have had to be 40 ' . The Board allowed the decreased side yard setbacks to be 22 ' on one side and 24 ' on the other side . There was a 1 . 5 " mistake ( . 9 of a foot ) . Mr . King asked if the garage would be constructed on the left side ( as you are facing the house from the road ) of the house . Mr . Frost answered affirmatively . Had the house been established with all the currently required setbacks , they would not now be before the Board . Attorney Barney noted that one - tenth ( actually . 9 ) of a foot cost them the application fee . • Mr . King noted from the photograph that the property to the east of Mr . Ferrara is heavily wooded . Mr . Ferrara agreed . Mr . King asked if the garage would be built in what is shown in the photograph as open space . Mr . Ferrara said the garage would actually not extend any further to the left . It comes out to the front of the house . Mr . Frost said the house is on an angle . The garage and the outside walls of the house will actually line up , which will move 3 ' closer to the east side property line . It will move 3 ' closer to the property line on the side yard . Ultimately , it ' s still no closer than the 15 ' limitation for a garage anyhow . If he had the 40 ' setback to the east side , which is currently required , and then built a huge garage off to the side , he could still get within 15 ' of the side lot line . Attorney Barney put it a little more dramatically . If the building were constructed with the original variance , the addition of the garage would not require any action by this Board because the garage , itself , is still going to be more than 15 ' away from the side lot line . The problem is the measurement that had been denominated by the Board had not been met originally . Mr . Frost added that the house , itself , is 23 . 9 ' , whereby 40 ' would be required in an R- 30 zone . Mr . Scala asked Mr . Ferrara if he is going to use the same contractor as before . Mr . Ferrara replied he is not . Attorney Barney said the problem may not lie with the contractor , but with the surveyor . Mr . Stotz asked if the garage is going to be a single - car garage . Mr . Ferrara answered that it will be a two- car garage . Mr . King asked if they need an environmental impact on this appeal . Mr . Frost noted • that it is an area setback so no environmental assessment is necessary . Chairman Austen asked for a motion on the appeal . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Harry Ellsworth . Town of Ithaca 22 Zoning Board of Appeals November 11 , 1995 RESOLVED , that the Board grant the area variance and modification of the previous • variance which had been approved . The modification being that , instead of the previous approval which required the east side building setback be maintained at least 24 ' , the Board now reduces that requirement to 20 ' for the purpose of permitting the construction of the proposed garage , attached to the house at 145 East Icing Road . Chairman Austen asked for a vote on the motion , which resulted as follows : Ayes - Austen , Ellsworth , Icing , Scala , Stotz . Nays - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Austen adjourned the meeting at 9025 PM9 d Deb Raines , ZBA secretary zo &A r] (21 Edward Austen , Chairman • •