Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1996-08-14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FILE FINAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tek o OF i��ac� WEDNESDAY . AUGUST 14, 1996 ®ate � r IgIii � Clerk • 1996 : T he following appeais were heard by the Zoning Hoard of Appeals on APPEAL of John Augustine, Jr. , Appellant, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create a building lot by subdivision , with a minimum width at the street line of 30 . 8 feet (60 feet required ) and a minimum width at the maximum front yard setback of 30 feet ( 100 feet required) , at 109 Rich Road , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 50- 1 -5 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of St. Catherine of Siena Church , Appellant , Reverend Ronald Gaesser, Agent , requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a wood deck with a setback from the west side lot line of 10 ± feet ( 15 foot setback required ) , at 310 St. Catherine Circle , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 - 1 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED APPEAL of Barry and Glenda Long , Appellants , requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a wood deck with a rear yard setback of 20 ± feet from the lot line (30 foot setback required) , at 197 Tareyton Drive , Town of Ithaca T ax Marcel No . • 70- 11 - 51 . 121 , Residence District R- 15 . GRANTED APPEAL of Louise Furnas, Appellant . requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a non-conforming building , at 113 Clover Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59-2- 12 , Residence District R- 15 . The enlargement will consist of a screen porch at the rear of an existing single-family home , with said home having a 9 . 4 foot building setback ( 15 foot setback required ) from the north side lot line . GRANTED WITH AMENDMENT APPEAL of Cornell University , Appellant , William Gaffney, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a 30 x 50 foot office building and a 30 x 72 foot pole barn to be utilized in conjunction with the College of Veterinary Medicine , at the Baker Institute on Hungerford Hill Road , off of Snyder Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 61 - 1 -7 . 2 and 61 - 1 -9 , Residence District R-30 . GRANTED 0 FILM TOWN OF . ITHACA �! �` NA 1.8 TOWN OF I I HACA ®ate ICS 110 �� 1a • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Clerk p I k-kc \Ma `A WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1996 PRESENT : Chairman David Stott, Edward King , Pete Scala , Ronald Krantz, Andrew Frost , Director of Building/ Zoning ; JoAnn Cornish ; Planner; Hugh Kent , Attorney, OTHERS : John Augustine , Jr . , Richard Furnas , Louise Furnas , Dan Golewboski , William Gaffney , Glenda Long , Glenna Margaris ; Wiliam Gaffney, Chairman Stott called the meeting to order at 7 : 10 p . m . , and stated that all postings , publications , and notifications of Public Hearings had been completed and the same were in order. The irst appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of John Augustine , Jr. , Appellant, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to create a building lot by subdivision, with a minimum width at the street line of 30 . 8 feet (60 feet required) and a minimum width at the maximum front yard setback of 30 feet (100 feet required ) , at 109 Rich Road, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 30 - 1 -5 . 4, Residence District R -15 . • Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing , which is a continuation from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on July 10 , 1996 , T his appeal was held over from the lack of advertising for the Planning Board on action that was part of the Planning Board that was taken on Juiy 9 , 1996 . The Planning Board acted favorably on the request and has recommended a negative determination of the environmental significance %4vith respect to this subdivision . Mr . Frost said in each board member's packet ther.n is a revised surae%! map of the property , and the other information was supplied at the previous meeting . John Augustine of 199 moil P Pad said he forgot to mention at the last meeting that the parcel was a separate parcel that originated as two parcels , and it was nearer one parcel . Mr. Augustine said he was not splitting up something that was one , that it v4jas two parcels before . Chairman Stott asked Pair . Augustine if what is labeled Parcel A and Parcel B were originally divided along this configuration . Mr . Augustine said not Tong the same configuration , but they were divided in a _ 00 feet by 200 feet for Parcal A and Parcel 5 was 150 feet by 200 feet lot in the back . Chairman Stott asked Mr . Augustine if there have been any changes in his plans since the last meeting . Mr . Augustine responded . no , that he ha4z got a signed purchase offer contingent on -the outccni . of this meeting . • _. ha : r;ran Stot � asked ;`:�1r . h. 0 ustine if the re ;: c : ati - ns or, H e. garage are going ahead . Mr . Augustine sa ; ry the renogo ations on the garage will be completed %,vithin a year . Planner Cornish said • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2 AUGUST 14 , 1996 that the Planning Board also put that in their adopted resolution , which was adopted on August 6 , 1996 , Chairman Stotz stated that this was a public hearing , and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Wth no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed , and asked for a motion on the appeal from the board . MOTION By Mr . Edward King , seconded by Mr . Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED , that the board grant the application of John Augustine , Jr . , requesting several variances to be permitted to create a residential building lot on subdivided Parcel B at 109 Rich Road on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 50- 1 - 5 . 4 , Residence District R- 15 zone . That the application be granted to permit Mr . Augustine to utilize this lot, which is a flag lot , with only 30 . 8 feet of frontage on the easterly line of Rich Road . That the use for residential purposes having been granted a subdivision approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on August 6 , 1996 . Both variances • being as to the application of Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance on the size of the lot with the following requirements : 1 ) . The minimum width of the street line shall be 60 feet , whereas Mr . Augustine has only 30 . 8 feet on his subdivided lot ; 2 ) . With the minimum width of the maximum front yard setback 50 feet from the street line being required to be 100 feet , again , Mr . Augustine is limited to 30 feet . Mr . Augustine shall be permitted to utilize the lot nevertheless for the reason that he does have access to a public highway , and 30 . 8 feet is more than adequate to permit emergency vehicles access to his lot. The 100 feet setback requirement at the front yard setback line is not relevant to this situation where he is building on a previous lot , which is approximately 200 feet back from the street . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz , King , Scala , Krantz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The second appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of St . Catherine of Siena Church , Appellant , Reverend Ronald Gaesser, Agent, requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca • Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a wood deck with a setback from the west side lot line of 10± feet ( 15 foot setback required ) , at 310 St . Catherine • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 AUGUST 14 , 1996 Circle, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 71 =1 -10 , Residence District R -15 . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . Dan Golewboski of 12 Besemer Road said that he would speak on the behalf of Reverend Ronald Gaesser , and he is also the builder for the house . Mr . Golewboski said Reverend Gaesser built this house last winter, and he wants to add another deck off his master bedroom . Mr. Golewboski said when Reverend Gaesser originally planned the house , there was some indecision between the Reverend and the building committee of the church when they were building this for the Reverend about whether or not there would be a deck there . Mr. Golewboski said originally there was going to be a deck there and then there was not going to be , but when the house was starting to be built it was decided to have the deck at some point . Mr . Golewboski said it would be too close to the setback to have the deck. Mr. Frost said on the second page of the information handed out , the survey map , which shows an area that is blackened in where the area of the proposed deck . Mr . Frost said he is passing around photographs that shows the deck in the back of the house , but the way the house sits it is somewhat • evident from the photographs that the deck is on the side yard of the house in the definition of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Mr . King said it would be on the west side of the house . Mr. King asked Mr . Golewboski if the house was being sold or is it owned by someone else . Mr. Golewbosld said the church owns the house where the Reverend lives . Mr . Golewboski said the church owns the whole lot , but they had to subdivide the parcel last year in order to build this house for the Reverend . Mr . Golewboski said the church owns the entire St . Catherine Circle . Mr. King asked Mr . Golewboski if the church owns all the land on the west . Mr . Golewboski said that was correct . Mr . King asked if they are supposing to be granting a variance for itself to be close to it' s own east line . Mr . Frost said that was correct . Mr. Frost asked Mr . Golewboski if there was already a residence on the church ' s parcel . Mr . Golewboski responded, no . Mr. Frost asked if there was a residential part of the church or residential unit. Mr. Golewboski said there is a parish center , and that used to be where the Reverend lived , but now that is offices . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Golewboski asked if the house was occupied . Mr . Golewboski said that was correct , by the Reverend . Chairman Stotz asked if the door being put there when the house was built, it was put there with the intention of building a deck. Mr. Golewboski said that is where the confusion came about , because originally when the plans were drawn of the house there was plans for a deck . Mr . Golewboski said in the process , the building committee decided no they could not • afford to have two decks on the house and they did not need to have the other deck . Mr . Golewboski said the house was sited without the intent of building the back deck , and then after construction TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 4 AUGUST 14 , 1996 started, they decided they would want to have a deck there . Mr . Golewboski said the door was put in with the idea of adding a deck there at another time . Mr. Frost said that there has been times when people would install sliding glass doors just for a window , but the doors do not open to anything . Mr. Frost said when they issue certificates of occupancy, we try to make sure that the door is permanently secured , so no one could take step out the door. Mr. Golewboski said the deck would be 6 feet by 8 feet , and that would leave about 4 feet extending into the setback . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Golewboski if the church planned on retaining the woods and bush . Mr. Golewboski said the church did not have any intention of ever dividing it any further. Chairman Stotz asked if the church would sell it off. Mr. Golewboski responded , no , and that they have had offers to sell , but they do not have any intention doing that . Mr . Frost said the actual variance the church is requesting is a 4 foot variance to be allowed to maintain an 11 foot side yard instead of 15 feet . Mr. Frost said that he advertized it as 10 feet because as time goes by sometimes things change by errors , so he put it down as a 10 foot side yard to accommodate any error that may occur . Mr . Frost said with this being an area variance there would • be no environmental assessment form . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . MOTION By Mr . Ronald Krantz , seconded by Mr . Pete Scala : RESOLVED , that this board grants the appeal of St . Catherine of Siena Church of the Reverend Ronald Gaesser , requesting a variance from Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a wooden deck with a set back from the west side of approximately 10 feet ( 15 foot setback is the normal requirement) , at 310 St, Catherine Circle , on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 71 - 1 - 10 , Residence District R- 15 , and that this deck would be on the west side of the house. Considered and granted in view of the fact that the deck encroaches on a lot that is already owned by St . Catherine Siena Church , and that lot which it encroaches upon has no dwelling on it at the present time or any building , and that the board has been informed that there are no plans to build on that lot . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : • AYES - Stotz , King , Scala , Krantz . NAYS - None . . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 5 AUGUST 14 , 1996 The motion was carried unanimously . The third appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Bary and Glenda Long , Appellants , requesting a variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a wood deck with a rear yard setback of 20 ± feet from the lot line (30 foot setback required ) , at 197 Tareyton Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70= 11 =61 . 121 , Residence District R -15 . Glenda Long of 197 Tareyton Drive said the zoning and building department was supplied with drawings of the proposed deck, and assumes that everyone has the drawings . Ms . Long said her and her husband thought they had a 20 foot setback , but every one they asked , except Mr . Frost , said it was 20 feet , so they had an architect design an addition to their house with the decking they wanted to have . Ms . Long said she called Mr . Frost and found out it was 30 feet . Ms . Long said the house part of the addition actually is approximately 3 '/z feet into the 30 foot setback, but to make it look right , the deck is another 7 feet that attaches to the back of the addition . Ms . Long said it is all woods behind the house , which in the summer time you can barely see the neighbors on the next street . Ms . Long • said she can not say it is a hardship , except at Christmas time when the grandchildren are there , then it is a hardship because she needs more space . Ms . Long said her neighbor behind her came over last night , and she showed him the architect drawings . Mr . Long said he offered to come down here tonight on her behalf tonight , and she told him that she did not think it was necessary , and if it was they would have to come back another time . Ms . Long said her neighbor on the north side is here tonight , which is Glenna Margaris . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Long if she was going to create a big room with a deck off of it . Ms . Long said that was correct . Ms . Long said there is a deck where the addition is going right now . Ms . Long said the old deck would be taken down , and the new one would be put up . Mr. King asked Ms . Long if the proposed room addition will extend a couple feet into that 30 foot setback on the west side. Ms . Long said that was correct , and then the deck would extend another 6 . 8 feet of the deck beyond that . Mr. Krantz asked Ms . Long if the five names she has listed , are her neighbors that all agreed . Ms . Long said that is all of them . Ms . Long said they own a very strange shaped lot , and she has a lot of neighbors. Mr. Krantz asked if any of the neighbors have any objection . Ms . Long said she does not know , but nobody has talked to her . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Long if the listing was of names of people that abuts her property . Ms. Long said that was correct . Chairman Stotz asked if she knew who lived at 21 Muriel Street . Ms . . Long said she was not sure of the names of those people who lives directly behind her , and that was the gentleman who stopped by house last night and showed the plans . Mr . Frost said he just issued TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 AUGUST 14 , 1998 a building permit for them . Mr. King asked Ms. Long if the name Little was the owner of that property . Ms . Long said the Little' s were the previous owners , and she was not sure of the new owners . Mr. King asked Ms . Long if she knew how close the house on Muriel Street was close to their lot line . Ms. Long said if they were to do this addition , they probably would have at least 40 feet from the back of their house to their property line . Mr . King asked if 30 feet would be the required setback. Ms. Long said that was correct. Mr . King asked if she would be approximately 20 feet within her back lot line on the west side. Ms . Long said that was correct , and that would be all woods . Ms . Long said the way they intend to build this proposal , they would not be taken down any trees , but it is a patch of woods that runs the whole length of that street . Mr . King asked if she has many trees on her lot to the west . Ms . Long said that was correct , that there is trees on all three sides of the house . Chairman Stotz said that it was a nice designed deck. Ms . Long responded , yes , it is . Ms . Long said her son designed it because he is an architect . Chairman Stotz asked if she knows how the building would be faced with the siding material . Ms . Long said it would be cedar . Ms . Long said that they did an one story addition a few years ago to make the kitchen and dining room larger , and they put cedar on the back of the house and stained it as close as they could to the color of the siding . (The rest of the house is aluminum siding ) . Ms . Long said they would face the whole back of the house with cedar , so that it would be all alike . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Long if there would be trellises there , and if they would be used to grow anything. Ms . Long said they were wood , and they would be used to hang hanging plants from it . Ms . Long said there are boxes under neath for plants , and the hanging baskets will be on top . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Long if the shingling on the roof would blend in . Ms . Long responded , yes , that the roof would go into the opposite direction of what it is now , that it would just hook into it . Ms . Long said there would be sky lights in the new addition , as there are in the addition they did ten years on the kitchen and the dining room . Ms . Long said they had choices , that they could have moved and done this some place else , but they really like the lot and neighborhood . Mr. Scala asked if the appeal was for the wooden deck , but shouldn 't it be for the addition also . Chairman Stotz said the addition alone would not be in violation , but a little corner of it . Ms . Long said the existing deck that has been there all these years , is probably in the same two foot space that were asking for this time . Mr . Frost said it was his guess that if it was part of the soffite over hang , that it allowed to go two foot into a setback . Mr . Frost said an overhang could extend up to two feet before being encroached upon . Mr. Scala asked Ms. Long if the edge of the deck would be extended over the lot line by 10 feet • which includes the house addition . Ms . Long said that was correct . TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7 AUGUST 14 , 1996 Mr . King asked Ms . Long if the footprint is not being increased because the old deck on the west side was already extended into that setback . Ms . Long said that was correct , but it was something that she never knew. Chairman Stotz said that this would increase it . Ms . Long said that was correct , it would make it wider . Mr . King said his point was that this was not going to make it any worse than it was . Ms . Long said it would look better . Mr. Scala asked Ms . Long if she was adding 10 feet of deck . Mr . King said the old deck on the northwest corner where the deck was already extended to the west as far as she is requesting the variance . Mr . Scala said what he sees drawing in here with a dashed line , it says proposed house addition and proposed new deck, and asked if the whole shape a new deck or part of it . Mr. Frost said a majority of that is new , but what Mr . King' s point is that the point where the deck comes closest to the back line is not being made any closer than apparently what it is now. Ms . Long said that was not true . Ms . Long pointed out to board members where the existing deck is and where is will relate to the proposed deck and addition to the house . Mr. Frost said it appears that the existing deck appears to be approximately 28 feet from the rear lot line , so the new deck will bring it closer yet to the rear lot line . Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Long if she was able to get any written statement from any neighbors . Ms . Long said she did not know she was suppose to , and she thought this is what this • meeting was for , if any neighbors objected that would show up . Ms . Long said one neighbor offered to come with her tonight , but she told him that she did not think it was necessary . Mr . Frost said the adjacent property owners were notified by an affidavit that confirms that they were notified . Mr. Scala asked Ms. Long if there were trees both on her lot along the new deck as well as any neighbors behind her . Ms . Long said that was correct . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . Glenna Margaris of 199 Tareyton Drive said she is one of Ms . Long' s neighbors . Ms . Margaris should like to point out that the only notice she received was this ( Ms . Margaris held up the notice of public hearings for August 14 , 1996 , Zoning Board of Appeals meeting) , and she did by Ms . Long' s mailbox a notice , which people would have to get up close and here at to see that this hearing was going to be . Ms . Margaris said she did call about two weeks ago , and asking what this is all about , and all she was told to do was to come to the meeting to see . Ms . Margaris said as far as getting an education as to where the boundary lines were and as to where this addition would come relative to her property . Ms . Margaris said she did not know until tonight , and Ms . Long was most helpful by showing her the drawing , but she did not see any drawings until a few minutes ago . Mr . Frost said that the department does not mail them out to everyone . Ms . Margaris said she is simply came tonight to be educated , and she would have preferred • to have been educated a little bit before hand . Ms . Margaris said all she knew that she received the notice in the mail , and that there was an orange poster like thing hanging from the mailbox . Ms . TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 8 AUGUST 14 , 1996 Margaris said she did not see any draft before she came here until a few minutes ago , nor did she any indication of how close it was going to her own boundary . Ms . Margaris said as Ms . Long pointed out earlierthat their properties are weirdly shaped . Ms . Margaris said her is trapezoidal , and she owns quite a lot of the woods , and some of her woods is behind her house . Ms . Margaris said she is not saying that she objects . Mr. Scala said the normal procedure is to publish the appeal which describes what is going to be done , and no body really sees the mapping until a few days before the meeting . Chairman Stotz said what Ms . Margaris is saying is that it would have been helpful to see this prior to the meeting . Ms . Margaris said that is would have been helpful and she would have appreciated it . Chairman Stotz said that is absolutely correct , that it would be very helpful . Chairman Stotz said to explain the procedures more clearly to everyone , that the Town staff is limited and the number of appeals they get, often times is large , and it is a matter of resources and time of people that really precludes doing that kind of thorough informing of people , which would be the preferred way to go . Ms. Margaris said she has no objections to this appeal , that she just wanted to make a point . Mr. King said that is why it would help for the applicant to go around and see the neighbors to explain things to them . Chairman Stotz asked if anyone else from the public would like to speak . With no one present • to speak , the public hearing was closed . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr. Edward King : RESOLVED , that this board grant the request for a variance for Barry and Glenda Long at 197 Tareyton Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 11 . 51 . 121 , Residence District R- 15 , with the request being to be permitted to construct a wooden deck with a rear yard setback of 20 feet where 30 feet is required . This is an extension to the deck that extends beyond the house addition , which is to cover the old deck, and the appearance of the deck and the new addition of the house would match the color and style of the rest of the house and appropriate to the neighborhood , and it would not interfere in any way of any aspects of views or passage . Attorney Kent said he would like to make a slight addition to the motion , that a comment was made about the notice . Attorney Kent said perhaps when this appeal was discussed , that there was not indication that the usual notice requirements were followed , and the notice of the meeting was properly posted and given in the affidavit file to mailing of all the neighbors . Mr. Scala said he does not think it belongs here . Mr . Scala said it is a good point , but all the • hearings are the same way . Mr. Scala said this is in the form of a hearing that expands on the limited notice which the Town has to post . Mr . Scala said he understands what the Attorney is saying , and TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 AUGUST 14 , 1996 does not disagree , but it should not appear in the motion . Mr. King asked Mr. Scala if Attorney Kent ' s comment could appear as a comment for the record for the Town Council . Mr . Scala said that would be fine . Mr. King asked Attorney Kent if there was any legal requirement of sending a person a notice . Attorney Kent said there is one . Attorney Kent said he wanted to make sure that his comment is understood clearly that the usual requirements were followed , and he raised this for the record . Attorney Kent said he does not have any objections to taking his comments outside the motion , but would like it noted since there was a fairly lengthy discussion with criticism of procedure was made , that the board should note for the record that all of the usual and notice requirements complied with the law. Mr . Scala said he agrees with that . Chairman Stotz said as Chair for the Zoning Board of Appeals , that he would make an official statement in this appeal , that all do legal procedures were followed , and that everyone received the notices that were required by law . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : • AYES - Stotz, King , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The fourth appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Louise Furnas , Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a non -conforming building , at 113 Clover Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59 =2 -12 , Residence District 1145 . The enlargement will consist of a screen porch at the rear end of an existing single-family home, with said home having a 9. 4 foot building setback (15 foot setback required ) from the north side lot line . Richard Furnas of 113 Clover Lane said as he understands the issue , that the garage that is attached to the house is closer to the property line than the current zoning requirements would have it. Mr. Fumas said he is interested in putting the screen porch off the back of the house , so in terms of what the Zoning Board of Appeals would consider this as an existing non-conformity , and that he is not going to encroach any further on . Mr . Furnas said the adjacent yard that they are to close to is a property that they currently own . Mr . Furnas said he is moving his family from one house to another . Mr . Frost said he would like to mention that the garage has living space above it , so the TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 10 AUGUST 14 , 1996 requirement is based on living space above , which would have required a 15 foot setback if it was closer to the garage. Mr. Frost said the Zoning Ordinance , as the house was being built in the 1950 ' s , that it was built in compliance with the ordinance , but since that time the Zoning Ordinance was changed . Mr . Frost said this is a good example of something that was legal at the time , and has become non- conforming with changes to the ordinance over the years . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Furnas if this would be an attached screen porch with an entrance from the house . Mr . Furnas responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be an entrance from the garage . Mr . Furnas said , yes , from the house . Mr . King asked Mr . Furnas if this porch would extend easterly from the house . Mr . Furnas responded , yes . Mr . King said it looks like they have a pretty deep easterly yard there . Mr. Furnas said yes , in some technical sense there was officially two lots , but they have always gone together . Mr. King asked if there would be approximately 240 feet behind his house . Mr . Furnas responded , yes , but the question is that he has an existing non- conformity , and that they are not going to mess around with that back lot . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Furnas if there would be electricity out there . Mr. Furnas responded , yes . • Mr . Frost said the issue is that this building does not conform with the ordinance , and any change in the building ' s footprint requires a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Mr . Krantz asked if there was a grandfather clause for this appeal . Chairman Stotz said apparently not , if it is a non-conforming lot under current zoning , then any changes to it or any additions on the house or anything that occurs on that lot . Mr. Frost said for example , if there was a gas station in a residential zone , and the gas station existed prior to the zoning the gas station would remain in use . Mr. Frost said in some sense , though any change to that property because it is going to create potentially some impact to the neighborhood would require special approval . Mr . Frost said what zoning sometimes tends to do , is to have non- conforming uses eventually disappear from a neighborhood , but if it is grand fathered in , it can remain , but once they want to make a change to that , then it gets analyzed by the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether there is any great impacts . Mr. Krantz said the property was in compliance when the house was built , and so it is okay , and if it is okay it should not require a variance now . Mr. Frost said until the time that they say that building changes . Mr. Frost said let' s say this was a foot from the property line , and they wanted to add a second story , it may have an impact on the neighbor potentially . Mr. Frost said the ordinance would • also require that if the use ceased for a period of over a year , then they lose all rights to that use . TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 11 AUGUST 1d , 1996 Mr. Scala asked Mr. Furnas if the porch is closed in not just screened in . Mr . Furnas said the porch is screened with a roof. Mr . Scala asked if the porch was enclosed , and if there would be windows . Mr . Furnas responded , no , that it would be an opened porch . Mr . Scala said that the Fumas' are not really adding a room , it would be a screened porch , but if they closed it in it would be a room . Mr . Furnas said yes , but there is no provision for getting heat out there at this time . Mr. Furnas said he did not know how the foundation would be to convert the porch into a room . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairman Stotz said the environmental assessment form and the report from the Planning Department are attached . Chairman Stotz said he would like to make a few notes , that the side yard for 111 Clover Lane is generous and the inadequacy of the side yard of 113 is visually insignificant . Chairman Stotz said that an opinion is given that enlarging this non- conforming building with an addition of the porch will have no significant adverse environmental impacts . Chairman Stotz asked Planner Cornish if there was anything she would like to add to the environmental assessment . Planner Cornish said there was nothing to add , and as the map shows it is a generous rear yard , and it will not encroach visually or physically on any of the surrounding properties . • MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Ronald Krantz : RESOLVED , that this board make a finding based on the report from Planner JoAnn Cornish of August 8 , 1996 , with respect to the appeal by Louise Furnas to enlarge the house by an addition of a screened porch at the rear , that the report shows no significant adverse environmental impact . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Scala , Krantz . NAYS " None . The motion was carried unanimously . MOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Ronald Krantz : • RESOLVED , that this board grant the appeal by Louise Furnas of 113 Clover Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 59- 2- 12 , Residence District R- 15 , to be permitted to add TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 12 AUGUST 14 , 1996 the screened in porch on the east side of the house that is non conforming , which would give them approximately 14 foot setback where a 15 foot setback is required . Mr . Frost said that the porch by itself does not encroach in any required setbacks . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Scala , Krantz . NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . Chairman Stotz said he would like to reopen the discussion on the last appeal . Chairman Stotz said he was just pointed out that by granting a special approval , that the board should also stipulate the provisions of Article XIV , Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub-paragraphs a- h have been considered by the board . Mr . King said Section 77 says , 1 ) . Health , safety, morals , and general welfare will not be detrimentally impacted by the proposed action . 2 ) . The premises are reasonably adapted to the • proposed use . 3 ) . The proposed use and the location and design of any structure is consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located . 4) . Proposed use shall not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property. Mr. Scala asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals would have to read this section every time . Chairman Stotz responded , no , but the board should refer to it and there should be a discussion or consideration to those items granting the appeal . Mr . King said the board should say " Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Sub- paragraphs A- H " have been considered and the board finds the proposed action is in conformity with those requirements . Chairman Stotz said it is somewhat awkward to go back at this point because the appellant is not here . Chairman Stotz asked if the board should discuss it . Attorney Kent said the board could note their findings , and add that these factors were considered as well . Mr . Scala said it seems to him that when an individual makes the appeal , and as the staff is going through the environmental statement of the decision by the offices , that these factors are something they should bring out . Mr . Scala said if these are not complied with , it should have been pointed out in the appeal . Mr . King said they do not necessarily know that though . Mr . Scala asked who they were . Mr. King said the applicant does not know. Mr . Scala said no , but we know. Mr. Scala said the environmental survey should show it , because they do through the trouble of putting the appeal up . Chairman Stotz said no , this is about the safety and morals of the neighborhood is not a • environmental issue or are some of the other things in this section . Mr . Scala said he does not know what they are going to do on that screened porch . TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13 AUGUST K1996 Attorney Kent said when the Zoning Board of Appeals send judgement over and carry a variance application the board should do the under this approval by referenced and directed in the Zoning Ordinance , and under the Town Law , the board is suppose to do that under the provisions of Town Law Section 267 . Attorney Kent said Section 267 A or B , sets out the criteria that this board should look at in deciding whether to grant the area variance , and that is what the board did when they passed they granted the variance . Attorney Kent said that Mr . Frost 's point was that as well as an area variance application , this also because of the nature of the application included a request for special approval . Attorney Kent said in order to grant the special approval , the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Sub- paragraphs A- H , asks that the board also consider other criteria in granting the special approval . Attorney Kent said that these criteria are very similar to the ones that the board applied to the variance application itself. Mr. Scala said the board is not capable of talking about the safety of zoning based on what is submitted , that is nonsense . Mr . Scala said that he agreed with everything that Attorney Kent said and wants , but there is no way that this committee could do that . Mr . Frost said he thinks this board could if they looked at this appeal as a negative . Mr. Frost said if the board denied this appeal on what basis , that the board may have information that the applicant has given , which was simulated leads the board to believe that it should not or does not create harmony in the neighborhood and that it is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood . Mr. Scala said he does not deny that this is a catch hole so we can trip anyone we want to , but the point is that he would have to take this ordinance and have them swear to the fact that they are • meeting all of these . Mr . Scala said there is no way that this board could investigate enough to see any of this. Mr. Scala said he is not disagreeing with what they want , but it how it is carried out . Mr. Scala said there is no way this committee could do it . Mr . King said the ordinance says in Subdivision 7 of Section 77 , that in considering and deciding matters referred to it by the terms of the ordinance , and this is whether this board should permit an enlargement of a non- conforming use , in granting a special approval , that the Zoning Board of Appeals shall determine . Mr . King said that is what we have to do . Mr . Scala said fine , tomorrow Mr. Fumas can have orgies and the board can take it back. Mr . Scala asked if that is what Mr . King is saying . Mr . Frost responded , no , that these findings have been utilized for ten years . Mr. Krantz said that the board always asks if this would be consistent with the house . Planner Cornish said if it was built to code , the board could assume that they will get a building permit and have a safe ingress and egress . Ms . Cornish said then it could compare it to other houses in the area to make sure that it is in character with the neighborhood , and she does not think these findings are so complicated , that Mr . Frost could not determine this for the board . Mr. Krantz asked if trees would be cut down . Mr . King said that is the kind of things that we ask the applicants about because the board is worried about them . Chairman Stotz said fitting in with the character of the neighborhood is applied with a lot of questions . Planner Cornish said it is also addressed in the EFA and also the drainage issues . • Chairman Stotz asked the board if there was anyone prepared to offer a motion for an TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 14 AUGUST 14 , 1998 amendment to the motion of the appeal of Louise Furnas as posted , and noting the consideration of the requirements of Article XIV , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Sub- paragraphs A-H . Mr. Scala asked if the board has been doing this all the time by repeating those words , but have no basis upon which to arrive at a decision . Mr . King said the board should ask a lot of questions to the applicant . Mr . Scala asked if the board understands that they did not ask these questions in Section 77 . Chairman Stotz said he is asking if someone would like to make a motion saying that the board has considered them . Mr. Krantz asked why specifically with the Furnas , not with the other appeals . Mr. Frost said that they were use variances , and this is a special approval . Mr . Frost said it is not a use variance or an area variance , it is a special approval . MOTION By Mr. Edward King , seconded by Mr. Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED , that in the matter of the Furnas appeal for an enlargement of a non- conforming use , that the board did in fact consider the criteria for granting special approval as set forth in Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Sub-paragraphs A-H in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance . • Mr . Scala said it says natural surface water drainage ways are not adversely effected . Mr . Scala asked if that was in the environmental assessment . Planner Cornish said it was not specifically addressed , but it was implied by not having any significant adverse effects . Mr . Scala asked if that was looked at . Ms . Cornish said she did look at it . Mr. King said a lot of this in Section 77 can be eliminated unless these is some evidence that contrary, then the board does not worry about it . Chairman Stotz said that consideration needs to be taken into fact , where the board could ask for a detailed plot plan that shows where parking presently exists , which would not be an issue for this appeal . Mr . Frost said the ordinance is setup such that for those types of issues such as perhaps the one that Cornell is doing , which is a minor issue , it has already gone to the Planning Board already and has a site plan approval . Mr. Frost said to mention the page 77 of the ordinance, items number 6 deals with variances . Mr. Frost said that there is a Sub- paragraph A , which is an area variance , and then there is a Sub- paragraph B , which is an use variance . Mr. Frost said on page 78 , number 7 says , the board shall also hear and decide matters , etc . , and deciding such matters referred to it by the terms of this ordinance and in granting of special approvals , the board of appeals shall determine that . Mr. Frost said every time the board has done that , in essence, the information that was received has made that . Mr. Frost said the board makes the determination based on the information presented . Mr. Scala asked Mr. Frost if he is expecting the committee to do this with each case or has he • already done it . Mr. King said it is more like a checklist for the board to run through and see what they think might be significant. Mr . Frost said he thinks it is easier to look at it from a negative aspect , that TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 15 AUGUST 14 , 1996 if the information that is in the packet and what the applicant presents to the board , starts to raise some negative questions , then Section 77 would alternatively would lead the board to deny it . Mr. Frost said the information with the Fumas project , he does not think that there was any information that came out particularly with the screened in porch , that there would be something negative found . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, King , Scala , Krantz. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously . The last appeal to be heard by the Board was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant , William Gaffney, Agent , requesting a special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a 30 x 60 foot office building and a 30 x 72 foot pole barn to be utilized in conjunction with the College of Veterinary Medicine, at the Baker Institute on Hungerford Hill Road, off of Snyder Hill Road, • Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 61 -1 -7 . 2 and 61 -1 -9 , Residence District R -30 . William Gaffney of Cornell University said he has some photographs of views where the building will be located . Mr . Gaffney pointed out on the photographs where the building will be located . Mr . Gaffney said it would be barely visible from Snyder Hill Road . Mr . Gaffney said it will be a one story pole structure with metal siding and metal roof. Planner Cornish passed her photographs of the site around for the board to see . Mr . Gaffney said there will be some trees removed , possibly two dozen . Mr . Gaffney pointed out to the board where the location was for the proposed site in conjunction to Snyder Hill Road and Hungerford Hill Road , and where the location is on campus by the Baker Institute . Chairman Stotz asked Mr . Gaffney if one of the buildings would be an office building . Mr. Gaffney said yes, the 30 feet by 50 feet will be an office building , although it is called Bovine Lab that canine research goes on in there . Mr . Gaffney said the people who are doing their research in there and graduate students , have their desks within the labs , and it just crowds up the labs and they want that space , so the idea is to move out of the labs with those desks to move next door . Mr . Gaffney said the researcher would be in the lab doing their research with and collect their data , and then go over and sit down at a desks with their computer and input that data into their computer programs . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Gaffney if they would be in their offices all day ( 8 hours a day) . Mr . Gaffney said no , they would be back and forth . Mr . Gaffney said they will be doing some retinal • testing on dogs , that they bring the dog in and set them in a special cage with the retinal device to examine the dogs . TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 16 AUGUST 14 , 1996 Mr. King asked Mr. Gaffney what the equipment shed would be used for. Mr . Gaffney said the equipment shed would be for farm equipment that they use , such as tractors , wagons , and so forth . Mr. Gaffney said snow plowing equipment , lawn mowing equipment , and so forth , would be stored in the equipment shed because right now they are stored out side . Mr . King asked if the building would be completely enclosed . Mr . Gaffney said no , the east side of the building along the driveway will be completely opened . Mr . Gaffney said it would be completely closed on the north , west , and south sides of the building . Mr . Gaffney said the building will match the colors of the other buildings in the area , which is an Agway building that is the same manufacture of the existing buildings . Chairman Stotz asked if the area was being developed for canine research . Mr . Gaffney said there is more than just canine research going on , there is large animal research and poultry research . Mr. Gaffney said it is an area away from the central campus that the Vet College uses for some of their research. Mr. Gaffney said this is not directly related to the teaching function or the hospital function that goes on in the main campus . Chairman Stotz asked if the parking that would be removed , would be on the side of the building . Mr . Gaffney said there is ample parking there now that is not utilized , but he did talk to the people at the institute this week, and they said they do have plans to build some additional improved parking there . Planner Cornish said the Planning Board has requested as part of their resolution that • one of the conditions was for Mr . Gaffney to indicate on the site plan the proposed parking . Ms . Cornish said in accordance with the zoning , which is one parking space per every 240 square feet of office space . Ms . Cornish said the revised site plan will indicate the parking spaces . Chairman Stotz asked ifthe revised site plan would address the landscaping . Ms . Cornish said there will not be any landscaping at this time , which the Planning Board also discussed . Mr. Krantz asked if there would be some trees removed . Mr . Gaffney said yes , just so there is a footprint of the equipment shed . Mr . Gaffney said there are trees there right now , and they will remove any top soil that is there and fill it level with gravel in the foot print before the shed is built . Mr. Frost asked if this is an area that is completely out of sight to the public . Mr . Gaffney said that is correct , and when the building is fully built people would barely be able to see it . Mr . Gaffney said the building will not be visible from Snyder Hill Road , but maybe people would see the back side of the bam on Hungerford Hill Road . Mr . Gaffney said people would be able to see the west side of the office building . Mr . Frost said from the public area on the photographs , people would not see anything in this area of development . Planner Cornish said even with the removal of those trees , the site is very heavily vegetated , so with the removal of those trees there would still be a lot of existing vegetation that will remain . Chairman Stotz said there is a report from Planner JoAnn Cornish states , 1 ) . That the laboratories currently double as offices for employees , and the new building will be to provide office • space outside the laboratories which the board heard about . 2 ) . There would be no additional employees as result of this expansion . 3 . ) That parking is not an issue because there is sufficient TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 17 AUGUST 14 , 1996 parking spaces that would remain . 4 ) . There will not be any anticipated increase in traffic . 6) . That the change in drainage patterns is minimal . 6) . A note about the removal of several mature conifers , other than that no removal of vegetation other than shrub . 7 ) . Proposed signage and lighting have not been indicated on the site plan . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Gaffney if any signage would be going up for these new buildings specifically . Mr . Gaffney said no , there would not be any need to , and if they are there are existing signs there that they would be added to . Mr. Gaffney pointed out on one of his photographs what the existing sign looks like , and said that an additional sign if needed would be added to this sign . Planner Cornish asked if Cornell signs the building . Mr . Gaffney said not necessarily , it varies . Chairman Stotz asked if the building would be dedicated to anyone . Mr. Gaffney said no . Mr. Scala asked if the building would be numbered . Mr. Gaffney said the buildings will have numbers for inventory , but the numbers are rarely on the building . Mr. Scala asked if there was a variance in terms of area , height , or use involved . Mr. Scala further asked why is this board looking at this appeal . Mr . Frost said that the ordinance requires anything that is related to a school use requires a special approval after the Planning Board has given an affirmative on the site plan . • Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak , the public hearing was closed . Mr . Scala asked if Article XIV , Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Sub- paragraphs A- H apply to this appeal . Chairman Stotz said that some of these should apply to this issue . Mr . Scala asked if the board is to use this checklist or not . Mr . Frost said that he just wanted to point out that the very first paragraph of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance states that the purpose of the ordinance is for the purpose for promoting health, safety, morals , and the general welfare of the community . Mr. Frost said that he understands what Mr. Scala is saying . Mr . Scala said he certainly wants to do that , but the questions is what officer tells him that it has been done . Attorney Kent said that is correct , and that this application needs to be reviewed under the same standards as the last one , which is Section 77 , Subdivision 7 because it is another special approval application . Attorney Kent said he thinks the points about the morals is a good one , and the only reason why this board can claim to exert any zoning restrictions over any citizens , goes back to the basis of the constitution which says that the Town is not going to deprive people of certain rights and so forth , except under certain justification , and that goes all the way to the health welfare standards of the constitution for the authority which underlines zoning in general . Attorney Kent said the board should not be too offended at the idea that the board is looking out for interest of the health welfare of the community . Mr . Scala said he has only the best of feeling for what is intended , but what he is talking about is the effectiveness to which the board can carry out . Mr. Scala said let' s take for example this situation which is very complicated , that essentially the board would have to give the applicants a document to sign and get notarized , that they • are adhering to the ten commandments or whatever. Mr . King said that would be in their judgements , and this board is required to use our judgement by using those criteria . Mr. King said if this board TOWN OF ITHACA • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1a AUGUST 14 , 1996 needs more information then the board sends them back for it . Attorney Kent said the procedural reality here is that the board needs to apply that section , and should in order to do this and follow through all the technical requirements . Attorney Kent said the board should note that they considered this section at the time of the approval was granted . Attorney Kent said if the board has any real concerns about any particular sub- sections , it would be appropriate for the board to discuss them . Mr . Scala said he thinks it is an act of faith . Mr. King said he is fairly familiar with the Baker Institute because his son worked up there , and all the experiments that they do are for the benefit of the animals . Mr . King said this is an isolated research camp that is isolated from the residential community , which the only house there is occupied by the director . Mr . King said he has never seen any dwellings up there because it is a very wild territory up there . Mr . Gaffney said there have been build up in the past 15 years or so in the back on Dove Drive that their back yards do look down over the institute . Chairman Stotz briefly went through Sub- paragraph A-H in Section 77 , Subdivision 7 , Chairman Stotz asked if there would be any sewage problems . Mr. Gaffney said Cornell has a full existing utility system , which includes buried electric telephone , water , sanitary storm , and all the systems would be maintained in the buildings connected as necessary. Chairman Stotz asked if there would be a loading dock with big trucks going in and out of there . Planner Cornish said there is an • existing loading dock at the Bovine Research , which is the canine research . Mr . Gaffney said it is a small loading dock there that they use for occasional loading of equipment to a truck , and the space would be left open for continuance of use , but this would not promote the use of the loading dock . Chairman Stotz asked if this building would increase the amount of loading and unloading that presently goes on . Mr . Gaffney said no . Mr. Scala asked if the SPCA would come and go where they bring the dogs in and take them back out . Mr. Gaffney said he does not know where they get their subject dogs from . Mr . Gaffney said he thinks a lot of them are brought there by private individuals , and some of the transporting is done themselves , but that is something that needs to be researched . Mr . Frost said that he worked with the SPCA in 1973 and 1974 , and he was not aware of much of that activity at all . Mr . Frost said he is aware that the SPCA has stray animals that vet students use as spay and neuter practice and that is it. Mr. Scala said he is just referring to a documentary where they described 2 million animals per year that are disposed of, and one of the way is to use them at research institute . Mr. Frost said that he is not aware that the SPCA provides animals to the Baker Institute . Chairman Stott said what the board is talking about is an office building and a storage building , although the office building will have an eye testing for canines , but the board is not talking about experimental labs . Mr. Gaffney said it is not a lab , it is to just free up space within the existing lab where they do canine research . Planner Cornish said there is an existing loading dock that access will be maintained , too . • Chairman Stotz said the last item was addressed in the Planning Board ' s report about the TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 19 AUGUST 14 . 1996 drainage . Planner Cornish said the Planning Board has also asked for additional drainage information . Mr . Gaffney said that the design issues will be answered vihen he submits the building permit to Mr. Frost for final approval . Mr . Gaffney said that Cornell considers the equipment shed as agricultural building , and that does not require a building permit . Planner Cornish said there is not an environmental assessment for this appeal , that the Planning Board has already done that . NOTION By Mr . Pete Scala , seconded by Mr . Edward King : RESOLVED , that this board grant the request for special approval under Article V , Section 13 of the Tomin of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a 30 foot by 50 foot office building and a 30 foot by 02 foot pole barn to be used for storage in cCni 'tlnction with the College of Veterinary Medicine , at the Baker Institute on runcer'ord 'liil Road , en of Srj, der I; iil Road . I ovin of Ithaca Tax Parcels ; e . 01 - 1 - 7 . � � ndal - 1 - g , Residence Eistrict R- 3n . The boater hiad re -riewq/ed the apveai .lith the re5�; c?Ct C S�ct1Gn i'r , Subdivision i' : Sub-paragraphs AAH , on soecial approval kV!ih this • i:eing l ^cnstructicn to be used for e ;fpanSiCn of once szpac_ and siorage that the appeal be (fir anted . JM vote Gil tile ITGtry^ n rv' Sultcc. as iG1104JS : kYEJ - Stot" King , Scala . KIan t= . NAYS - None . � ha ! r. in :. n StctZ close d ale /� Deborah A . Kelley , Kavboard Speciaiisi' inut ? s Recorder Da : id Stot� Choi . , an •