Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1999-08-11 1 ` 9 ! Date TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11 , 1999 = � � —_-- - 7 : 00 P. M . APPEAL of Rupert Spies and Wendy Wallitt , Appellants , requesting authorization form 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 into a non -conforming building/lot located at 1534- 1536 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 56-3- 8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , Said Ordinance limits a non -conforming building/lot to single-family residences . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Michael Elmo , Appellant , requesting modifications of previously granted variances from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , 21 , and 23 and Article XIII , Section 57 , 58 , and 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain two residential buildings on a parcel of land with parking located in the front yard located at 139 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 44-2-2 , Residence District R-30 . The modification involves a request to permit any blood- related family member to reside in said dwelling unit, rather than children only. APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Robert W . Blake, Appellant/Owner, Rick Parlett , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non -conforming building on a non -conforming parcel of land , located at 104 Park Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 -8 . 33 , Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a new 16' x 24' attached garage . The building lot is less than the required 150-foot depth and less than 15 , 000 square feet in area, while the existing building is less than 30 feet from the rear lot ling . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Susan Hackett , Appellant/Owner, Susan Cosentini , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a second story onto an existing non -conforming building/lot located 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 lot width or side yard building setback requirements . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Theodor Spitsburg , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VI , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a new single-family residence with a height of 39± feet (36 foot limit) at 3 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 27- 1 -35 . 11 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL ADJOURNED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11 . 1999 7 : 00 P. M . PRESENT: David Stotz, Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Kirk Sigel , Board Member; Andrew Frost , Director of Building & Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Planner . OTHERS : Michael & Ann Elmo , 139 East King Road ; Barry Blust , Audrey Edelman & Associates ; Theodor Spitsburg , 3 Perry Lane ; Susan Hackett , 975 Taughannock Blvd ; Rick Parlett , 28 Brookland Road ; Susan Cosentini , 527 North Aurora Street ; Dick Perry, 107 Bundy Road ; Carl Sgrecci , 1132 Trumansburg Road ; Rupert Spies & Wendy Wallitt , 209 Valley Road . Chairman Stotz led the meeting to order at 7 : 03 p . m . , stating that all posting , publication , and notifications of the public hearings had been completed . The first appeal to be heard was as follows . APPEAL of Rupert Spies and Wendy Wallitt , Appellants , requesting authorization form 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 into a non -conforming building/lot located at 1534- 1536 Slaterville Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56-3-8 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , Said Ordinance limits a non -conforming building/lot to single-family residences . Wendy Wallitt , 209 Valley Road , stated they moved into the house on Slaterville Road in 1978 and purchased it in 1979 . At the time of purchase , the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the present property lines . At that time it was a two-family home . The house was built to be a two-family home . It has two addresses and two different entrances . The gas and electric are separately metered . There are 3 bedrooms on one side and 2 bedrooms on the other. Each side has its own kitchen and bathroom . After their second child was born , it was cramped on the 3- bedroom side . Ms . Wallitt stated that they built 2 new doorways between the apartments . This allowed more space for our family. When they realized they were paying taxes and water and sewer for a 24amily unit , they requested it be changed to a one-family. In order to convert the home back to a 2-family unit , they need to meet new codes . Ms . Wallitt stated that they lived in the house as a one-family for 8 years . Last August they bought a new home and began to convert it back to a 2-family home . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the applicant has put a substantial amount of money into the house to bring it up to code . Ms . Wallitt responded yes . Andrew Frost , Director of Building/Zoning , stated that the house it not up to code yet . They have contracted with a builder that may be less than responsible . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Wallitt stated that they have put a lot of money into it . It is not worth very much to anyone as a one-family unit . Chairperson Stotz asked how far along they is on renovations . Ms . Wallitt responded that firewall has been installed between the units . The attic is not complete . The smoke detectors have been hard wired . The electrical has been brought up to code . A new kitchen has also been installed . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would be renting the apartments . Ms . Wallitt stated that they are hoping to sell it . Chairperson Stotz asked if they were changing it in hope that it would make it more marketable . Ms . Wallitt stated that it is not marketable as a single family home . Chairperson Stotz stated that the arrangement of rooms makes it less desirable as a property to sell as a single family home . Mr. Sigel asked why this is a special approval and not a use variance . Mr. Frost responded that the property is non - conforming . This is enlarging the use from a one-family to a two-family dwelling . Attorney Barney stated that Section 54 allows a non -conforming use to be expanded . Mr. Frost stated that the lot size and building setback is non -conforming . The use is being enlarged from a one-family to a two-family. Ms . Wallitt stated that they have not added onto the size of the house . Chairperson Stotz asked what arrangements do they have for potential tenants . Ms . Wallitt stated that there is adequate parking for one driver per bedroom . Between the house and the road there is a parking area that holds four cars . On the porch side there is parking for 2 to 3 cars . Chairperson Stotz asked if there is a right-of-way. Ms . Wallitt responded yes . The house at 1532 Slaterville Road has a right-of-way to get to their carport . The house of 1538 has a right-of-way to get to their driveway. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Rupert Spies , 209 Valley Road , stated that it would be difficult for them to sell the house as a single-family home . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 19 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 20 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mike Smith , Planner, stated that staff recommends a negative determination . Mr. Sigel asked if there were any restrictions on the house when it previously was a two-family home . Mr. Frost responded no . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Rupert Spies and Wendy Wallitt, Appellants, requesting authorization form the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a second dwelling unit into a non-conforming building/lot located at 1534- 1536 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-8. 2, Residence District R- 15. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Rupert Spies and Wendy Wallitt, Appellants, requesting authorization form 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 into a non -conforming building/lot located at 1534- 1536 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-8. 2, Residence District R- 15, having met the requirements of Section 77 subdivision 7, subparagraphs a - h. Said Ordinance limits a non-conforming building/lot to single-family residences based upon the following: a. The lack of marketability as a single-family home would create a financial hardship, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED b. The building be brought up to compliance with all of the building codes. A vote on the MOTION as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Michael Elmo , Appellant , requesting modifications of previously granted variances from the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , 21 , and 23 and Article XIII , Section 57 , 58 , and 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain two residential buildings on a parcel of land with parking located in the front yard located at 139 East King Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44-2-2 , Residence District R-30 . The modification involves a request to permit any blood- related family member to reside in said dwelling unit , rather than children only. Michael Elmo , 139 East King Road , stated that a few years ago they obtained a variance so that his daughter could live in an apartment above their garage . She has now married and moved out . His son is thinking of moving into the apartment . In the interim , his father is 83 years old and he still lives alone . His father asked that when his son moved out if he would be able to move in . With the current variance his father would be unable to move in . Mr. Elmo stated that before he responded that he wanted to get a variance from the Town . Mr. Elmo stated that his father's house is getting to be more than he can handle . They would like the variance reworded so that his father would be allowed to move in . Chairperson Stotz asked how blood- related is defined . Attorney Barney stated that the nature of the relationship should be specified . Blood- related is too broad a category. Mr. Elmo stated that he would like to include his immediate family. Mr. Sigel stated that parent or child or spouse there of could be specified in the variance . Mr. Elmo stated that there is an 8-year time limit on the variance . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Elmo's father will be moving in after his son moves out . Mr. Elmo responded that he would if it is still available under the variance . It is nothing definite . He had asked and they wanted to get it approved before telling his father he could move in . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that this is a legitimate request . The concern when this was last before the board was if the house were to be sold , the new owner not be allowed to rent both the house and apartment . Chairperson Stotz stated that if the property were sold , the new owner would have the same right to have a family member live in the apartment . Can the variance go with the owner of the house? It can be time limited and/or limited by sale of property. Attorney Barney stated that technically, the variance goes with the property. He would prefer it be time limited . It has been done previously. Chairperson Stotz stated that if there is a time limit and it were sold , some else would have the same privilege . Mr. Sigel stated that the board could maintain the existing time limit . If needed , he could come back before the board . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 31 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 32 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith stated that staff recommends a negative determination . Chairperson Stotz asked what the parking arrangements are . Mr. Elmo stated that he has enough parking for 5 cars . Chairperson Stotz asked if there was a fire inspection for safety when this was originally approved . Mr. Frost stated that they had a permit to convert it to an apartment . Chairperson Stotz asked where the exits are for the apartment . Mr. Elmo stated that there is one door. There is access onto another roof. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Michael Elmo, Appellant, requesting modifications of previously granted variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18, 21, and 23 and Article Xlll, Section 57, 58, and 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain two residential buildings on a parcel of land ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED with parking located in the front yard located at 139 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44=2-2, Residence District R-30. The modification involves expanding the authorized people to reside in the apartment. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Michael Elmo, Appellant, requesting modifications of previously granted variances from the requirements of Article V, Section 18, 21 , and 23 and Article X111, Section 57, 58, and 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain two residential buildings on a parcel of land with parking located in the front yard located at 139 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44-2-2, Residence District R-30. This variance is granted for the remainder of the previously granted variance and that occupancy of the garage apartment be limited to the parent, child, grandchild and spouse of the current owners. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Robert W . Blake , Appellant/Owner, Rick Parlett , Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge a non -conforming building on a non -conforming parcel of land , located at 104 Park Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 -8 . 33 , Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a new 16' x 24' attached garage . The building lot is less than the required 150-foot depth and less than 15 , 000 square feet in area , while the existing building is less than 30 feet from the rear lot ling . Rick Parlett , 28 Brookland Road , stated that Mr. Blake would like to expand his garage . His current garage does not have a fire door or a fire separation wall between the house . The small addition to the garage would solve those problems . This would be upgrading the safety. Mr. Sigel stated that this is an existing one-car garage . This would be to expand the garage for two-cars . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Parlett stated that someone has severed one of the ceiling joints of the garage . This would improve the current condition of the garage . The roof system will be removed and replaced . Mr. Niefer asked if the driveway will be paved for the second bay. Mr. Parlett stated that they will prep the approach . It has an existing approach . Chairperson Stotz asked who lives behind the house . Mr . Parlett stated that it is a rental property. Chairperson Stotz asked if any consideration has been given to landscape screening . Mr. Parlett stated that large concrete blocks will be stacked to retain debris during construction . There will be plantings when the garage is complete . Chairperson Stotz asked how the lack of two-car vehicle storage and adequate drainage represent a hardship . Mr. Parlett stated that the present garage is on a hill . The garage is quite low. Currently, the water floods through his garage and into his house . This project would correct the drainage and direct it to the road ditch . This would prevent his living room from being flooded . Chairperson Stotz asked if the garage could be angled so that it maintains the 27-foot setback . Mr. Parlett stated that there was . It would be more expensive . Mr. Frost stated that this is a corner parcel . They tried to call the side yard on the south side the front yard . No matter how they looked at things , there was a deficiency. Mr. Sigel stated that there is substantial vegetation to shield construction from neighbors . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 55 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 56 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith stated that staff recommends a negative determination . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Robert W. Blake, Appellant/Owner, Rick Parlett, Agent, requesting authorization from the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building on a non-conforming parcel of land, located at 104 Park Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57= 1 -8. 33, Residence District R- 15. Said enlargement consists of a new 16' x 24 ' attached garage. The building lot is less than the required 150400t depth and less than 15, 000 square feet in area, while the existing building is less than 30 feet from the rear lot line. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Sigel asked if Mr. Parlett could guarantee that the garage will not be closer than 21 feet to the setback. Mr. Parlett stated that is would not be closer than 21 feet . Chairperson Stotz asked how the exterior would be finished . Mr. Parlett stated that it would be done in the same vinyl siding as the house . Chairperson Stotz asked if there will be eaves . Mr. Parlett stated that there would be eaves with a one foot over hang . MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Robert W. Blake, Appellant/Owner, Rick Parlett, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building on a non= conforming parcel of land, located at 104 Park Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57= 1 -8. 33, Residence District R- 15. Said enlargement consists of a new 16' x 24 ' attached garage. The said garage is not to extend closer than 21 feet of the rear lot line. The building lot is less than the required 150400t depth and less than 15, 000 square feet in area, while the existing building is less than 30 feet from the rear lot line. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Susan Hackett , Appellant/Owner, Susan Cosentini , Agent , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to add a second story onto an existing non -conforming building/lot located 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 lot width or side yard building setback requirements . Susan Cosentini , 527 North Aurora Street , stated they are putting a second story addition on an existing structure . Ms . Hackett is needing her home to accommodate her family. Previously, it was not used in this capacity. She needs to add two bedrooms for her children . They are not increasing the footprint of the house . The roof will be removed and the addition will be constructed . They have a grandfathered condition of the non -conforming lot and the non -conforming structure . Mr . Frost stated that this house was a two-family residence and has previously been before this board with different owners . The house is intended to be used as a single-family residence . The use is being diminished from a two-family to a single-family. They are looking to enlarge a building , but it will be used as a single-family. Chairperson Stotz stated that the lot is configured so that if another story is added , the view will not be blocked . Mr. Frost stated that the adjacent houses are on the same plane as this house . The second story will not block anyone 's view. Chairperson Stotz stated that there will be a stairway coming up , circulation area , hallway leading into a study. Ms . Cosentini stated that there is a small mezzanine zone that acts as an entry foyer and you immediately descend from into the bedroom level . Chairperson Stotz asked if the bridge to parking is currently there . Ms . Cosentini responded that it is not . Chairperson Stotz asked why they have a bridge and covered entry at that level . Ms . Cosentini stated that currently the house is so low that you need to walk considerable distance to get to the entry door. They found the opportunity to enter where the vehicles are parked . Chairperson Stotz stated that this will give the house a second entry for the second floor . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Cosentini stated that this will be the primary entrance of the house . The current entrance will be eliminated . There is no intent of creating this as a rental property. Mr. Niefer asked if there will only be one kitchen . Ms . Cosentini stated that there is a kitchen in the basement that was part of the former apartment . Mr. Frost asked if there is a refrigerator and a stove . The Town Board has described by resolution the need to remove the stove and refrigerator to eliminate the second dwelling unit . Chairperson Stotz asked if there would be a bathroom on the second floor . Ms . Cosentini responded that there would not be a bathroom . Chairperson Stotz asked if someone could stand in the attic . Ms . Cosentini responded no . It will be for storage and there will be access panels to the spaces . Chairperson Stotz asked what the overhang would be . Ms . Cosentini stated it will be 90 degrees off the structure . There is about 2-feet of overhang . Chairperson Stotz asked how the exterior would be finished . Ms . Cosentini stated that the existing structure will remain . The addition will have vinyl siding . Chairperson Stotz asked if it would be compatible . Ms . Cosentini stated that will look better. The existing siding is vertical texture 1 - 11 . Then there will be a transition zone that will be definable . The addition would have horizontal vinyl siding . Chairperson Stotz asked if it will be the same color. Susan Hackett , 975 Taughannock Blvd , stated that it would probably be the same color. Attorney Barney asked if there will be access to the attic. Ms . Cosentini stated that there will access panels . Mr. Frost asked if the ceiling joints will be able to hold the dead load . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Cosentini responded yes . It will be built to accommodate the load . It will be about 7-feet in height at the opening of the storage spaces . Mr. Sigel asked if the board should mention the space of the third level . Mr. Frost stated that the basement and the attic space are not considered levels . Mr. Ellsworth asked what needs to be removed from the basement . Mr. Frost stated that the stove and refrigerator need to be removed . Ms . Hackett stated that she would like to keep the downstairs as it is . When she bought the house it was used as an apartment . They were completely separated . They are open now. There is an open stairway between the upper and lower level . There is not private living area . She would like to keep the lower unit because of the deck . Ms . Hackett stated that she does a lot of outdoor entering in the summertime . It is easier for her to have access to a refrigerator and stove in this location . She has installed cabinets in . It has been refurbished for this use . It is not suitable for a rental unit as it is . Mr. Frost stated that the lower level can easily be closed off and used as an apartment . Attorney Barney asked if this lot is too small for a two-family house . Mr. Frost stated that this is a non -conforming lot . The Town Board has stated by resolution that the stove , refrigerator or sink needs to be removed . Attorney Barney asked why the applicant could not have a two-family house . Mr. Frost stated that she would need to make modifications . It is also an undersized building lot . Under Section 57 , it is limited to a single-family residence . Mr. Sigel stated that it was initially legal . Mr. Frost stated that it was not legal and that was why a past owner needed to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals . It was granted to a time limit . Mr. Niefer asked if someone living along the lake in a multiple level house , single-family occupied could not have a refrigerator and stove on a lower level . Attorney Barney stated that if there is a bathroom , it is illegal . The definition of a dwelling unit in the Zoning Ordinance is a unit that provides full living facilities . This includes sleeping , dining and bathing facilities . There have been many times that people have illegally had a second dwelling unit . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that a stove and refrigerator can be replaced as easily as they are removed . The hook- ups would also need to be removed . Ms . Cosentini stated that she is already in a position where she can not have a multiple dwelling . She is restricted by the fact that it is non -conforming for her to have a multiple dwelling . Attorney Barney stated that it could easily be blocked off and there would be two units where it is prohibited . Mr. Sigel stated that this may only apply if violations have been found . Does this apply to all homes ? Mr. Frost stated that this applies to all homes that for whatever reason do not have the right to have a second unit . Does the Zoning Board of Appeals have any authority to decide that the applicant can leave the stove and refrigerator? A number of times a property owner has illegal units . It is hard when one person is allowed and another is not . Chairperson Stotz asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals could condition a motion on the stove and refrigerator being removed if the property is sold . Ms . Hackett stated that there is an open stairway between the basement level and the main level . Attorney Barney asked if there is a bathroom in the basement . Ms . Hackett responded yes . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the board and the enforcement officer get abused with these types of issues . This is why these rules have been made and worded this way. Ms . Hackett stated that the way the new main level will be configured there would not be a way to block off the basement. There is not a logical way to close off the lower level . The lower level is open . Mr. Ellsworth stated that Ms. Hackett needed to understand the board 's position . They are easily converted and it happens . If the board allows this for Ms . Hackett , then they have to allow it for other people . Mr. Krantz asked if they could allow the stove and refrigerator on the lower level contingent upon the property remaining a single-family dwelling . Attorney Barney stated that by definition it is not a single-family dwelling . Mr. Frost stated that the building code defines this as a second dwelling unit . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Cosentini asked if Ms . Hackett could decide whether to remove the stove or the refrigerator. Mr. Frost stated that they both need to be removed and the sink would also need to be removed . Attorney Barney stated that the applicant should come back before the board with another variance application to maintain the lower level as a dwelling unit . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 32 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . With no persons to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 33 p . m . Attorney Barney stated that the certification on the survey is to his law firm . Why is that? Ms . Hackett stated that Mr. Grossman represented them at the time they purchased the property. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Smith stated that staff recommends a negative determination . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Susan Hackett, Appellant/Owner, Susan Cosentini, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a second story onto an existing non-conforming building/lot located at 975 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-32, Residence District R- 15. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Kirk Sigel. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Susan Hackett, Appellant/Owner, Susan Cosentini, Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a second story onto an existing non- conforming building/lot located at 975 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 14 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 32, Residence District R- 15. The building and lot do not conform to the lot width or side yard building setback requirements and that the addition be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Theodor Spitsburg , Appellant , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article VI , Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a new single-family residence with a height of 39± feet (36 foot limit) at 3 Perry Lane , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 =35 . 11 , Residence District R- 15 . Barry Blust , Audrey Edelman & Associates , stated that this is approximately 3200 square foot house . It has 5 bedrooms with a front elevation of about 31 feet . The rear elevation of the house is slightly less than 35 feet . There is one area about 8 feet in width to allow an egress to and from the basement . This particular area will have arched retaining walls coming out from the main foundation and will be back filled . The house sits over 50 feet from the road . It is greater than 150 feet from the house to its south and greater than 100 feet to from the house to the north . It is in the same plane as the other houses on the street . Its street elevation will not make it the highest house on the lot . The original plans call for a 12/ 12 pitch . Mr. Spitsburg has lowed this to a 12/9 pitch . There is intent to build another house across the street . They are trying to keep the elevation down to not block the view of the future house . Mr. Sigel asked if the applicant knew the revised height . Mr. Blust stated that the height would be less than 31 feet at street elevation and less than 36 feet at the back elevation except for the area where the sliding glass door will be . Mr. Frost stated that they do not have any adequate plans . When they first received these plans they were not stamped . They attempted to scale the building and it did not match the height it was depicted at . There is not an adequate set of plans that properly show the height of the building . Mr. Krantz stated that the Town allows the height of 36 feet . If the height is below 36 feet they do not need to appeal . Mr. Blust stated that there is one section in the back where it is higher than 36 feet . The sketch is to scale . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 15 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPR0VED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Niefer stated that the footprints do not line up . Mr. Blust stated that the garage will be built on the other end of the house . The garage will be built on the north end of the house rather than the south . Chairperson Stotz asked if they had the red ink stamp plans for this . Mr. Frost stated that there is a statement on these plans that violate copyright law. Theodor Spitsburg , 3 Perry Lane , stated that the plans have been changed . Mr. Frost stated that he has called Mr. Travis because he did not draw the plans . Mr. Spitsburg stated that he bought the plans and have made changes . Mr. Frost stated that he stamped the plans that is unclear what he is certifying because he did not draw the plans . There are a number of pencil marks through out the plans . It is difficult to know who drew what . Mr. Ellsworth stated that you are not allowed to take sealed drawing and change them . It is against State Law. Mr. Frost stated that he could rubber- stamp them if he provides a letter declaring that he did not draw the plans but is reviewing them . These plans are from Georgia and they have different building codes . He can not issue a building permit based on a set of plans that are from Georgia with potential copy right infringement with a New York State engineer that stamped them without clarifying things . Mr. Frost stated that the board can not make a determination based on the drawings what the actual height would be . The scale is not right . Mr. Ellsworth stated that the pitch of the roof has been changed . It changes the height . Mr. Frost stated that it is not a steep slope from front to back on this parcel . He questions how feasible it is to have a walk out basement without proper grade . Mr. Ellsworth stated that there are standard plans that have been changed and sealed improperly. Things need to be more definite before the board can make a decision . Mr. Sigel stated that he would like to see a drawing with the proper roof pitch at a minimum . Mr. Krantz stated that he does not have a problem with the height request , but the sketches are not accurate . This is a basic plan that has been modified and changed . More adequate plans are needed . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated that the Town Zoning Officer has indicated a desire to talk with the engineer of these plans . It is critical that he has an opportunity to do that before this board takes final action . Mr. Blust stated that they have been waiting for two months to start digging . What would the board like to see? Mr. Frost stated that there is the building code issue , but the board does not need to be concerned with that to issue the variance . On the other hand , the board does not have any good drawings that represent what will be built . Attorney Barney asked if the drawings before the board is what the applicant intends to build . Mr. Blust stated the roofline needs to be lower and the garage on the other side . Attorney Barney stated that they will need to come back before the board with something a little more definitive and closer to what will be built . The board grants variances based upon plans presented to them . Mr. Blust stated that the roofline was dropped as an accommodation to Zoning Laws , Attorney Barney stated that they need to come in with the request that they want . They need to see a diagram of what will be built . Mr. Frost stated that his office could issue them a permit if they get everything that they need . They have had difficulty getting some of the information that they need . Mr. Blust stated that it will be December before the building will be finished and he needs to sell it . Chairperson Stotz asked if this is a house on spec. Mr. Blust responded yes . There are certain financial and market strategies . Attorney Barney asked if they could have plans ready in two weeks . Mr. Frost stated that there is a great expense of putting together a packet . Mr. Niefer stated that he would like to see appropriate drawing submitted . Attorney Barney stated that the board has been preoccupied with Burger King . Could the board adjourn the matter without setting specific date and give the Zoning Officer authority to authorize the calling of a special meeting if all necessary information is received ? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 AUGUST 11 , 1999 APPPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that he would be out of the office for the next couple of weeks . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 9 : 03 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . Carl Sgrecci , 1132 Trumansburg Road , stated that the Perry's sent a letter to the Town . The Perry's feel that the request is compatible with the other houses on the lots of the development . It is not an unreasonable request for the variance . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 04 p . m . Mr. Frost asked if they would be able to get a walkout basement with the slope . Mr. Blust stated that they would be able to . Mr. Spitsburg stated that the drawing is to scale . Chairperson Stotz stated that it is not in scale in the terms that are being made . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board adjourn the appeal of Theodor Spitsburg, Appellant, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article Vl, Section 11 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a new single- family residence with a height of 39+ feet (36 foot limit) at 3 Perry Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 27- 1 -35. 11 , Residence District R- 15, to a future meeting where more accurate building plans can be brought forward. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz adjourned the meeting at 9 : 09 p . m . W Ca ie L. Coat s , Minutes Secretary. David Sto z, airp s n . TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York on Wednesdav, August 11 , 1999, commencing at 7:00 P. M. , as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Bulletin board, front entrance of Town Hall. Date of posting: August 4, 1999 Date of publication: August 6, 1999 7rod Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning artment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of August, 1999. t� IQ.Z% Notary Public DEBORAH KELLEY Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 KE6025073 Qualified In Schuyler County Commission Expires May 17, 20 QL TOOWN OF ITH . kGk ZONING BO :\ RD OF \ PPE . kL NOTICE OF PL BLIC HE . kRINGS WE D N E S D .A N" .-k [ GIST 11 , 1000 " : 00 ? . N1 . 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 . August 11 . 1949 . in Town Hail , 126 East Seneca Street. ( FIRST Floor. REAR Entrance. 'XES T Side ), Ithaca. N . Y . . CONli✓IENCING .� T % : tJO P . M . . on the following matters : APPEAL of Rupert Spies and Wendy Wallirt. .Appellants . requesting 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 into a non-conforming buildinJlot located at 1531- 1536 Siater� ille Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56 - 3 - 8 . . . Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance limits a non-:. onforming building/lot to single- family residences . APPEAL, of Michael Elmo, Appellant. requesting modincations of previously Wanted variances from the requirements of ,Article V. Section 18. 21 . and 23 and Article XIII , Section 57 , 58 , and 69 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance. to be permitted to maintain two residential buildings on a parcel of land with parking located in the front yard located at 139 East King Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 44- = - = . Residence District R- 30 . The modification involves a request to permit any blood-related family member :o reside in said second dwelling unit, rather than children only . APPEAL of Robert W . Blake, Appellant/Owner. Rick Parlett. Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non- conforming building on a non-conforming parcel or' land. located at 104 Park Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57- 1 -8 . 33 , Residence District R- 15 . Said enlargement consists of a new 16 ' x 24 ' attached garage. The building lot is less than the required 150 foot depth and less than 15 . 000 square feet in area, while the existing building is less than 30 feet from the rear lot line. APPEAL of Susan Hackett, Appellant/Owner. Susan Cosentm' ' Agent, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a second story onto an existing non-conforming buildinJlot located at 975 Taughannock Boulevard. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2- 32, Residence District R45 . The building and tot do not conform to the lot width or side vard building setback requirements . APPEAL of Theodor Spitsburg, Appellam requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section I 1 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a new single-family residence with a height of 39 = feet (36 foot limit) at 3 Perry Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 27- 1 - 35 . 11 . Residence District R- 15 . 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 Director of Building and Zoning 273 - 1783 Dated : August 4 , 1909 Published: August 6, 1999