Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2000-06-14 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000 7 : 00 P. M . APPEAL of Lee and Laurel Hodgden , Appellants , requesting a variance form the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a building addition to house an elevator, with a north side yard building setback of 10 . 5 ± feet ( 15 foot setback required ) at 112 Halcyon Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 66-3-22 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 , APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant , Kim Martinson , Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to place light poles at a height of 35 ± feet (30 foot height limitation ) at the "B" parking lot off New York State Route 366 between Tower and Caldwell Roads , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63= 1 =3 . 1 , = 12 , Residence District R-30 , APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Ron and Helen Shewchuk, Appellant , Scott Braig , Crown Construction , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a carport with a north side yard building setback of 6 ± feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 112 Winston Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 70- 11 -28 , Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL ADJOURNED TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2000 7: 00 PM PRESENT: David Stotz, Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz, Board Member ; James Niefer, Board Member; Kirk Sigel , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director Building/Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7 : 13 p . m . ) ; Mike Smith , Planner , ALSO PRESENT: Kyllikki Inman , 110 Halcyon Hill Road ; Lee & Laurel Hodgden , 112 Halcyon Hill Road ; Helen & Ron Shewchuk, 112 Winston Drive ; Tom Owens , 114 Winston Drive ; Jim Wavle , Crown Construction . Chairperson Stotz led the meeting to order at 7 : 06 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 Lee and Laurel Hodgden , Appellants , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a building addition to house an elevator, with a north side yard building setback of 10 . 5 ± feet ( 15 foot setback required) at 112 Halcyon Hill Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 66=3-22 . 2 , Residence District R- 15 . Lee Hodgden , 112 Halcyon Hill Road , stated that he has submitted the drawings to the board . Mr. Frost stated that there is a need to install an elevator. It is proposed for the north side of the property. Mr. Hodgden stated that they built the house 10 or 11 years ago . Since then he and his wife's health has declined . It is difficult to climb the stairs to the second floor. Mr. Frost stated that the elevator is intended to help the applicant reach the second floor of his home. Mr. Frost asked why Mr. Hodgden chose to construct the elevator on the north side of the building. Mr. Hodgden responded that it is the only location in the plan that the elevator would make contact with both floors . Mr. Frost stated that this appeal does not require an Environmental Assessment Form , Chairperson Stotz stated that there is a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning . It does make some recommendations to the board . What does UNA stand for? Mr. Smith responded that it stands for Unique Natural Area , The UNA is located at the back of the property. It is not located near the house or the proposed elevator. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 JUNE 14, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that the map shows Fall Creek being the Unique Natural Area . Chairperson Stotz stated that the elevator is being built on a flat area . Erosion is not an issue . Mr. Hodgden stated that his neighbor wrote a letter of support to the board . He is not in bad health year round . It comes and goes with the allergy season . It makes it difficult for him to climb the stairs . His wife has high blood pressure . It is also a problem for her. Mr. Krantz stated that it is a reasonable request . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 12 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Kyllikki Inman , 110 Halcyon Hill Road , stated that she does not have an objection to the application . With no other persons present to be heard , Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 7 : 13 p . m . RESOLUTION NO. 200040 — Variance - Lee and Laurel Hodgden, Construct BuRdinp Addition for Elevator, June 14, 2000. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Lee and Lauren Hodgden, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, be permitted to construct a building addition to house an elevator, with a north side yard building setback of no less than 10 feet at 112 Halcyon Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-22. 2, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings and requirements: a. that the health of the appellant is such that he requires some assistance to reach the second floor of his home; and b, that no construction should occur in the portion of the side yard that is located in the Unique Natural Area; and C, that provisions should be made to ensure that sedimentation and erosion are controlled during construction. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 3 JUNE 1412000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant , Kim Martinson , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to place light poles at a height of 35 ± feet (30 foot height limitation ) at the "B" parking lot off New York State Route 366 between Tower and Caldwell Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 63- 1 -3 . 1 , - 12 , Residence District R-30 , Kim Martinson , Cornell University Project Manager, stated that they are doing renovations to the B- Lot parking area . They are taking out the small existing islands . The vegetation will be increased around the lot and in the larger islands . The new layout requires that the existing light poles be moved or replaced with new light poles . Cornell University chose to install new light poles . The light poles will be sharp cut-off fixtures . The lighting layout requires that the light pole be 35 feet versus 25 feet . Ms . Martinson stated that they were trying to use existing conduits . This project will be phased due to the displacement of the number of cars . They tried to match the new lighting layout and the previous lighting layout to coincide during the phasing of the parking lot . The number of poles was limited . Mr. Ellsworth asked how many poles would be in the parking lot . Ms. Martinson responded that the total number of poles would be 15 poles . Mr. Ellsworth asked if a new pole would replace each existing pole . Ms . Martinson stated that they are adding light poles around the perimeter of the parking lot and to the islands . Mr. Sigel stated that it looks as if mainly perimeter poles are being added . Mr. Ellsworth asked if they are adding vegetation to buffer Route 366 . Ms. Martinson responded yes . Due to site plan approval , there will be more vegetation . It will be bermed slightly. Mr. Frost asked if the new lights produced fewer spills . Ms . Martinson responded that the main reason for the new light poles was to reduce spillage . The new lights are sharp , cut-off fixtures that direct the light down . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 .TUNE 1412000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krantz stated that there are twenty light poles within the parking lot and twelve around the perimeter. Mr. Sigel stated that there are some double lights . Mr. Frost stated that three islands have two single pole lights . There are sixteen lights within the parking spaces that are double . There are single poles in the islands between the parking spaces . There are more fight poles along Route 366 . There are thirty-two lights . Mr. Ellsworth stated that there would be less glare on Route 366 . The spill outside the parking lot will be minimal . Attorney Barney stated that if he were to look into the parking lot now, he would be able to see up into the lights. The cut-off lights are going to be 35 feet high . He will be at the same ground level . He will still be able to see the light . Ms . Martinson stated that the current fixture spills light out 180 degrees horizontally. The sharp cut-off fixtures direct the light down . Mr. Sigel stated that the bulb is recessed . Someone would need to be directly under the light to see light directly from the bulb. Mr. Ellsworth stated that this is a standard light for new parking lots . There is a cross section of the light in the packet . Ms . Martinson stated that the lighting level would not change . The reason for the increased height is because of the direction of the light. The height needs to be improved to keep the same level of lighting . Mr. Krantz stated that there are presently twelve double lights . There will be sixteen doubles . The poles will be ten feet higher. Chairperson Stotz asked what about the issue of height . Mr. Krantz stated that it is an advantage for lighting the area better and decreasing glare . Chairperson Stotz asked if the height is a detriment to the neighborhood . Mr. Frost stated that there are no residential buildings in the area . Chairperson Stotz asked if anyone had objected to the lights in the parking lot . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 JUNE 14, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Martinson responded that she does not know of any complaints . The change came about because they were changing the layout of the parking lot . In doing so , some lights needed to be moved . It was more cost effective to upgrade the lights . Mr. Frost stated that the lights are probably more energy efficient . Mr. Krantz stated that the light spillage would be less with the new poles . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 30 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 : 31 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: RESOLUTION NO. 200041 — Environmental Assessment — Cornell University, Install Light Poles at a HeLQhht of 35 feet, June 14, 2000. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Cornell University, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place light poles at a height of 35 feet at the "8 " parking lot off New York State Route 366 between Tower and Caldwell Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3. 1 , - 12, Residence District R-30. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stott, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously, Chairperson Stotz asked what color are the poles . Ms. Martinson responded that the poles are brown . Chairperson Stotz asked if the lights are on all night . Ms . Martinson responded yes . The parking lot serves the Vet School and Hospital . RESOLUTION NO. 2000=42 — Variance — Cornell University, Install Light Poles at a Height of 35 feet, June 14, 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 JUNE 14, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal of Cornell University, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place lights poles to be located as shown in Lighting Plan E-01 as submitted to the board at a height of no more than 36 feet at the `B" parking lot off New York State Route 366 between Tower and Caldwell Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3. 1 , - 12, Residence District R-30 based upon the following findings: a. that it has been presented to the board that the light fixtures have less spill than the current lighting; and b, that there are no residences in the area. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stott, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL of Ron and Helen Shewchuck, Appellants , Scott Braig , Crown Construction , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to construct a carport with a north side yard building setback of 6 ± feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 112 Winston Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 70- 11 -28 , Residence District R- 15 . Jim Wavle , Crown Construction , stated that they would like to have a variance granted due to a hardship . The proposed carport would be 6 feet from the property line . The size of the house would make it appropriate to have a two-car garage . The carport is an economical and attractive way to provide it . The existing driveway will accommodate the width of the two cars . The location of the proposed carport would be architecturally most pleasing . The carport will increase the value of the home and increase the value of the neighboring properties . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the hardship . Mr. Wavle stated that for a house that size it would be best to have a two car garage . Chairperson Stotz asked if they have two cars . Mr. Wavle responded yes . Chairperson Stotz asked if their hardship was not being able to put the second car under a roof . Mr. Wavle responded yes . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 JUNE 14, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth stated that it would be a hardship to put the garage on the opposite end of the house because they would need to build a driveway to it . Chairperson Stotz asked if it is an open carport with a concrete floor. Mr. Wavle stated that they have not decided if it will be a concrete floor. Chairperson Stotz asked how long has the applicant lived in the house . Helen Shewchuk , 112 Winston Drive , responded that they have lived in the house for 16 years. Chairperson Stotz asked if it had a garage when they bought the house . Ms . Shewchuk responded that it had a one car garage . It is a five bedroom house with a one car garage . Mr. Niefer asked if they considered a drive through garage with a carport behind it . Mr. Wavle stated that it did not look as nice as the current proposal . The rooflines did not line up . It did not look appropriate with the style of the home . Mr. Niefer asked how much addition would they need to add to accommodate the second car. Mr. Wavle stated that they would go the full length of the existing garage . It would be 12 feet by 24 feet . Mr. Frost stated that it would be a hassle to have the cars parked one behind another. There is an addition being built over the existing garage . It is not part of this appeal . Mr. Niefer asked if there are any thoughts to enclosing the carport in the future . Ms . Shewchuk stated that they would like to have a two car garage . They did not think it would be considerate of them to do that to their neighbor next door. It would put the structure of the house closer to him . They thought that a carport would not be that invasive . She thinks that her neighbor now disagrees with it and prefers that they have a two car garage . Mr. Sigel asked if there is a proposed room for above the garage . Mr. Wavle stated that it is not part of the carport , but will be part of the same construction project . Mr. Sigel asked what type of roof is over the garage . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 JUNE 14, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Wavle responded that it is a gavel roof. Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 45 p . m . , and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard . Tom Owens , 114 Winston Drive , stated that he is the neighbor to the north . He is the most directly impacted by this move . Mr. Owens stated that he was attracted to the neighborhood because it is a quiet neighborhood . The home he lives in is closer to the other houses in the neighborhood . His house is a ranch style house. The surrounding houses are two-story. This construction will pull their house 12 feet closer to his house . Mr. Owens stated that he is concerned with noise , activity levels and the decrease in privacy. He feels it will impact his property value and the salability of his house . He would prefer a garage be constructed . The garage would give more privacy and there would be less noise . He feels that there are other alternatives that they could consider without the variance . Many of the applicant's arguments are for convenience . Mr. Owens feels it is not a hardship having their car uncovered . The alternatives are there . The alternatives might not be as attractive . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Owens how far his house is located from the property line . Mr. Owens stated that he is unsure. Attorney Barney stated it looks as if it is about 10 feet . Mr. Frost stated that it looks like Mr. Owens house is closer to the property line than the Shewchucks . There are not equally distance side yards between the houses , Mr. Owens stated that his house is clearly closer to his neighbors than the other houses . His lot is narrower. Chairperson Stotz asked if these houses were built prior to zoning . Mr. Frost stated that these houses were constructed in the 1960s . There was a big change from the 1950s to the 1960s , The 1960s are fairly to close to the zoning today. Mr. Sigel asked how much vegetation is there between the two lots . Mr. Owens stated that there are a few shrubs outside his bedroom windows . There is some grass, a garden and then the garage wall . Coming forward there is a line of lilac trees . The proposed carport would eliminate the garden . Mr. Sigel asked how high are the shrubs . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 9 JUNE 14 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Owens stated that the shrubbery is very mature . Some of the shrubs are taller than he is . Mr. Frost stated that the applicant could choose to park their second car in the area of the proposed carport . He asked Mr. Owens if there would be the same impact as having a roof over the car. Mr. Owens stated that if they build a roof it would bring the building closer to the property line . There will be a visual difference . Mr. Frost stated that should the board choose to consider approving the carport and have a restriction that the car could only be parked in the carport . they would not be able to use it for storage . Ms . Shewchuk stated that it would not be a problem . They have had the car parked in the driveway by his bedroom . Mr. Frost asked if they have proposed lighting for the carport . Ms . Shewchuk responded no . Mr. Owens stated that they do park their car near his bedroom . The car is further away than it would be if they parked the car in the location of the proposed carport . The general appearance is different than if there was a carport . Mr. Frost asked if Mr. Owens would have an objection to putting a wall up on the side of the carport facing his house . Mr. Owens stated that it would appease him somewhat . It does not appease his concern of moving the house closer to his house . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Owens if he was provided with a survey at the time he bought his house . Mr. Owens responded that he did receive a survey. Attorney Barney asked what is his side yard dimension facing the Shewchuk. Mr. Owens stated that he does not know. His lot is smaller than the homes around him . Mr. Frost stated that the width of his lot is consistent with the required width of all the other houses in the area . Mr. Owens house might be non -conforming. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 JUNE 14 : 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel asked if the board could get a measurement of how far Mr. Owens house is located from the property line . Mr. Frost stated that he could attempt to scale the tax maps . Tax maps are not survey maps , but there are fairly accurate . Mr. Sigel stated that the board could also estimate from the picture . Attorney Barney stated that it is close to the property line . The survey map shows a utility pole . It shows the property line as being two or three feet of the utility line . The house is very close to the line . Mr. Ellsworth stated that it looks like there is heavy vegetation on the side of the proposed carport . Mr. Owens stated that beyond the current driveway there is not a lot of vegetation . It is forward to the house where the car presently sits . Mr. Ellsworth asked if Mr. Owens could see Mr. and Mrs . Shewchuk' s house from his bedroom window. Mr. Owens responded yes . Ms. Shewchuk responded that he is able to see their garage . Mr. Ellsworth stated that there is screening present. Their second story addition is going to be worse on Mr. Owens' privacy than the carport . The second story addition is not an issue . They can build the second story addition without coming to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr. Owens stated that he does not understand the hardship . He does think that there are alternatives that could address the impacts. Chairperson Stotz asked if he had any alternatives to suggest . Mr. Owens stated that he thinks that the Shewchuks could put a structure where the car currently is located . It would be possible to have room for two cars within the legal space . They could knock down the wall of their current garage . Parking a car front and back is another alternative . Another point made was that it would enhance the value of the neighborhood property. Mr. Owens felt that it would not increase his property value . He does not think that carports are pleasing . It is not a strong argument that the size of the house should have a two car garage . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 8 : 05 p . m . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 JUNE 14, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Shewchuk stated that the addition that will go up over the existing garage would not have windows accept for one in the peak of the roof . It will be a semi-circle . There will not be a privacy issue with the addition . She feels that a carport would be a lot less noisy than what they have novo. They are very concerned about not disturbing his sleep . Mr. Frost stated that he does not know how important it is to the board to determine the setback of Mr. Owens house to his property line . It does appear that there is an 18 foot setback to the side lot line . The space that the Shewchuks have to their property line seems to be twice as much as Mr. Owens setback. The space between the buildings is much clearer on the larger tax map . Chairperson Stotz stated that this is an area variance . Does that section of Town law stipulates that there be a hardship? Attorney Barney stated that it is a balancing test . The board has to weighs the detriment to the applicant versus the detriment to the neighborhood . Mr. Sigel stated that the house setback in this zone is 15 feet . Attorney Barney stated that it 15 feet for the house and 10 feet for the garage . Ms . Shewchuk stated that several of her neighbors are happy about the garage . Mr. Frost stated that they are not at the meeting . They have not called or written letters . Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals must take into consideration the benefit of the applicant if the variance is granted and weigh as a detriment to the health , safety, and character of the neighborhood if the variance is granted . In making such a determination the board must consider if an undesirable change would be produced , or if a detriment to nearby properties would be created . The board must also consider if the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by another method , if the requested area variance is substantial , if the proposed variance will have a adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood , if the difficulty is self-created . Mr. Sigel asked if they could make a useful carport narrower than 12 feet . Mr. Frost stated that the standard parking space is 8 feet . An eight foot carport would put them within their 10 foot setback. Mr. Frost asked if the applicant would object to a 10 foot wide carport . Ms . Shewchuk asked what is a standard garage width . Attorney Barney responded that it is 12 feet. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 JUNE 1412000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Shewchuk asked if a two car garage is 24 feet wide, Attorney Barney responded yes . Chairperson Stotz stated that setbacks are part of the Zoning Ordinance for a reason . The board has passed them for reasons that the board has felt comfortable with . The benefit for the applicant is that their car is being put under a roof. The detriment to the neighbor is reduction in value of his property and depletion of his privacy. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the neighbor's house was in its current location when he bought it . Chairperson Stotz asked on what basis would the board grant this appeal and not a neighbor down the street. It is a house with a single car garage . Mr. Sigel stated that part of the area variance test is not uniqueness . A use variance is supposed to be a unique situation in an area . An area variance does not require that . Every third house in the neighborhood could want a carport . He is not sure if the board would want to grant those requests . It is within the scope of the law to grant the appeal . Mr. Niefer stated that the house was not cited on the middle of the not . It was cited more to the north . Mr. Frost stated that he does not know what change of impact it is to have the car parked under a roof or without a roof. Chairperson Stotz asked if the applicant would be willing to put up screening . Attorney Barney stated that they could enclose the carport . The applicant indicated that they would be happy to build a garage. Mr. Sigel stated that Mr. Owens implied that he would prefer a garage . Mr. Owens stated that he would prefer a garage . He has a problem with the distance between the houses becoming smaller. Mr. Frost asked if they could make the addition smaller if they were to extend the garage . Mr. Wavle responded that they could build the addition so that the total garage width is 22 feet wide . Chairperson Stotz stated that the board does not know what the two car garage would look like . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 JUNE 1412000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Owens if he would be agreeable if the applicant designed a two car garage condensing the space a few feet . Mr. Owens responded yes . He is concerned with the distance between his house and the neighbor's garage . Chairperson Stotz stated that the applicant needs time to discuss the changes with their neighbor and to obtain new drawings . The approval will be delayed for one month . The board decided that they would like to see the plans for a two car garage. Mr. Owens stated that the other neighbors in the neighborhood would not have the same impact as his property does . How much does their opinion count? Attorney Barney stated that the reason the board is listening is because Mr. Owens came to the meeting . If someone 15 houses down the street is not in favor of it , it does not carry a lot of weight . The person next door does because they are the one the most impacted . It is why the board is wrestling with trying to come to an accommodation . RESOLUTON NO. 2000=43 — ADJOURNMENT of Ron and Helen Shewchuk Variance to Construct a Carport. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the appeal of Ron and Helen Shewchuk until Wednesday, July 12, 2000 with a rescheduled public hearing, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article 1V, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a carport with a north side yard building setback of 6 + feet at 112 Winston Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 70m 11 -28, Residence District R- 15. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NAYS: None. Thi MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 1� rson S tz adjourned the meeting at 8 : 26 p . m . � e D vid D . Stott, Chair r n . Carrie L. Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONTING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR NGS WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1412000 7 :00 PAL 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, June 14, 2000, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N .Y., COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M . on the following matters : APPEAL of the Lee and Laurel Hodgden, Appellants, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a building addition to house an elevator, with a north side yard building setback of 10. 5 + feet ( 15 foot setback required) at 112 Halcyon Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 66-3-22 .2, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Kim Martinson, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to place light poles at a height of 35 ± feet (30 foot height limitation) at the "B" parking lot off of New York State Route 366 between Tower and Caldwell Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 - 1 -3 . 1 , - 12, Residence District R-30 . APPEAL of Ron and Helen Shewchuk, Appellants, Scott Braig, Crown Construction, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 14 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a carport with a north side yard building setback of 6 + feet ( 10 foot setback required) at 112 Winston Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70- 11 -28, 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: June 6, 2000 Published : June 9, 2000 TOWN OF YTIHACA 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 Wednesday, June 14, 2000, 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: June 6, 2000 Date of publication: June 9, 2000 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning D ent Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of June, 2000. Notary Public DEBORAH KELLEY .` Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler Co _11*y Commission Expires inlay 17 , �j .�