Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2000-11-08 FILE 14 0 � ��d DATE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8. 2000 Z; 00 P APPEAL of u . D . Blanpied , Appellant, Margaret C . K)bbiu , Agent , requesting a Ora :ianne from the requi ements of Article IV , Section 16 of the Ala'own of Ith ,ca Zoning Ordinance , to bza permilpd to maintain ;�zarcwl Orf land 113 'a'- acres in area , with a lot width of 3 -1 ..€. feet at the max:i-r- um front wart st;tback li €'te , located at Town of Ithaca Tai Parcwl No , 5A3 -0 25 ;next to 1586 S :ater- illy Road ' Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of David Axenfeld ; A ;gel ant , George. GiDsslein , Age€ #t , requesting a variance € om Art c e Vill , Sec ion 41 of the TrC)liv 3 of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, ° , t,�, perm tied to conduct a re,ta. il at E::, Irma Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Pa. rce € o . 33-3 9 . 7 , Ligllt Ind ; stnal Di <,trict . Said Di:<,tfict doew not permi : a land use of rota ' l b ;a ' nessew . A special approval undo �irti: l : nll , ue€; i�} :� u � �f said (Drd : naricn, might al;�o t*)e reaue,aste.d , s € nc(-; thn.f f; rof;�. rty ti�ra3; ori�� i 3t� I €� ;�€;�<. . €� p��d a. €Yc retail businesses, APPEAL GRANTED APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowr? € a€ , ,apt;}eilants , Susan C {.ase€ ° ini , Ager: : , € equec% i € g a var an!Na frs�:: p the requirements of Ar` iole IV , -nfction 11 , Par% gr: ph w) send �f3+,tie€3 1 � �} tl � �� Tow:-) of 113 � .,a Zoning Orr mance , to ;�o permitted to maintain art €st studios in an aooessory bu € ldi g vsiith a build €� € height of 20 -E- feet ( 15 foot heighn lir€-€ itationj located at 203 Pint-w- Tree Road , Ttvfwn c}f Ithcaw i Tx liar{;; = € plc; . 7- 1 . 1 , f o;; idE;ncE, l i ,trlct " 1 Bald rciinc�,ncE', E, r 31ts artistt tc m a Main � rofe.ssionj. i offices only within the buildings that they reside in, and not in accessory structures . ,APPEAL , NE ,APPEAL of Tirrio:hy and Linda Hiikin , Appellants , requesting autht;� r ization from the Zoning Board of appeals �< rder Ar role X11 , Section 54 of the -T"own of Ithaca Zorl ' na �lydina. nce , to enlarge a. N nonconforming bui €di €-: g �-,Jth the addition, of an 884 squire foot second store addikn at 918 East �` r1 r ilY. r1 u-+ a '. r7 f � L� :f ry r� '-5 ) L r� 4, Se Y Yr t'� E4• h , rf; Tarr , Tct � . � .,f It3tacr; Tax Parcel c� . 1 �?-:�- 1 fc„an „� :;� ; rl„t - 1 . � � ; € €3 nonconforming as t extends beyond property lines , with part oe the adjaoent p €�operty being Cayuga Law . APPEAL GRANTED TOWN OF IT ACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, (NOVEMBER , d3 7 * 0 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 ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Margaret Hobbie , 966 East State Street ; Stan and Mary Ann Bowman , 203 Pine Tree Road : Susan Cosentini , 527 North Aurora Street ; Tim and Linda Hinkin , 210 Willard Way Loop ; George Gesslein , 118 Shaprsteen Road : Lee Haefele , 55 Larue Road ; Michael Pinnisi , East Shore Drive . 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 G . D . Blanpied , Appellant , Margaret C . Hobbie , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 ± acres in area , with a lot width of 31 ± feet at the street line and 31 ± feet at the maximum front yard setback line , located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56-3-25 (next to 1586 Slaterviile Road ) , Residence District R - 15 . Mr. Frost stated on the survey map , Parcel A is not the access to this property . Parcel C is the current access . Mr. Sigel asked if the tax map is correct . Mr. Frost stated tax maps are not surveying maps . The tax maps shows 48 feet as the setback . Mr. Sigel stated the survey map shows Parcel A going back to this property . It is not shown on the tax map . Mr. Frost stated the survey map is not a complete survey of the entire parcel . It is only the lower portion . Chairperson Stotz stated it is the old map . It is now part of lot 16 . Mr. Sigel asked if Parcel A is non -existing now. Margaret Hobbie , 966 East State Street , stated Parcel A was absorbed into Lot 16 . Mr. Frost stated Parcel C is the access to this property , not Parcel A . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz asked if this would be a flag lot . Mr. Frost responded yes . Mr. Sigel asked if the survey map up to date . It does not show Parcel A being absorbed . Mr. Frost stated it is a 1976 survey map . Mr. Smith stated it does note that Parcel A is to be conveyed . Mr. Niefer stated the parcel is 20 feet on the diagonal . In actuality, if it were right angles to the property line it would be significantly less than a 20 foot opening to get into the larger parcel in the back . Is there any requirement for greater access to the back parcel ? Mr. Frost stated it is 15 feet under New York State and Town Law . Mr. Niefer stated it is close to 15 feet if it is a right angle to the property line . Mr. Frost stated it would be hard for them to get the exact measurement , A scaled copy would not be accurate . Attorney Barney stated 15 feet is presumptively sufficient access . It does not say it is the minimum . Chairperson Stotz stated if this were approved , it would mean that there could a permanent building on the back of the lot . Attorney Barney stated the requirements are phrased obliquely . It basically says there needs to be access from a public road in order to obtain a building permit . " Access" means that the plot on which such structure is proposed to be erected directly abut on such street or highway and have sufficient frontage there on to allow the ingress and egress of fire trucks , ambulances , police cars and other emergency vehicles . The frontage of 15 feet shall presumptively be sufficient for that purpose . It is well within the board 's scope of review to consider if 15 feet is enough for fire apparatus to negotiate the turn and make it through an area that is less than 15 feet . Mr. Ellsworth asked George Blanpied if he knew the width of the fire trucks . Would 15 feet be adequate ? Mr. Blanpied responded that at a straight line 15 feet is adequate . It does depend upon the turning radius and curb . Attorney Barney asked if anyone from the Town or Fire Department look at the access road . Mr. Hobbie responded no one has looked at it . They are not planning to build . They would like to come into compliance with the law . The property has not been advertised as a building lot . ZONING BOARD of APPEALS PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated the board could defer the issue of a building permit to a later time . Then when someone comes in , it could be looked reviewed at that juncture . The board could choose to grant the variance for the lack of frontage , but conditioned upon further review at such time . Chairperson Stotz stated he feels it is an important issue . Mr. Sigel stated it would be helpful to see specific plans . Ms . Hobbie stated they are not planning to build . Mr. Sigel stated the letter the board received asked for approval to allow future development . Ms . Hobbie stated they had asked to allow the possibility for someone to apply for a permit . Chairperson Stotz stated Attorney Barney mentioned a viable alternative . The board could consider approving the appeal with the condition that no building permit be issued until it is brought before the board for review . Mr. Sigel asked if that is different than denying the appeal . Attorney Barney stated there are 2 issues . One is the failure to comply with the Zoning Ordinance , in that the applicant does not have100 feet of frontage . The board could deal with it this evening . He is concerned about the adequate access for emergency vehicles . There is not sufficient information to make the determination . There is a lack of a dimension at a crucial point in the driveway . It may or may not be wide enough for an emergency vehicle . There needs to be a survey showing the dimension . Mr. Sigel asked if they gave approval for setback and width , could the applicant get a building permit without coming back before the board if the driveway is 15 feet . Attorney Barney stated it would depend upon what condition the board imposed . It could be conditioned that the granting of the variance from the setback and the width requirement not be issued until there is adequate access for emergency vehicles . Is there a structure on the property? Ms . Hobbie responded there is a cabin on the lot . It does not have utilities , plumbing , or electric . It is not on a foundation . It can be taken off the lot . Chairperson Stotz asked if the road is traveled often . Ms . Hobbie responded no . Chairperson Stotz asked if the road is improved in any way . Ms . Hobbie stated it is a dirt road . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 4 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated the Town has never mandated the specifications for a driveway for 1 or 2 family residences that is adequate enough to handle the axles of a car. Town Law addresses the width of the driveway . He cannot recollect the board making a condition that a driveway be improved upon to handle the axle load of a fire truck . Mr. Niefer stated the parcel is large enough that someone may choose to subdivide it . There are plans for ingress to 13 . 2 parcel that abuts the parcel of land being reviewed . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 7 : 21 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 : 22 p . m . Mr. Frost asked if the width deficiency were approved and someone came in with a building permit application , would they be required to come before the board if they were able to show the driveway has a 15 foot width . Attorney Barney stated it depends on what condition the board imposes . The law does say that the parcel must directly abut on a street and has sufficient frontage to allow ingress and egress for emergency vehicles . The width is presumptively sufficient for that purpose . He does not have a problem with the board imposing as a condition that a building permit be conditioned on the board reviewing the access . Mr. Sigel stated the issue would be deferred until a building permit application was made . Attorney Barney stated the objective is to provide ability for fire engines to get to the structure . Mr. Frost stated what is being said then is that any building lot by itself, even if it is wider than 15 foot access , does not comply with 280a unless it is demonstrated that they have an adequate driveway. It is never been a Town regulation for a 1 or 2 family residence . Mr. Ellsworth asked if someone was looking at buying the property. Ms . Hobbie responded no . They are trying to come into compliance with the law . RESOLUTION NO. 2OOOm65 - VARIANCE . €�fartpfed, SIa erviife Raac�, Tax Parcel No. 56�3" 25, November .8, 2000. MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of O. D. Blanpied, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance; be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 acres in area , with a lot width of 31 + feet at the street line and 50 feet at the maximum front yard setback line, located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3-25, Residence District R- 15, conditioned by the following; ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a , any building permit submitted regarding Tarr Parcel No. 56-3-25, be brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals for review and approval. A vote on the motion resulted as follows. AYES: Stutz, 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 David Axenfeld , Appellant , George Gesslein , Agent , requesting a variance from Article 'Jill , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel no . 33-3-2 . 7 , Light Industrial District . Said District does not permit a land use of retail businesses . A special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of said Ordinance might also be requested , since the property was originally developed and used for retail businesses . George Gesslein , 118 Sharpsteen Load , Locke NY , stated the building t 618 Elmira Road was built by Mr. Axenfeld many years ago for retail use . Mr. Axenfeld has had many tenants over the past 10 years . There has been a period of more than 12 months where the building was vacant . The most recent tenants have been retail . The proposed tenant will be at this location for about 10 years . They want to make sure the variances are in place . The new tenant is a mattress and bedding store . Mr. Axenfeld is requesting a variance to use the facility for retail . The building was originally designed as retail . He has brought light industrial businesses to the site . The floor is not thick enough and the power is not there to support a light industrial business . Mr. Frost stated in 1974 the Zoning Board of Appeals made an interpretation that the Zoning Ordinance would allow business uses in light industrial zones . When Mr. Axenfeld built the building he came before the board . He was given a sprinkler variance and was allowed to create a retail business . In the 1990s the Town modified the Zoning Ordinance to say that retail uses were not permitted in light industrial zones . It was determined that a period of 12 months had elapsed . The Zoning Ordinance does make reference to the fact if a non -conforming use ceases to operate for a period of 12 months ; and then they lose their non -conforming rights . Mr. Frantz asked if the board had approved a convenience store for the area . Mr. Frost responded yes . It was about a year ago . The business is now closed . Mr. Krantz stated the board has set precedence in the area . Chairperson Stotz stated it was a retail establishment , but not the same intensity . Attorney Barney asked if the building was fully vacant . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 6 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVER - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVE( - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Frost stated the photography business has always been located in the building . Mr. Gesslein stated he considers it retail because he has people in and out taking pictures . Mr. Niefer asked if the sprinkler system in the building is still active . Mr. Gesslein stated the system is still active and covers the entire building . Mr. Frost stated the building was brought up to code through a recent fire safety inspection . Mr. Niefer stated it is a reasonable use . It is better to have the building rented than vacant . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the photo lab has been in the building the entire time . Is it considered occupied ? Attorney Barney stated there are 2 ways to approach this . One is if it is a use variance . The criteria for a use variance are stiff . It also could be an expansion of a non -conforming use . The board could decide the photography business was a non -conforming use . The board would then be adding another retail establishment to an existing retail establishment . It would be enlarging a non - conforming use . There has been more than 12 months since the furniture business occupied the building . Mr. Gesslein stated the furniture business stopped paying rent in January and moved out shortly thereafter. The lease is still valid , but they are unable to collect rent . Mr . Frost stated the 12 month period occurred in 1994 . Chairperson Stotz asked what would differentiate between determining that it meets an area variance as opposed to special approval . Attorney Barney stated for special approval it would need to be determined that there was no reasonable return to get from the building with any use allowed within the ordinance . Chairperson Stotz asked if this would require both . Attorney Barney stated the board needs to make the determination . If the photography business is treated as a retail use then the length of time the building was vacated does not apply . If the board decides it is not retail , then the board needs to look at the furniture business . He does not know if the Zoning Ordinance was amended before 1994 . Mr. Frost stated under business zones , a photographer would fall under a Business C zone . It has a list of retail businesses . If it is a Business C zone , then any business in Business A or Business B zones . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 7 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated the Business C zone allows a lot of uses , which are not necessarily true retail sale uses . Mr. Sigel asked if the photography business was treated as a retail business , would it be an expansion . Attorney Barney responded yes . It is in the same building . Mr. Sigel stated it could be argued that this does not need any approval because at least part of the building has been continually used as retail . Attorney Barney stated that once it has been reduced , the amount of businesses couldn 't be expanded if they have lost a non -conforming use . Mr. Sigel stated if he were the applicant he would argue that the entire building received the non -conforming retail use . A portion of the building has been retail the entire time . Therefore , the approval was not lost . The board could make a ruling that the entire building has the non -conforming use . Mr. Ellsworth stated the board would be setting a precedent . Attorney Barney stated the light industrial zone is anything but retail sales . Chairperson Stotz asked what attempts were made to secure an industrial tenant . Mr. Gesslein stated he spoke with a number of industrial tenants , including Kolar, Kolar has a building behind the convenience store . There was some interest , but there would have been a tremendous expense involved in converting the building to light industrial use . There were serious issues of floor loading . There were some other small businesses that inquired about the space , but were not interested . Many businesses were not interested because of the steep driveway . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 09 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 8 : 10 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith stated the building has been used as a furniture business . It has parking . Mr. Frost asked if there are plans to improve the parking . Mr. Gesslein stated there is no plan to expand the parking . They do not plan to pave the parking . They are going to remove a number of small non - bearing interior partitions . Someone had sectioned off a few small offices . They are going to place a fire door in the existing firewall . They are going to clean up the landscaping . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 8 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated if they are going to carry mattresses and beds . Mr. Gesslein responded yes . It will be mattresses and bed frames . Chairperson Stotz asked if there are other stores that are comprable in size . Mr. Gesslein responded all their stores are about the same size . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the traffic flow through the store . Mr. Gesslein stated it is minimal . Furniture stores do not have a lot of traffic . Most items are delivered . Chairperson Stotz stated the access to the site is through the driveway . Are the site lines for the driveway adequate ? Mr. Smith responded yes , RESOLUTION NO. 20003 68 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT _ David Axenfeld 618 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No, 33=3-2. 7, November 8, 2000a MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of David Axenfeld, requesting a variance from Article V111, Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3-3-2. 7, Light Industrial District, based upon the following: a , The materials presented to the board, and b, The findings of the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz stated the business would be a showroom . It really is not a retail business , Chairperson Stotz stated this would be better than having a vacant building . The issue before the board is how to treat the appeal . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 0 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVER - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sigel stated it needs to be done in a way that sets the least precedence for other situations where the board might want to decide otherwise . If the board gives an approval for expansion of non- conforming use then it does not set much of a precedent for future applications of expansion . Mr. Ellsworth stated there are a lot of empty buildings in the area . This building is setting among buildings with the same kind of use and situation . Mr. Gesslein stated there are a number of retail businesses on Elmira Road that are no longer there . He does not have industrial tenants . They prefer to go to location like Cherry Street or the Cornell Research Park . This location has nothing to draw industrial customers . Mr. Krantz stated it is a depressed area . It might be improperly zoned and might be the reason for the depression . It is not made for industrial use . Chairperson Stotz stated he would like to make the interpretation that the photography business is a legitimate retail business in the industrial zone . Mr. Sigel stated he does not have a problem with that interpretation . The question is whether to take it further and say that because a portion was retail , they can retract the retail use at will , It is a broader decision to say that it never lost its status . Chairperson Stotz stated if part of the building was used for a retail establishment , then it goes by the building , therefore , it continues to maintain its continuity . What would the ramifications be if the board made that kind of interpretation ? What could happen elsewhere ? Mr. Sigel stated there could be a situation in a light industrial district that for whatever reason the community and board was more inclined to revert back to light industrial and it had been used for retail . They would be able to resume any retail . Attorney Barney stated the introductory section of non -conforming uses talks about any lawful use of land or a building or a part thereof . There might be a situation where there are 3 or 4 non - conforming businesses in one building in a residential area . Would the board want to grant them permission to occupy the businesses again because one business was in the building ? Mr. Frost stated the philosophy of non -conforming uses is to do away with it . Attorney Sarney stated from a legal standpoint he would be more comfortable with the more narrow precedent , If the board is inclined to accommodate this business and do it by non -conforming use , the precedent is narrower, The board would be accepting the fact that the photography business is a retail business . Mr, Kiefer stated he is in favor of expanding the non -conforming use . The photography business has been in the building as a retail establishment . Mr. Ellsworth stated it fits in with the character of the neighborhood . Neighboring buildings have been through the same cycle . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVE=D - APPROVED - APPPOVFD - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION . 20003 `7 pVARiANCE � David Axenfeld 6' 18 ` mira Road Tax Parcel No. 33- 3� . 7 Noyember8 2000. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by dames Niefer RESOLVED that this board grant the appeal of David Axenfeld, requesting a special use from Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge a non -conforming use at 613 Elmira Road. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 33-3-2. 7, Light Industrial District, based upon the following findings: a . The existing photography business has a retail component, b. The proposed use is a retail sales use; C. The existing business has been there since before the Zoning Ordinance was amended precluding retail uses in Industrial zones, d. The proposed use is not inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and areas, and sloes not adversely impact the welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as fellows: AYE'S: Stotz; Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NA YS: NONE The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The third appeal to be beard was as follows ; APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman , Appellants , Masan Cosentini , Agent , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessary building with a building height of 20 ± feet ( 15 foot height limitation ) located at 203 Pine Tree Toad , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 57 - 1 - 1 , Residence District R - 1 5 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures . Susan Cose tini , 527 North Aurora Street , stated the board was given all the documents , The structures are non -conforming by 1 foot . The proposed structure will join the 2 buildings . Mr. Bowman has retired . He no longer has space at Cornell . lir. and Mrs . Bowman would like to have their Studios together. The addition is to allow that , It will also allow more space . The addition will be non -conforming by one foot ,. Mr. Frost stated Mr. and Mrs . Bowman bought the property in the 1980s . They used to have their studios by the Chamber of Commerce . At some point they obtained a building peMr ilt to modify the accessory structures to create the current studies . At that time the board took the position that this was a home occupation and they were utilizing area less than 200 square feet . When Ms . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 11 NOVEMBER B . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Cosentini came in to obtain a building permit , they reviewed the current uses and decided this is an artist studio . The artist studio would be permitted only if it was in the residence where the Bowmans live . There is a letter in the packet that describes what the applicant would like to do . It is the architectural design that is causing the height problem . It is advertised at 20 feet . Mr. Frost stated this property one point had an appeal for a church . The survey shows a 2- story frame dwelling with a new addition . A pediatrician that had a pediatric office put on the addition . The new addition has become part of a 2 family residence . The appeal is to maintain the garage and barn as the artists ' studio . Chairperson Stotz asked if the addition would have steel roofing . Ms . Cosentini responded yes . The addition is supposed to appear as a separate element . The existing buildings are dissimilar in their roof configuration . The roof element was supposed to be sculptured . Chairperson Stotz stated the slope of the roof would face north and south . The building will be oriented east west . Mr. Smith stated the lot to the south is the future bikeway and trail . Ms . Cosentini stated the addition would not be much higher than the existing buildings . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 09 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 8 : 10 p . m . Mr. Kiefer stated this location is part of the Art Trail . Would there be retail sales in the studios ? Ms . Cosentini stated they would not be entertaining walk- in sales at any given time . It might be considered during the Art Trail . Stan Bowman , 203 Bine Tree Road , stated the Art Trail is a chance for people who are visiting in the area to go into artist studios and to see their work . It does not preclude the fact that they could be purchasing work there . In most cases it is not going to happen . This is the second year they have been on the Art Trail . They have had 2 people in the year stop by . They did not purchase any items . It is not a retail venture by any of the artists involved . Mr. Niefer stated the Art Trail is something new in the area . It may or may not have developed its full potential . It is conceivable there could be a greater traffic flow. Mr. Bowman stated there are other Art Trails throughout the country . They are average with what they have been told in the type of response . The biggest response is on the Art Trail weekends , There were 2 weekends this fall and there will be 2 weekends in the spring . There could be people dropping by on occasion . He does not want a lot of people coming to his studio all the time . He ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 12 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED takes care of his retail sales through galleries . It is the proper place for a professional artist to sell their work . Mr. Ellsworth stated there is another house on Pine Tree Road that is on the Art Trail . They also exhibit their work downtown and where their sales are . The neighborhood forced out a gentleman that was making pottery on Pine Tree Road . He was selling out of his shed . He had neighbors working as employees . This gentleman has thanked the board . It has been better for him to move his business . The neighbors did complain . Chairperson Stotz asked if the addition would enable them to expand their production . Mr. Bowman stated that it is substituting for space he had at Cornell . He taught at Cornell in the Art Department for 27 years . It is going to allow him and his wife to collaborate on some clay projects . Chairperson Stotz stated it would enable them to work on larger pieces . Mr. Bowman stated they could do some larger pieces , but they could do some smaller pieces . Ms . Cosentini stated Mr. Bowman does painting and digital art . Mrs . Bowman has a ceramic studio . They are dissimilar art . Mr. Bowman works with large computers . They need separate facilities . They are going to do separate art as well . Ms . Cosentini stated the roof to Mr. Bowman 's studio is a Gable roof. Chairperson Stotz stated the sidings on the existing buildings are vertical boards . The addition looks to be masonry and glass brick windows with a steel roof . Ms . Cosentini stated it would be wood and masonry . Mr. Bowman stated they are going to create ceramic the surface around the outside . Chairperson Stotz stated he was concerned about its appearance with the existing building and the neighborhood . Ms . Cosentini stated it is a small building . It will fit into the neighborhood . Chairperson Stotz stated there was an issue raised about the kiln generating odors . Mary Ann Bowman , 230 Pine Tree Road , stated the kiln does give off fumes . She has an envirobit for it . It draws the fumes to the outside of the building . Chairperson Stotz asked if it was something you could smell outside the building or is it just hot air. Mrs . Bowman stated it is hot air. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 13 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Ms . Cosentini stated she has never smelt any fumes . Chairperson Stotz asked if they have received comments from the neighbors about it . Mr. Frost stated he has never received any complaints . Chairperson Stotz asked what fire regulations apply to the building . Mr. Frost stated it is the same requirements as a home occupation . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : SESSMENT : Mr. Smith stated in Mr. and Mrs . Bowman 's letter, they stated they did not want these activities within the house because noise , fumes , and solvents . The neighbors have not complained of any fumes or noise before . Mr. Smith stated there are approximately 7 parking spaces . Parking could be a problem during the Art Trail . Chairperson Stotz asked if there is room to expand the parking area . Mr. Smith stated it could be expanded into the back yard . Chairperson Stotz asked if there is a lot of noise from the kiln . Mr. Bowman responded no . Chairperson Stotz asked if ceramics involved sawing . Mr. Bowman stated he has a woodworking shop . It is an occasional activity . Mr. Ellsworth asked what is the louver for on the north elevation . Ms . Cosentini stated it is a heat exhaust . It is not connected to a heat system . It vents heat off the ceiling . Mr. Frost asked the board to consider the potential for the property to sell . The new owner could have a different activity in the buildings . He would like the resolution to be clear. Chairperson Stotz asked if the buildings have sanitary facilities . Mr . Bowman responded yes . Chairperson Stotz asked if there were kitchen facilities . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WAGE 14 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mrs . Bowman stated that they have slop sinks . RESOLUTION NO. 2000-66 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - Stan and Maryann Bowman 2113 Pine Tree load, Tax Parcel No. 5744 , November 8, 2000. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Stan and Maryann Bowman , requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of no more than 20. 5 feet located at 203 Pine Tree (toad, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 based upon the reasons set forth in the environmental review. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stott Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NA YS: The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Stotz asked if they needed to have 2 motions . Attorney Barney stated the resolutions could be combined . RESOLUTION NO. 2000®69 - VARIANCE - Stan and Maryann Bowman, 203 Pine Tree road, Tax Parcel No. 57" 14 , November 5, 2000a MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Stan and Maryann Bowman; requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height not to exceed 20. 5 feet, located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 571 - 1 , Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings and conditions: a , The type of artistic endeavor that takes place is more suitable to be outside the home, b. The artistic efforts contribute to the community through participation in the Art Trail, C. The building is compatible with surrounding buildings, d. There does not appear to be any nuisance, noise or fumes. e, That the accessory buildings not be used as a dwelling unit. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 10 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A Vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel, NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The fourth appeal to be heard was as follows ; APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin ; Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 18-5- 14 , Residence District R - 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines , with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake . Timothy Hinkin , 210 Willard Way , stated they had put an offer in on the house at 918 East Shore Drive contingent on getting approval from a structural engineer that the house could support a second story addition . The structural engineer determined the structure could support the addition . The second contingency was authorization by the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the second story to be built . The house is a 1 bedroom house . It started to be built in 1935 . It has evolved over the years . They would like to make the house a year round home . There is one large bedroom downstairs and a small room that could be used as a bedroom . The small room is not adequate for use as a bedroom for a typical family . Mr. Hinkin stated he is a profession at the Cornell Hotel School . He spends a lot of time working at home . He has a home office in his current home . The small room would work great as an office . Most of their family and friends do not live in the area . They entertain company in their current home and would like to do so in their future home . Mr. Hinkin stated they plan to greatly improve the structure . The structural engineer felt the current roof is not adequate . It was suggested that they replace the roof . They do plan on putting on nice siding and architectural shingles . The property value will be increased . Hopefully it will upgrade the neighborhood as well . They have notified their neighbors of the appeal . He did hear from one of his neighbors who is present . The issue is if it infringes on the view . Mr. Hinkin is not aware of a Town Ordinance or zoning about buildings obstructing someone 's view . The proposed addition would be within height restrictions . The proposed addition does not obstruct the other building 's view . Mr. Frost stated he received a letter indicating the building is feasible of handling the addition . Chairperson Stotz stated part of the building is suspended over water. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 16 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED .. APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Hinkin responded only a small portion of the addition would be over the water. They would be staying within the footprint for the addition over the main part of the house . Mr. Frost asked if Mr. Hinkin would be maintaining his home at Willard Way . Mr. Hinkin responded no . This would be a year round residence . Chairperson Stotz asked how many feet is being added to the height of the house from the existing roofline . Mr. Hinkin stated it would add 9 feet from the existing roofline . Mr. Sigel asked if there are any sections in the Zoning Ordinance regarding obstruction of views . Attorney Barney responded it is only to be considered in granting variances . Mr. Hinkin stated they have lived in Ithaca for 9 years . Their house on Willard Way was a bit of a wreck when they first bought it . The spent a lot of time and money restoring the house . This will be their ninth property refurbishment in the last 20 years . They are done very well and add value to the neighborhood . Attorney Barney stated Section 77 , Subdivision 7 ; Subparagraphs a- h need to be looked at by the board for their determination . Subparagraph d and f need to be considered carefully . Chairperson Stotz opened the public hearing at 8 : 39 p . m . , and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard . Michael Pinnisi , 920 East Shore Drive , stated he faxed a letter to the board expressing his concerns . He is speaking in opposition of the appeal . He is doing so with a great deal of unhappiness that he has to do so . The Haefeles are anxious to sell their property. He is happy that they have found a buyer. The Hinkins have put a lot of thought into the project . The plans for the property are very beautiful . It would be a nice piece of property . Mr. Pinnisi stated that his side does need to be considered . By doubling the height of the building they are diminishing his light and view of his property . As a result ; the Haefeles' proceeds on the sale are going to be obtained at least in part of his financial expense . The Hinkins' greater enjoyment of the parcel is going to be at the expense of a diminishment of his own enjoyment of his own property . Mr. Pinnisi stated he bought his property at 920 East Shore Drive when it was a wreck . He has put substantial money and a lot of effort into fixing up the property . He has done a complete interior and exterior renovation . I-le is now at risk of having his investments and efforts diminished by a non -conforming use . If this were a proper use of the property , he would have no grounds to complain . The building extends out over its property line in the most intrusive way . It extends out over Cayuga Lake . The reason for the setback requirements is to prevent encroachment upon ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 17 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED neighboring properties . It is problematic when talking about a precious resource like the lake . He explained a view of the lake is about all he has at the house . It is sandwiched in between terrible properties , a highway and a railroad track. Mr. Pinnisi is trying to sell the house . The view is the major selling point . He stated he has a problem with the process that brought them before the board . He was given no notice of the fact that this was going to be happening with his property . The first he heard of the appeal was a letter he received from Mr. Frost , which gave the agenda for the hearing . The October 30t�' notice that was published November 3rd arrived in his mailbox on Monday , November 6`'' . He called Mr. Hinkin on Tuesday , November 7t" . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has tried to be reasonable . If someone would like to improve their property at the expense of his property , then he should be compensated . Otherwise , he will be suffering a taking without just compensation . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has a Constitutional protection against it . If he were not going to get an accommodation , then he would ask the Zoning Board of Appeals enforce the zoning provision . The building is non -conforming . To allow an expansion of the non -conforming building would be to exacerbate exactly the kind of harm the Zoning Ordinance is designed to prevent . If there cannot be a reasonable accommodation , he would like the board to uphold the law . It is a non -conforming building and it does not meet the criteria to ignore the fact that it is non -conforming . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Pinnisi 's house was at the same elevation as Mr. Haefele 's house . Mr. Pinnisi stated his property is at a slightly higher elevation . His house is on the other side of the railroad tracks . It is higher by a couple of feet . The Haefele property is down a small embankment from the railroad tracks . He has the advantage of looking over the top of the property below from inside the house . Mr. Frost asked Mr. Pinnisi how long he had lived at 920 East Shore Drive . Mr. Pinnisi stated he has lived there since August of 1998 . He is going to be moving soon . Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Pinnisi feels a major attraction for his house is the view . Mr. Pinnisi stated the primary view from the house is up to the northwest . It is north of this property. He does have a view of the water that would not be affected by this project . The view from the bedroom and bath is directly west . The existing house dominates it . He can see around it to Stewart Park . Mr. Frost asked if he is looking over the roof of the house or is he seeing the house as well . Mr. Pinnisi stated he is seeing around their house and over their house . He is able to see West Hill and horizon over the top of the house . The major component of his view would not be taken away by the addition . He could still see to the north and south . It does not mean that this is not taking something away from him . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 18 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated he would be losing the view of West Hill over the top of the roof , which Mr. Pinnisi already sees . Mr. Pinnisi stated he would no longer have a continuous view across the horizon and the hill , he would have an interrupted view . Mr. Frost asked if it was the least desirable of all the views . Mr. Pinnisi responded yes . Chairperson Stotz asked if Mr. Pinnisi 's house was too far away for sunlight to be blocked . Mr. Pinnisi responded yes . The loss of light is not the primary concern . He is concerned about having to look at the backside of the house instead of looking over the top of a ranch house . Chairperson Stotz asked if the improvements to the appearance of the house mitigate concerns . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not know what the plans are . When looking at the diagram , the back of the house is innocuous . It has vinyl siding that is in good shape . It has shrubbery , The house itself is not problematic . He has never had a complaint about the look or maintenance of the property . It would be improved somewhat . Mr. Ellsworth stated Mr. Pinnisi could still see the lake from another direction . Mr. Frost stated he is not losing the view of the lake . He is losing the view of West Hill , Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Pinnisi if he had proof to show that his value would be affected . Mr, Pinnisi stated he has spoken to his realtor. The realtor feels that she is obliged to have to disclose this as a potential impediment to the property. He does not have concrete proof that it will impact the marketability . He could get an appraiser to give him an opinion . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the advertisement mentioned a beautiful view towards the northwest . Mr. Pinnisi stated it is not that specific . It does advertise the view. Mr. Ellsworth stated he still has a view , Mr. Pinnisi stated that his argument is not that it takes away the entire view , It is that takes away some of it . It takes it away in a way that is non -conforming with the Zoning Ordinance . He bought the house and improved the house with the expectation that the code would apply . He is now hearing that it may not , Mr. Ellsworth stated it would be hard to get a financial statement from someone . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 19 (NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Pinnisi stated it has been discussed a lot in New York City . The question is can you give a variance to let someone build an over height building to take away from the height of the building that is across the street . It has been held that taking away light , air and view is a diminishment to the value of the value of the property . There is not any of that authority in Ithaca , but the principle still applies . One of the best views in Ithaca is of the lake . Every little bit that he has he would like to hang onto . Mr. Frost stated it has been established that Mr. Pinnisi is not losing the view of the lake . Secondly , if there was more land around this building so it was not too close to property lines there would be nothing illegal about them having a two-story building . Mr. Pinnisi stated he should not say there would not be an impact on his view of the lake . He has not done the measurements . He does not know how tall the building would be . He does not know how wide it will be . He is guessing there would be some diminishment of the view to the very southern end of the lake where he can see Stewart Park . Stewart Park is quite beautiful to see from the eastern shore . Mr. Frost stated the addition is not going beyond the existing exterior walls . The only impact is the height above the existing walls . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not think of it as looking over the house to see the water. He thinks of it as looking over the house to see the broader view of the hillside . According to the diagram , the addition would block the view of West Hill . Attorney Barney stated the diagram is a different elevation than what Mr. Pinnisi 's house . Mr. Pinnisi 's house is at a higher elevation . Mr. Pinnisi stated the picture was taken from the driveway next to his house . Mr . Frost stated if this was a vacant lot , they would have the right to build a house as long as they were able to meet setback requirements . Mr. Ellsworth stated it would be hard to get a realtor to give a statement on how much the selling price would be decreased . Mr. Pinnisi stated he does not know if a realtor would be comfortable quantifying how much money it is going to be . He would not have difficulty to have a realtor say it is reduced somewhat . Mr. Frost stated if the property to north improved their property , it would increase the value of Mr. Pinnisrs property . Mr. Pinnisi stated it is a question in what manner. If the property were improved by putting up a 20 foot wall alone the property facing his property it would not help . If the property were to be renovated on its existing footprint it would help . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 20 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frost stated that while there might be some loss , there is also a gain . There is a balance . Mr . Pinnisi stated he is not comfortable about which way the balance is going to tip . It is a gamble . He is going to break even or lose . Mr. Sigel stated he is sympathetic to Mr. Pinnisi 's point of view . The existing house appears to be a modest structure in the general view of the lake . The lot it is on is extremely small . The house does not fit on the lot . It is the most extreme case of non -conformancy the board has seen . From Mr. Pinnisi 's point of view , it is reasonable for him to expect that the law be applied very stringently to the lot because of the extreme nature of the non -conformancy and the direct impact on his property . Chairperson Stotz stated if the board decided the applicant could not put an addition on the house because it is non -conforming and blocks someone 's view , it raises many issues about the entire lakefront . People are forever modifying their property to some extent . Mr . Sigel stated he does not agree there is no degree of non -conformancy . He would argue if there were a house 1 foot into a 15 foot setback with no one directly behind them to block the view, going up another story is a modest proposal . Mr. Ellsworth asked if there a many non -conforming lots along the lake . Mr. Frost stated there are some lots that are non -conforming . The board is trying to measure what degree of loss is suffered . He has looked at the property description on the tax map . It includes a file photograph dated July 31 , 2000 . There is a tree that basically obliterates the view over the house . The board is trying to balance the loss from construction . The picture from July shows that you cannot see anything over the roof of the house other than the tree . Mr. Pinnisi stated he did not have the time to take photographs and get an appraiser to indicate a loss . He did not get legal notice of the hearing as he was supposed to get . He can provide the information if need be . Mr . Frost stated he received legal notice . It is not a requirement that the neighbors be notified . The Town does it as a courtesy . It is given to adjoining property owners . The notice served its purpose . Attorney Barney stated the legal notice is that a notice needs to be published 5 days in advance in the Ithaca Journal . Mr. Pinnisi stated he could get some photographs if it would be helpful to the board . He does not know if it is the proper course to be deciding some level of loss that he has to absorb so that someone can increase an already non -conforming use . It is not his understanding of how the process operates , He knows that he is losing something and he does not like the way in which it is being done . He is looking for some protection . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 21 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Sigel is saying that this is such a severe case of non - conformancy that a second story should not be allowed . If there is another case that is not quite as severe , how do you make the definition ? What is the breaking point? Mr. Sigel stated it is the job of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated the board is here to make a determination in accordance with the standards in the Ordinances to whether this is a situation that permits a deviation . Chairperson Stotz stated it is not based upon the degree of non -conformancy . It is based upon other factors such as view , compatibility with surrounding buildings . Mr. Sigel stated there was a case a few years ago where someone had a house along the lake that was over the property line . They owned the adjoining property . They wanted to go further. The board did not get to the point of denying it because the applicant got the impression it was going to be denied . They came back with a different pian . Mr. Prost stated the board also needs to look at what aspects of non -confomancy are involved . If the building was already exceeding the height or what was proposed would exceed the height then it would be exacerbating something that is non -conforming . In this case it is an area that is deficient . If the lot is made a legal size lot , what they are proposing still has the same affect on the adjoining property , but there would not be anything illegal . Attorney Barney stated if the owner had more land they could build out and not up . Mr. Pinnisi stated he was asked previously if there would be any objection to there being a two-story building there if it were conforming . He had said no , but actually the answer is yes . This building does not meet the minimum lot size requirements . If they were to seek a building permit , they could not build anything on the site . It would be vacant land , He would be able to look at the water. Attorney Barney stated the Ordinance permits anyone to build on any lot , a single-family house , even if it is a non -conforming lot as long as they meet the side yard setback requirements . Mr. Pinnisi stated the building is there because it is grandfathered . If it met the setback requirements he would have plenty of view . Mr. Prost stated it would also give them an alternative to build sideways rather than upwards . Mr. Krantz stated one of the things that help the board to make its decision is a public hearing . Lee Haefele , 55 Larue Road , Spencer, stated he is the owner of the property at this point in time . The lot is not very small . There is between 110 and 140 feet of lake frontage . Many of the neighbors are on 25 foot lots . He does have a hardship . The house has been in the multiple listing system for 2 . 5 years . It has had several buyers fall through , including Mr. Pinnisi . It does not want to be of a size and shape people want to buy as it is . The remodeling is an excellent idea , It improves ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 22 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED the neighborhood . He does not see a problem with the view . There is no valuable view between the roof and the tree . He finds the request for compensation by Mr. Pinnisi ludicrous , Mr. Pinnisi has been compensated , He does not have access to the south side of his property without crossing Mr . Haefele 's property . Mr . Pinnisi has been doing so since he owned it . Mr. Haefele stated he takes hard feeling on Mr. Pinnisi coming before the board with the idea that he has had free use of the property for parking and access . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the other potential buyers fell through because they were unable to get a loan . Mr. Haefele stated there has been a number of people interested . There have been various reasons why it has not been sold . Mr. Haefele stated he feels that Lake Source Cooling had a lot to do with it . The street was dug up and negative press carries a long ways . Mr. Haefele stated they left the house because it was too small . His thought was to remodel it with an upstairs addition . Mr. Sigel asked when Mr . Haefele purchased the house . Mr. Haefele responded they purchased the house in 1994 . Attorney Barney asked if his office represented the Haefeles when they bought the property . Mr. Haefele stated Mr. Marcus represented them . Attorney Barney stated he needs to disclose that his office represented them during the closing of the property . Mr. Haefele stated the potential buyers have an excellent plan . It will improve the neighborhood . Chairperson Stotz closed the public hearing at 9 : 13 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSWENTV Mr. Smith stated there is a small impact from the lake . A two-story house would be seen . Once the tree is removed it will be an obvious two -story house . There has been a concern on the other side of the lake over two-story buildings and larger structures . The opposite side of the lake is heavily wooded and the homes are not as noticeable . Chairperson Stotz stated there are no adverse impacts . Mr. Smith stated there is nothing significant . Mr. (defer asked if the tree would be removed during construction . Mr. Hinkin stated they will have it looked at before construction . It has lifted up the surrounding are and patio . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 23 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2OOOm7O a ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT = Timoft arra Linda Hinkin, 918 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18-544, November 8, 20004 MOTION made by David Stotz, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board make a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11; Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building With the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, for the reasons stated in the environmental assessment. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer, Sigel. NA YS: NONE. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Mr. Hinkin stated he did everything they were supposed to do regarding notification . They did not try to get this pass the neighbors . They have had a structural engineer and building inspector out to the site . Chairperson Stotz asked how does the applicant envision dealing with the bottom of the house when they put the second story on . Would the addition have cedar shingles ? Mr. Hinkin stated it would be cedar siding . Mr. Ellsworth asked if the tree is removed , would the view of Mr. Pinnisi be increased . Mr. Frost stated this time of year views are increased because leaves off the trees . Mr. Pinnisi should see more light . It would be hard to measure . The tree is higher than the proposed second story . Mr. Ellsworth stated there should be more with the submittal . Mr. Frost stated there would be more light and a better view without the tree . Chairperson Stotz stated it is a 9 foot addition . It is not a huge multi -story building . He does not see it as unreasonable . Other views are not being blocked . Mr. Ellsworth stated he is unable to tell the distance between the 2 houses on the site plan . Mr. Hinkin stated it is about 80 feet away . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 24 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Smith stated if they were to add 9 feet on each house along the lake it would make a different impression form the lake view . Attorney Sarney asked if any part of the addition would be going over any part of the building that over hangs the lake . Mr, Hinkin stated the far west corner would be over the lake . The roof over hangs it now . They have spoken with DEC . The corner is going to have to be re-enforced . It can be done with beams or posts in the lake . Chairperson Stotz asked if they would have to get any approval . Mr. Hinkin stated they would need to get approval from The Department of Environmental Conservation . They would not need to get approval for the beams , but they would for the posts . Mr. Frost stated the Town has flood plane regulations , but going above something existing is not going to impact the flood characteristics . Attorney Sarney asked if the second story in a way that it would comply with side yard setback requirements . Mr. Hinkin stated they are staying within the existing footprint . There is a flat roof on the room to the north . Mr. Sigel stated he finds it objectionable that the addition would be extending over the property line . The board did have a case on Forest Home Drive where they wanted to go over the property line , It was a similar issue of view of Fall Creek . Mr. Frost stated the buildings were about 20 feet apart . Chairperson Stotz stated the blockage of view was considerably greater. The addition is not out of character with that side of the lake . There are many two- story buildings . Mr. Ellsworth stated the lot sizes much smaller. Mr. Sigel stated the board needs to balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment of the character of the neighborhood . The blockage of the view is a detriment the neighbor. Chairperson Stotz stated he does think there would be some blockage of the view . It is a question of how much . He feels it is minimal . Mr. Kiefer stated it is not a water view blockage . RESOLUTION NO. 2000 71 FENLARGE N0PJ-Q0NF0RM1NGBUILDING - Timothy and Linda inks 918 East ore rive Tax Parcel No. 18"544, November 80000 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 25 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board deny the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, requesting approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings: a . That the addition is inconsistent with the neighborhood in that it creates an adverse affect on neighboring buildings from a view standpoint, b. That it involves construction off the property boundary lines. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Krantz, Sigel. NA YS: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer. The motion was defeated. RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 72 - ENLARGE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING - Timothv and Linda Hinkin 918 Fast Shore Drive Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, November 8 2000. MOTION made by David Stotz. seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this board grant the appeal of Timothy and Linda Hinkin , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15, based upon the following findings: a . That while the building does change the character of the neighborhood, the degree to which it is changed is insignificant, b. That while it does block the view of at least one neighbor, the blockage of the view is relatively insignificant, C. The property is built on an existing footprint, and is not enlarged further beyond the footprint, d. The affected adjacent properly is at a higher grade and located at least 66 feet from the property at Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, e. There has been no evidence presented of any monetary decrease in value to the neighboring home due to the proposed construction . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 26 NOVEMBER 8 . 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES: Stotz, Ellsworth, Niefer, NAYS: Krantz, Siegel. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS . Chairperson Stotz asked what is the status on the Eddy Lawsuit . Attorney Barney stated they made a motion to dismiss . It was argued and they are awaiting the decision . It is a technical defense . When they initially served the papers they did not give the return date . They subsequently supplied . They supplied it after the Statue of Limitations period . It might be sufficient to get it dismissed . The judge has discretion to extend the time to serve the notice . Chairperson Stotz stated Mr. Sigel and himself attended the Planning Federation Conference . It was very informative . There was a solid day of Zoning Board of Appeals issues . Mr. Sigel stated he enjoyed seeing what happens at the Planning Board level before it comes to the Zoning Board of Appeals . Chairperson Stotz stated there was a big discussion about special approval and the designation of special approvals of the bodies that can make special approvals . It was discussed if the Town Board retains it for themselves , or if they delegate it to the Planning Board . It was rare that it be at the Zoning Board of Appeals . Attorney Barney stated it always used to be with the Zoning Board of Appeals . Over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a trend moving it to the Planning Board . Mr. Smith stated Mr. Ellsworth , Mr. Sigel and himself attended the SEAR training , The Planning Departments sends a memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals chair when they are an involved agency in a Type I action . It is asking if it is okay that the Planning Board be the lead agency. If there is no response within 30 days , the Planning Board assumes lead agency . Mr. Smith asked if each board member would like to receive the information . It would still need to be one response . Mr. Sigel stated the board receives notice of the Planning Board agenda . It includes notification of SEAR hearings . Attorney Barney stated the notice could be sent to each member. Mr. Frost stated at the December meeting the board would need to set a meeting schedule for 2001 . Does the board want to change the day of the meeting ? Mr. Sigel stated the board could meet the second to last Monday of every month . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PAGE 27 NOVEMBER 8 , 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr . Frost stated they would coordinate a schedule to be discussed at December's meeting . Chairperson Ston adjourned the meeting at 9 : 44 p . m . David Ston , Chairp rso 0 Came L . Whitmore , Deputy Town Clea TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2000 7 : 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Aurora Street Entrance (parking lot side), Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of G .D . Blanpied, Appellant, Margaret C . Hobbie, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 16 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain a parcel of land 13 + acres in area, with a lot width of 31 + feet at the street line and 31 + feet at the maximum front yard setback line, located at Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3 -25 (next to 1586 Slaterville Road), Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of David Axenfeld, Appellant, George Gesslein, Agent, requesting a variance from Article VIII , Section 41 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to .be permitted to conduct a retail business at 618 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -2 .7, Light Industrial District. Said District does not permit a land use of retail businesses . A special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of said Ordinance might also be requested, since the property was originally developed and used for retail businesses. APPEAL of Stan and Maryann Bowman, Appellants, Susan Cosentini, Agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 , Paragraph 6 and Section 12 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to maintain artist studios in an accessory building with a building height of 20 + feet ( 15 foot height limitation) located at 203 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1 - 1 , Residence District R- 15 . Said Ordinance permits artists to maintain professional offices only within the buildings that they reside in and not in accessory structures . APPEAL of Timothy and Linda Hinkin, Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a nonconforming building with the addition of an 884 square foot second story addition at 918 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-5- 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is nonconforming as it extends beyond property lines, with part of the adjacent property being Cayuga Lake, 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 : October 30, 2000 Published : November 3 , 2000 T'ONN" N OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING ANIS 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 oi' public hearings to be held I)v the 'Foi% n of Ithaca Zoning Board of' Appeals in Town Hall , 21 .5 North Tiooa Street, Ithaca , New York on Wednesdav, November g, 2000 , commeneinp, at 7 : 00 P. .N,1 ., as per attached . Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sion Board — 215 North Tioy'a Street. Date of posting: October 31 , 2000 Date of publication: November 3 , 2000 Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Deportment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3rd day of November 2000. Notary Public ' DEBORAH KELLEY Notary Public, State of New York No. Ot KE6025073 Qualified in Schuyler County Commission Expires May 17, 2fi