Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2002-01-28 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE MONDAY, JANUARY 28 , 2002 7 : 00 P . M . APPEAL of Kenneth and Mia Simpson , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to enlarge a non - conforming building with an 816 ± square foot addition , which will encroach into the road right-of-way at 24 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 17-3-28 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non -conforming because it currently is set back 13 . 9 feet from the front yard property line , whereas 25 feet is required . APPEAL ADJOURNED APPEAL of the Best Western University Inn , Appellant , Patrick Doyle , Rapp Signs , Agent , requesting a variance from Section 3 . 01 - 1c of the Town Sign Law to be permitted to place an internally illuminated directional sign at the entrance (west side ) of the Inn , which is located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road and the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62 -2- 13 . 7 , Business District C . Said Sign Law does not allow self- illuminated directional signs . APPEAL DENIED APPEAL of James lacovelli , Appellant/Owner, Edward A Mazza , Esq . Agent , requesting a special permit under Article III , Section 4 ( 2b ) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to occupy a single-family dwelling by six unrelated persons at 249 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 54-6- 1 , Residence District R -9 . The appellant proposes to encumber an adjacent building lot , by keeping it vacant . APPEAL GRANTED FoLCFN DgrE �� . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MONDAY, JANUARY 28 , 2002 7 : 00 PM PRESENT: Kirk Sigel , Chairperson ; Harry Ellsworth , Board Member; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; John Barney , Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner, EXCUSED : David Stotz , Board Member. ALSO PRESENT : Ken Simpson , 24 Renwick Drive ; Ron Rapp , Greene NY ; Ed Mazza , Mazza & Mazza ; James lacovelli , 249 Pennsylvania Ave ; Orlando lacovelli . Chairperson Sigel called the meeting to order at 7 : 04 p . m . The first appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of Kenneth and Mia Simpson , Appellants , requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to enlarge a non - conforming building with an 816 ± square foot addition , which will encroach into the road right-of-way at 24 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No , 17-3-28 , Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non -conforming because it currently is set back 13 . 9 feet from the front yard property line , whereas 25 feet is required . Ken Simpson , 24 Renwick Drive - The proposal is to extend our house . One of the main aims is to get a garage that is functional . It also takes our cars off the road . The cars have to be left up on the road when the snow plow comes past . Several people without garages have to leave their cars there . We were going to build the garage and a family room to mesh in with the house . Then another bedroom on top of the family room . We currently have four people in our family . We will soon have five . We are looking for a bigger house as well without having to move . That is it in a nutshell . Chairperson Sigel - I am a little concerned about the house extending over the property line . It is rather unusual for someone to ask for an addition or for any structure to actually exceed the boundary line . In this case , you are not encroaching on a neighbor, you are encroaching on Town land towards the road . Mr. Ellsworth - Is there some real good reason why that garage cannot be moved back so that you are not sitting up on the walk? Mr. Simpson - It cannot be moved back because if you look at the slope , the whole place is on a slope . To move it back we could not really get a run to come into the garage . We are trying to tie it all into the house . We had numerous people look at reconfiguring the driveway and looking at other options . This seemed to be the best one . We had the architects out to see . We had regraders come to see if they could do something with the existing garage . The actual garage would come into where our hedge is . There is a sidewalk beyond that . It does not encroach on the sidewalk and it does not ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED encroach into the road . It is a very narrow strip of land between our house and the road . The traditional number is 25 feet from the middle of the road . Twenty-five feet from the middle of the road does not work for anyone on our road . Several existing garages are also over that . Our neighbors garage across the road is well within the 25 feet . Mr. Ellsworth - Is that walk a sidewalk? What is it that the corner of your garage will be practically sitting on ? Mr. Simpson - It is a sidewalk . It is a dead end road . It is a non - maintained sidewalk . We have been told if it disintegrates the Town will do nothing about it . Fred Noteboom said that when they were redoing the road . The Town said it did not have any claims on the sidewalk . The sidewalk as far as they were concerned did not exist . We will maintain our sidewalk that we plan to upgrade in front of our house . It is not a huge thoroughfare . It is a dead end road . There' are several garages that come as close to the road . Mr. Krantz - Would it be so difficult to make the garage instead of 34 feet 30 feet ? Mr. Simpson - I just went on the numbers that the architect gave me in terms of what he felt were workable for two cars . We could look at that in planning . Mr. Niefer - Have you determined where the waterline , gasline and sewerline are in regards to the proposed extention of the building ? Mr. Simpson - I know where the gasline is because they just put the new gasline is . The waterline , as far as I believe , comes in further over from it . The sewerline runs backwards down directly from the back of the house . It runs down to the other Renwick Road rather than Renwick Heights . i Mr. Niefer - I did not understand your response to the location of the gasline . Mr. Simpson - The gasline is to the other side of the garage . The garage , to my knowledge , would not go over the gasline . Mr. Niefer - Has the architect or anyone checked to see whether it does or not ? Mr. Simpson - There is a trench there that was dug this summer that is still visible . The architect did not think it would encroach on that . Mr. Niefer - It would appear that your current garage is in the basemen ' . Is that correct ? Mr. Simpson - Yes . Mr. Niefer - It would almost appear that the grade to the proposed garage is less than the grade to the current garage . It would be less of a slope to the proposed garage than the existing garage . Mr. Simpson - That is the whole idea so that we do not have to drive down the hill into the garage . i 2 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Niefer - Someone asked about making it 30 feet versus 34 feet . What has the architect said about having the whole addition set back further so that you do not encroach into the highway? Mr. Simpson - I do not know . They gave us standard garage figures in terms of what they said the size was . Mr. Niefer- My impression is that it is highly unusual to consider encroaching upon the public right-of- way with a property . Mr. Frost - We have properties in the Forest Home area that have been before that board that had similar plots . Mr. Niefer - They have existed prior to the zoning law . Here , we are asking to encroach after the establishment of the zoning law . It is further encroachment of a non -conforming building . Mr. Frost - There have not been many , but we have had some in the Forest Drive area . Mr. Ellsworth - I am going to help you , Ken . I am against this thing unless it moves back or something gets smaller. I sense that several other members of the board are leaning in that direction . I am not for having a garage sitting on a corner of a sidewalk , then having five more people come in here wanting to do the same thing because we passed your situation . Mr. Simpson - Are you familiar with the location of the house ? It is one house down from a dead end . It is not a major thoroughfare at all . Mr. Krantz - Dead ends do no stay dead ends . Mr. Simpson - This one has to . There is no where for it to go apart from into the Cornell Plantations or across a ravine . Unless you had multimillions you could not expand the road . Mr. Niefer - I do not feel favorably condoning a new encroachment into a public right-of-way . Chairperson Sigel - I did not look to the back of your house that much , but it looked like it drops off pretty steeply . Is it the case that you could not shift the addition any further back without starting to go down the steep slope? Mr. Simpson - That is the whole problem . We would go into the slope on the gully or we have a bank on the other side . We asked Mr. Noteboom where they felt we should go extension wise . He told us we would not get permission to go further over the bank . We were told that our only option is to come up this way . We had things looked at and drawn in that light . It is a very steep lot . They have just redone the culvert . We are squeezed in between . We looked at expanding a garage coming in from Renwick Drive and bringing it up that way , but it was not going to work . We would have to bulldoze half the yard to make a driveway to get the grades and things right . This is our only realistic option . I am not sure if we could go a couple of feet back on the garage . This is our only option in terms of where to put it . Otherwise we will be forced to move . 3 i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED i Mr. Ellsworth - How long is a car? The depth of this garage is 18 feet . , Chairperson Sigel - I think that is about minimum of what you need fora car . Mr. Smith - A parking space is 9 . 5 feet by 18 feet . Mr. Ellsworth - There is a 15 foot room behind it that could be 12 feet . Chairperson Sigel - I do not think you could shorten the 18 feet much for a car. The question is would the board be more inclined to approve it if it just abutted the property line . Mr. Niefer - It is a significant addition on the front of the property . We are talking about 13 feet 9 inches . If we are talking about a foot or two that is one thing , but this is really significant . Mr. Frost - One of the things that you could do is ask for an adjournment of this meeting , go back to your architect , express some of the thoughts of this board . I could also help with talking to the architect . Perhaps then you could come back with a modified design without having a decision made tonight . Mr. Simpson - That would be fine . Mr. Noteboom did not have a problem with it . Mr. Niefer - He does not speak for the Zoning Board of Appeals , though . Mr . Simpson - In terms of encroachment on the road , he felt it was consistent with where the other garages were on the road . Mr. Frost - When is your wife expecting ? Mr . Simpson - June . Mr. Frost - If we put this off until next month , you would still have time to get things underway . I think that is your best choice at the moment . It does not sound like they are going to pass anything . I am hearing that they would consider a modified proposal . I have some thoughts that I can express to you after the meeting that may work for you , if that is okay with the board . Chairperson Sigel - That would be okay . Do you think it is appropriate to try and provide some guidance ? It is not fair to send him off to spend more time and money if we are not going to approve anything closer than 13 feet 9 inches . Attorney Barney - Correct . The board cannot really vote on anything without a formal proposal . The board could indicate to the applicant if he came back with a proposal that was no closer than 13 feet 9 inches to the road , whether or not you would consider it . Mr . Frost - The entrance to the garage could be along the lines to whore the drive is now . It would push the garage further back . It may not give him all the space he wants for living space , but it would give him additional space plus a garage . 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - Are any members willing to express an opinion on what you would look more favorably upon as far as a setback? Mr. Ellsworth - Are we looking to move the garage back or shallower by 3 feet? Chairperson Sigel - I am uncomfortable with something coming up and abutting the lot boundary . Mr. Ellsworth - I think we need to give him some guidance on how much we are after to reduce from that corner of the garage . Chairperson Sigel - I would like to see 10 feet from the lot line . The closest edge of the house is currently 13 . 9 feet . Mr. Frost - There is a section of the Ordinance that I forgot about until just now . Section 13 of the Ordinance deals with accessory buildings and garages . It states , "where the average natural slope exceeds 8% rise or fall directly from the street line , a private garage not over one story in height and housing not in excess of two cars may be located in the front or side yard not less than five feet from said street line on approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals " . It would not work tonight , because they have gone passed that line . He could get within five foot of the front yard line and still be in compliance . Chairperson Sigel - That is for an accessory building . Mr. Frost - It does say garage . Section 13 talks about accessory buildings , so it would be detached . It gives you some direction in terms of how close you could get . Mr. Ellsworth - If he detaches it , he could straighten it up so that it does not hang over the property line . Where I 'm sitting is , I do not want to see it over the property line . I cannot give you a dimension because there are no dimensions to work with . Chairperson Sigel - Not over the property line would be a setback of zero feet . The house is currently 13 . 9 feet . Mr. Frost - So he would need to be 13 . 9 feet back from the property line . It would seem that the board is not in favor of granting what is proposed . I am suggesting that you ask for an adjournment and come back with a revised plan . Mr. Simpson - Okay . RESOLUTION 2002-01 Kenneth & Mia Simpson, 24 Renwick Heights Road, Tax Parcel No 17, m 3=28, 7 - 3-28, January 28, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. 5 I I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the appeal of Kenneth and Mia Simpson, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building with an 816 square foot addition, which will encroach into the road right-of- way at 24 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-28, Residence District R- 15, until the applicant requests placement back on the agenda with a revised garage plan . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of the Best Western University Inn , Appellant , Patrick Doyle , ' Rapp Signs , Agent , requesting a variance from Section 3 , 01 - 1c of the Town Sign Law to be permitted to place an internally illuminated directional sign at the entrance (west side ) of the Inn , which is located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road and the East Hill Plaza , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 62-2- 13 . 7 , Business District C . Said Sign Law does not allow self- illuminated directional signs . Mr. Frost - The Sign Law allows a directional sign without a permit to be placed there . They are proposing an internally lit illuminated sign . The Sign Law says that a non - illuminated sign is permitted . Ron Rapp , Rapp Signs , Greene NY - We had this before the Planning Board last month . What we needed to do was come up with a 3-dimentional drawing to show where the sign was going to be . Also , to supply the information about the average lumens that would be emitted from the sign . We sent the information up to the Town of Ithaca to Sue Ritter. I have a ; picture showing the sign in its placements . The average lumens for the sign without the sign face on ; the lighting inside the cabinet would be approximately 8 , 450 lumens . With the sign face on , which is a translucent surface , 20% of it blacked out and the rest is colors going through two layers of translucent material , it is less than 22 . 5 lumens of light being emitted . Chairperson Sigel - That is right at the sign surface ? Mr. Rapp - Yes . Mr. Niefer - The material that has been submitted seems to have a couple of different sign proposals . One seems to be on a post , then the picture that you show us seems to, have the bottom area filled in . Which of the two are you going to be installing ? Mr. Rapp - It is a non - illuminated sheet metal pole covered . Chairperson Sigel - Is the orientation of the sign in the simulated picture incorrect ? 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Rapp - That is the way they are trying to do it because it is from the entrance . They have another sign for traffic that is coming directly at the hotel . We are looking for people who are coming in the one side entrance . Coming down the parking lot , you only see the plaza . You cannot really see anything from the hotel . It is the reason for the sign . Mr. Niefer - This is lighted on both sides? Mr. Rapp - Let me check to make sure . . Mr. Krantz - I think it is only the interior. Mr. Rapp - I am going to say that it is a double face sign . Attorney Barney - Were you at the Planning Board meeting ? Mr. Rapp - Yes . Attorney Barney - My recollection is that the Planning Board had questions about it . I remember the response was that it was one side as people were coming in . Mr. Rapp - That may be possible , but I cannot see in my paperwork where it says that . I would say that it would be . Chairperson Sigel - John , could you comment on whether you think that this meets the criteria of a directional sign ? It seems to me that a large part of it is dedicated to Best Western . You could put up any sign and put " entrance " below it and call it directional . I do not consider this a directional sign . Mr. Frost - There is a section in the Ordinance , which permits identification signs . Attorney Barney - I would say this is a directional sign . It is what its purpose is . They are trying to direct traffic to the hotel . Mr. Ellsworth - Does the size of this meet the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance ? The height is 3 . feet . What is the width ? Mr. Krantz - The width is 2 feet 9 inches . Attorney Barney - The width is 2 . 75 feet in the Planning Board resolution . Chairperson Sigel - I do not know , John . I am still not buying the argument . Attorney Barney - That is why you make the big bucks . Chairperson Sigel - In the case of Burger King , we were fairly strict with Burger King . Those signs are not even in the Burger King colors . A lot of fast food restaurant signs that say entrance and exit 7 II ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED do have the logo . We argued that it was more advertising . Burger King signs are strictly informational . Mr. Frost - Section 303- 1 b of the signs states that the following signs may be placed in a business or g g 9 industrial district without a permit , " at the entrance of each office , public or institutional building , sign including only the name and/or business , or profession of the occupants not to exceed 6 square feet in size " Mr. Ellsworth - This is almost 10 square feet . Chairperson Sigel - Then if it was not illuminated , I do not think that the Ordinance that dictates directional signs provides a lot of . . . Mr. Frost - Directional signs are usually smaller. It is an interesting situation . Mr. Ellsworth - So if they make is 6 square feet , they do not have to be here ? Mr. Frost - The sign is still illuminated . Attorney Barney - The illumination is really what brought it here . Mr. Frost - The beginning of the exempt sign says , " that the following permitted signs not self illuminated " . Then it goes into the entrance and directional signs . Mr . Krantz - It is a shopping mall . It is a hotel . People have a hard time finding it . I do not think that there are going to be any objections to the sign . It is not like it is in the , middle of a residential area . Chairperson Sigel - That is true . I drove around there this afternoon and then before the meeting when it was dark . I could not figure out how much it was going to help . You could see the sign above . The canopy sign is lit pretty well . For some reason they do not have it very well lit right now . There seemed to be one bulb on inside the current sign . It was very, hard to see . If that sign was properly illuminated , then you could see it pretty well . i Mr. Niefer - Unless you were driving from Ellis Hollow Road . Chairperson Sigel - You can see the awning sign at about a 45 degree angle from Ellis Hollow Road . My inclination would be to restrict them . If it is determined that they are do a sign at the entrance , then restrict them to the 6 square feet . Mr. Krantz - It only needs to be illuminated for the people trying to enter; . Mr . Ellsworth - That means that they can get rid of the logo . Mr. Rapp - If you eliminate the logo , it really kind of hurts . The logo is what people recognize as a hotel . 8 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Ellsworth - I would think that they would recognize the name . Mr. Rapp - I think where we have a problem there is that the Best Western Corporate will not allow the use of just " Best Western " in any other fashion other than the logo fashion . They would be restricted to not being able to use it . Mr. Ellsworth - I do not buy that . What bothers me is . . . My favorite project was Burger King . There was not a lot on their sign . It is fairly small . It sets behind the restaurant almost in the parking lot . You are right adjacent to it , with as far as I am concerned , this oversized sign . When there is something that people could see if they look at an angle . I ' m along with Kirk on the reduced size . Attorney Barney - You could keep Best Western in the logo , but shrink it a little . If you got it down to the same height as the word " entrance " , you could probably make it 6 feet . Mr. Rapp - I cannot make any decision on anything like that . I do not manufacture the sign . This is a pre- made sign that is shipped in . I would have to go back and find out if the manufacturer could do that . Chairperson Sigel - I also think that it is the intent of the Ordinance in not allowing self illuminated signs in this instance to try and cut down on the proliferation of the strip affect of seeing all these illuminate signs all over the place . An externally illuminated sign is not as offensive . My inclination would be actually to grant no variance in this case . They would be allowed to put up a 6 square foot , externally illuminated sign of their choosing . That is my opinion . Mr. Ellsworth - Why don 't you make a motion ? It sounds like that is where we are . Mr. Niefer - How would it be if you took skirting out from the bottom of the sign ? That would reduce the total signage from 21 square feet to something fairly close to 6 square feet . The sign as I see it is going to be 7 . 5 feet tall . Chairperson Sigel - It is going to be on a pole . Mr. Niefer - Yeah , but then they are filling in down on the bottom . When you calculate the total size of a sign , don 't you take the extreme measurements from the height to the ground to the . . . Attorney Barney - On this sign , because it is on a pole , we do not include the support . Mr. Niefer - It is not on a pole . It is filled in on the bottom . Attorney Barney - That is not the way it is going to be as I understand . It is going to be just a pole . Am I correct? The photo is not the actual representation . Chairperson Sigel - The last page is incorrect . Mr. Krantz - It says under it that it will be on a pole . 9 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 38 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 39 p . m . Chairperson Sigel - Any further questions or discussion ? Chairperson Sigel - Do we need to do the environmental assessment if we are going to deny the appeal ? Attorney Barney - If you are going to deny , then you can skip the SEQR . RESOLUTION NO 2002-02 - Best Western University, 1020 Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel No. 62. -2- 13. 7, Jan uarV 28, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth . RESOLVED, that this board denies the appeal of Best Western University Inn, requesting a variance from Section 3. 01 - 1c of the Town Sign Law to be permitted to place an internally illuminated directional sign at the entrance (west side) of the Inn, which is located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road and the East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 13. 7, Business District C, based upon the following: a . The applicant has not demonstrated a compelling need for any sign other than what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, which is a 6 square foot externally illuminated sign which could indicate the entrance to the Best Western establishment. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz. NAYS: Niefer. The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Sigel - I ' m sorry , but you have been denied . Mr. Rapp - Will you be giving me a formal letter? Mr . Frost - Probably when the resolutions are done . The third appeal to be heard was as follows : APPEAL of James lacovelli , Appellant/Owner , Edward A Mazza , Esq . Agent , requesting a special permit under Article III , Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to occupy a single-family dwelling by six unrelated persons at 249 Pennsylvania Avenue , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 54 -6- 1 , Residence District R-9 . The appellant proposes to encumber an adjacent building lot , by keeping it vacant . 10 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Ed Mazza , Mazza and Mazza - I submitted , and assume you have , the survey maps . I tried to color code them for you so that you could follow things easier. There is an existing house that Mr. lacovelli owns . The existing house is shown on the survey map in orange . Next to that , is another lot that he owns that is unimproved . That one is in green . I am sure you folks are aware of the history of this area of the Town of Ithaca . There were Ithaca Land Track lots established there before zoning . Those lots became legal lots because they existed before zoning . The lot in orange is actually three of those Ithaca Land Track Lots . Had those lots been unimproved , they would be legal to have a single family dwelling on each lot . The one in green is also an Ithaca Land Track lot . What Mr. lacovelli wants to do , as stated in the beginning , is to have this house occupied by six unrelated persons . This is not a new concept to be brought to this board . It is in the form of a special permit or special approval under Section 77-7 . There are certain factors that the board needs to consider and find prior to granting an approval . This board did this fairly recently , within the last year. Mr. Livitsky came in with his parcel , which was on Kendall Avenue . He was granted a special permit for his property for six unrelated persons . He had two of the Ithaca Land Track lots in his parcel . Mr. lacovelli is planning to do a little more than what Mr. Livitsky offered . Mr. Livitsky did not offer anything and it was approved . Mr. lacovelli would agree to take the green parcel and put a restrictive covenants on that would prohibit him from building without the town 's approval . Now he has the right to do so . He could build on that lot and have three persons in that building and three persons in the existing building . What he is planning to do is have all those exist in the current structure . Thereby , keeping more open space in this area . In Mr. Livitsky's matter, all those factors were considered . I think that a similar finding can be made for this parcel . Mr. Krantz - The house currently has five bedrooms and five persons ? James lacovelli - Yes . Mr. Mazza - We would like to have six . Mr. Krantz - In the five bedrooms ? Mr. lacovelli - We are going to add onto it a little at another time . Mr. Mazza - In doing so , he would have to meet all building codes and whatever else he would need to do . Chairperson Sigel - For the immediate use , it would remain five unrelated ? Mr. Mazza - We would like to have approval for six so he would not have to come back . If the building codes would only allow for five now , we would like to have the permit to be allowed six when the building codes allow him to have six in there . 11 i i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Chairperson Sigel - What kind of a restriction are you proposing for the vacant lot ? Mr. Mazza - It is a restrictive covenants that would be filed in the Clerk's office in the real estate records . It would prohibit any future development without the Town 's approval . John and I have been through that before on other parcels . I think that we have come up with the language before . Chairperson Sigel - John , would that restrict any future owner as well ? Attorney Barney - Right . Chairperson Sigel - Who would need to approve that ? Would that be the Town Board or this board ? Attorney Barney - I think it has been done as a condition of the grantirig of a variance . It is approved by the Attorney for the Town . Chairperson Sigel - Then to undo it , would it come back to this board ? Attorney Barney - It would have to come back to the Town Board . They would be the only people with the authority to remove it . i Mr. Ellsworth - I want to hear how the Attorney for the Town is leaning on this . Is this all legal because of the previous land grant situation ? Attorney Barney - It goes back to 1898 . Mr . Ellsworth - There has already been at least one other of these passed . i Mr. Mazza - There have been several of them . I did the first one 25 years ago . Sometimes it has been for new construction and sometimes it is for existing homes . i Mr . Ellsworth - How generous is this lot ? I see a couple three dimensions . I know it is a huge lot . Mr. Mazza - The orange one is 0 . 53 acres . The green one is 0 . 401 acres . Together they are close to an acre . Mr. Frost - From time to time we do have complaints . Mr. lacovelli is very responsive to complaints when we have had problems . Chairperson Sigel - Any questions ? Mr. Niefer- I am going to recuse myself from voting on this matter, knowing the parties involved . Mr. Krantz - I think that six people living on almost acre seems reasonable enough . I Attorney Barney - Is there any reason why the parcel could not be consolidated to one ? 12 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED Mr. Mazza - Into one tax parcel ? Chairperson Sigel - It would seem a bit more permanent . Attorney Barney - It is a benefit because the taxes should go down . It also means that any future subdivision would have to come before the Planning Board for subdivision approval . I would prefer that the restrictive covenant cover the whole piece . Basically there is not going to be more than six on the two lots as so combined . Mr. Ellsworth - I am not sure that the board has any choice . As Mr. Mazza has pointed out , there is legal precedence that has been passed . Attorney Barney - I am not going to argue whether you have a choice or not . Each case you take on the individual merits as to whether they meet the requirements of Section 77-7 and the requirements of Town Law relative to the granting of area variances . It is your call each time . Mr. Mazza - Mr. Livitsky's property is in the same neighborhood . Chairperson Sigel - Do you have a strong opinion one way or another on combining from the Town 's point of view? Attorney Barney - I think it is an appropriate provision if you choose to grant the variance . You are basically saying that you are permitting six people on these two lots as combined . Chairperson Sigel - You have indicated that it is acceptable to combine the lots ? Mr. lacovelli - Yes . Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing at 7 : 53 p . m . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the public hearing at 7 : 54 p . m . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT : Mr. Smith - We were concerned about the parking for the potentially six vehicles on the property without any visitors . The parking now could hold four, possibly five vehicles . Any visitors and the sixth person would be parking on the street . Mr. Ellsworth - They have to come back to build for the sixth person . Chairperson Sigel - Is it your plan to make sure that there is off street parking . Mr. lacovelli - We always provide off street parking . It is not a problem . We have plenty of land there . Mr. Ellsworth - We could make it a condition . 13 i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2002-03 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: James lacovelli, 249 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54. -6- 1 , January 28, 2002. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by Ronald Krantz. RESOLVED, that this board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the matter of James lacovelli, requesting a special permit under Article 111, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy a single-family dwelling by six unrelated persons at 249 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -6- 111, Residence District R-9. The appellant proposes to encumber an adjacent building lot, by keeping it vacant. This motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment completed by Town Staff dated January 17, 2002. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Niefer. The motion was declared to be carried. RESOLUTION NO 2002-04 - James lacovelli, 249 Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 54. =6- 1 , January 28, 2002. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this board grants the appeal in the matter of Jamesl', lacovelli, requesting a special permit under Article 111, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy asingle- family dwelling by six unrelated persons at 249 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-6- 1 , Residence District R-9, based upon the following: Finding: a . The conditions of Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 7, Subparagraphs a -h have been met. Conditions: a . The adjacent parcel, tax parcel number 54 -6-3, be consolidated with tax parcel number 54 -6- 1 . b. The combined single lot is allowed occupancy of no greater than 'six unrelated persons. c. The declaration of Restrictive Covenant, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, be recorded immortalizing that restriction . ' d. At such time as the premises are occupied by six persons that parking spaces for at least six cars off the street be provided on the premises. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz. 14 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 28 , 2002 MINUTES APPROVED NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Niefer. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS : Mr. Kanter and Mr. Smith gave the board a brief presentation regarding the new Zoning Ordinance . A short discussion followed . Chairperson Sigel adjourned the meeting at 7 : 58 p . m . Kirk Sigel , Chairperson I Carrie Whitmore , Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes 15 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002 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 Monday, January 28, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, N.Y. , COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M . , on the following matters: APPEAL of Kenneth and Mia Simpson, Appellants, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca to be permitted to enlarge a non-conforming building with an 816 ± square foot addition, which will encroach into the road right-of-way at 24 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3 -28, Residence District R- 15 . Said building is non- conforming because it currently is set back 13 . 9 feet from the front yard property line, whereas 25 feet is required. APPEAL of the Best Western University Inn, Appellant, Patrick Doyle, Rapp Signs, Agent, requesting a variance from Section 3 .01 - 1c of the Town Sign Law to be permitted to place an internally illuminated directional sign at the entrance (west side) of the Inn, which is located at 1020 Ellis Hollow Road and the East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-243 . 7, Business District C. Said Sign Law does not allow self-illuminated directional signs. APPEAL of James lacovelli, Appel] ant/Owner, Edward A Mazza, Esq . Agent, requesting a special permit. under Article III, Section 4 (2b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to occupy a single-family dwelling by six unrelated persons at 249 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-64 , Residence District R-9. The appellant proposes to encumber an adjacent building lot, by keeping it vacant. 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 : January 17 , 2002 Published : January 23 , 2002 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I , Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, Tompkins County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal . Notice of public hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca , New York on Monday. January 28, 2002 , commencing at 7 : 00 P. M ., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street . Date of posting: January 18, 2002 Date of publication: January 23, 2002 (tit :)aDa C' Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning Departnhent Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 18th day of January 2002 . YP ( Il . Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No , 01 WH6052877 Tioga County /� Commission Expires December 26CL