Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 2002-12-16 FILE DATE � � % L .._.... TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2002 100 P.M. APPEAL of Tee-Ann Hunter, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an outside wood deck on a non-conforming building/lot located at 107 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4- 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said parcel is non-conforming since it does not front on a Town, County, or State highway, with said building being located 1. 9 feet from the front property line, whereas a 25 foot building setback is required. A variance from Article N, Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, may also be requested. APPROVED APPEAL of Rolf Pendall, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a single-family residence on a non-conforming lot, with the addition of a second dwelling unit, at 29 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 17-3-4, Residence District R- 15 . Said parcel has an existing road frontage of 26 ± feet, whereas 60 feet is required. APPROVED APPEAL of Larry Snyder, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 (6) to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height of 39 + feet (36 foot limitation) at 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 56-3- 13 .27, Residence District R- 15 , APPROVED APPEAL of Robert MacLeod, Appellant/Owner, William Chaploney, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non-conforming building/lot, with the extension of an outside wood deck, located at 981 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-30, Residence District R- 15 . A variance from Article IV, Section 11 (6) may also be requested to allow an overall building height to exceed 36 ± feet. Said building lot does not conform with the requirements for property dimensions, and the existing building has a north side yard setback of 2 to 5 feet ( 15 feet required) . DENIED APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2002 FILE 7 : 00 P. M . DATE Z � PRESENT: Kirk Sigel , Chairman ; Harry Ellsworth , Vice-Chairman ; Ronald Krantz , Board Member; James Niefer, Board Member; Andrew Dixon , Board Member; Andy Frost , Director of Building/Zoning ; David Dubow, Acting Attorney for the Town ; Mike Smith , Environmental Planner, ALSO PRESENT: Tee-Ann Hunter, 107 HillCrest Drive ; Rolf Pendall , 29 Renwick Heights Road ; Larry Snyder, Veteran Hill Road , Horseheads ; Robert & Evalyn MacLeod , 224 Eagle Estate Drive , Debary , Florida Chairperson Sigel called the December 18 , 2002 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7 : 04 p . m . Chairperson Sigel — Tonight we have four appeals : that of Tee-Ann Hunter, that of Rolf Pendall , that of Larry Snyder, and that of Robert MacLeod . We ' ll take them in that order. APPEAL : Tee-Ann Hunter, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an outside wood deck on a non-conforming building/lot located at 107 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4-14, Residence District R-15. Said parcel is non-conforming since it does not front on a Town , County, or State highway, with said building being located 19 feet from the front property line, whereas a 25 foot building setback is required . A variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, may also be requested . Tee-Ann Hunter, 107 Hillcrest Drive- I had a deck attached to the back of my house when I purchased it . It was rotting and needed to be replaced and in designing a possible replacement , I - the deck was only six feet wide and I moved it out to eight feet wide and had it wrap around the house so that it could attach to a back door and the back stoop . It's a larger footprint now, it's a non -conforming lot . Apparently , when I applied for this building permit , in researching the application , they discovered that in the past , somehow, permission had been given to build an addition closer to the property line than is allowed . Is that the deal Andy? Mr. Frost — Essentially, it' s a non -conforming property. Hillcrest Dive is not a town , county or state highway so therefore it has no front yard . If it was a Town Road then it would appear that it is too close to the road . Ms . Hunter — So are you recommending that I get some sort of variance for that at this time ? Mr. Frost - No , I think my gut sense it that , under Article XII , Section 54 , this should be sufficient . Did you mention that there was an addition made to the house at some point? 1 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Ms . Hunter — I think there was a lot done to the house over the years since it' s been there . It' s got an apartment . I don 't know if it used to be a garage or something other than what it is now . But that is apparently too close , right? Mr. Frost — It was clearly before my time with the Town , but it does appear that the apartment is in an area that was the garage . I think there was some record where there was an approval to convert the garage into an apartment . Chairperson Sigel — Are you aware , Andy, of an area variance granted ? It looks like the apartment is shown as 12 . 2 feet from the property line . Mr. Frost — I ' m not aware of one . Ms . Hunter — Oh , next to Doria . Doria was very aware of how many feet I was from her property line so maybe something was done at some point with regard to that . Chairperson Sigel — We could just grant a special approval , do the deck and not touch any of the other issues which may or may not already have variances granted . Mr. Frost — I would recommend that and that way you are not kind of committing yourself to keeping something that we may later find out is illegal . It's non -conforming , but it could be either legally non - conforming or not legally non -conforming . Ms . Hunter — As a property owner, how do I go about finding out if it is illegal . Mr. Frost — If information comes up somewhere in the process and it indicates whether there were approvals or there weren 't . Ms . Hunter — Well , say I want to self it? Mr. Frost — Since you just bought it , obviously the former owners managed to sell it . What I ' m suggesting to the Zoning Board , Tee-Ann , is that if they were to give you the approval for the deck without committing to anything else based on information that we don 't have . Ms . Hunter — And if I wanted to clear it up so that there was a question of whether or not there was anything illegal , how would I proceed to do that? Mr. Frost — We would need to talk about that. I think that the bottom line is though , that you ' re not on a town , county or state highway so that your property is always going to be non-conforming . Ms . Hunter — I guess you ' re using non-conforming and legal as though they are opposites of one another? Chairperson Sigel — No , you can be legally non -conforming . I think what Andy is saying is that this Board may not want to grant variances for things that may already have been granted in the past and we are not sure about . For instance , the apartment appears to be too close to the lot line , that may 2 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 just have a variance already and it wouldn 't be appropriate for us to grant another one and also for the front yard setbacks . If you were to find that there was no variance granted , then you could come back to the Board and request a variance . Mr. Frost - Basically , Tee-Ann , the apartment has a setback of 12 foot to the property line . If and when that apartment was actually being used as a garage , only ten foot was required . When the apartment was converted then the setback would have had to be 15 foot , whether that was allowed or by mistake of some former building inspector I don 't know. There may be a variance for it . Mr. Ellsworth — (Comments not audible) Mr. Frost — Well , usually the buyer or the buyer's attorney requests a Certificate of Occupancy from the Town upon sale and they would do research and perhaps uncover something . In this case , I don 't think you had a certificate of occupancy from the Town . Ms . Hunter — A Certificate of Occupancy for the house or the apartment? Mr. Frost — For the property when you bought it . Ms . Hunter — Well , I think I did , but maybe I didn 't . I don 't know. Mr. Frost — Your lawyer would have requested it . Ms . Hunter — One would hope so . Mr. Frost — I would say that it's not uncommon for property transfers without a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Dixon — They' re kind of happy with just the title search . Chairperson Sigel — Any questions? Ms . Hunter — Well , I have questions . Just one question . So say, I sell it and say upon the sale of this , Andy, someone requires the Certificate of Occupancy? What's going to happen ? Mr. Frost — I can 't really answer that question . Presuming we don 't find any problems , we'd issue the Certificate of Occupancy . Ms . Hunter — Well , how can I engage the Town to perform that search for me . Mr. Frost — I ' m not sure that this is the forum for that discussion . Perhaps we could talk about it tomorrow. Ms . Hunter —Alright . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , any comments? 3 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. Smith — Nothing to add . Just that the deck is extending out over existing lawn area and it's pretty well screened . Chairperson Sigel — So , none of the deck is encroaching on any setbacks? Mr. Smith — No . Mr. Frost — It' s really quite simple , the property doesn 't conform with some of the Town rules . She wants to enlarge the deck. It's a rather benign improvement , but the process is to go before the Zoning Board . Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 14 pm . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 15 pm . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to move on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002-080: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Tee-Ann Hunter, 107 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26=4- 14, Residence District R- 15. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Tee-Ann Hunter, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an outside wood deck on a non- conforming building/lot located at 107 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4- 14, Residence District R- 15. Said parcel is non-conforming since it does not front on a Town, County, or State highway, with said building being located no less than 19 feet from the front property line, whereas a 25 foot building setback is required. This motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form signed by Tee-Ann Hunter on November 14, 2002 and by town staff on December 512002a The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to make a motion on the appeal ? 4 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002-081 : Tee Ann Hunter, 107 Hillcrest Road, Tax Parcel No.26=4- 14, Residence District R-30. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Tee-Ann Hunter, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article X11, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an outside wood deck on a non-conforming building/lot located at 107 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4- 14, Residence District R- 15. Said parcel is non-conforming since it does not front on a Town, County, or State highway, with said building being located no less than 19 feet from the front property line, whereas a 25 foot building setback is required. FINDINGS: a . The conditions of Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 7, Subparagraphs a-h have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . The deck must be designed as shown on the submitted diagram. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Rolf Pendall , Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a single-family residence on a non- conforming lot, with the addition of a second dwelling unit, at 29 Renwick Heights Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 17-34, Residence District R-15 . Said parcel has an existing road frontage of 26 + feet, whereas 60 feet is required . Rolf Pendall , 29 Renwick Heights Road — We have an existing single family house at 29 Renwick Heights Road and we are proposing to separate that large single family house into a second unit as well as the principle dwelling unit . We ' re not proposing any enlargement of the existing unit , but rather to finish out the upper floors of the addition of that existing unit . There is no proposal to increase the building footprint . When we purchased the house , those upper stories were unfinished and the access into one of the rooms is not entirely conforming with code . Andy told us that when we moved in and he let us know that he wouldn 't give permission for us to occupy that room for anything except storage purposes until we addressed the landing that is just outside the door there . So we have , since then , not been using 5 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 that room and now we want to finish out the rest of the unit , but we've been informed by various appraisers and we know ourselves that if we finish the entire dwelling as a single family unit it's sort of a white elephant in that particular market . And furthermore , we don 't need that much space and we need the rental income from the second unit to complete the renovations to complete the second story. So , essentially, the proposal is to convert the existing large single family unit into two single family units without any addition of building footprint area . From what I understand the lot is conforming in every way except that it is 32 or 34 feet short on that cul-de-sac frontage , I ' m not sure how you count exactly how much frontage we really have . Mr. Frost — In terms of the frontage question , on the cul-de-sac , if you draw a straight line between the two points , the survey points in the front , it would be different than if you followed the circle . Mr. Krantz — Which is the correct way? Mr. Dubow — We took a quick look and actually the zoning laws seem to be silent on that , so I ' m not quite sure what the intention of the original zoning ordinance might have been . In this case , either way there 's a shortfall so I think the issue can probably be avoided in terms of that information , but it's one that we talked about and will clarify in the new zoning ordinance . Mr. Pendall — I ' d also like to clarify that apparently in my cover letter I said it was a three foot shortage in the front . I apologize for that mistake , I could go into the explanation , but I just want to say that it's an error and I realize that it' s much more than three feet that we ' re short . Chairperson Sigel — Andy , are you more familiar with the Pendall 's plans for conversion than just what we have in our packets? Mr. Frost — In terms of the actual building ? Absolutely. I 've been involved with some questions with the State regarding potential variances . I think with regard to any of the actual building and proposed modifications , it's going to be feasible , it's just a matter of cost . Chairperson Sigel — And you ' re reasonably comfortably that he 's going to end up with something that is going to be legal from a codes point of view. Mr. Frost — Well , he couldn 't do it without the permit . Chairperson Sigel — But the building ? Mr. Frost — Yes . After whatever needs to be done . Chairperson Sigel — Personally, I don 't have a problem with allowing two dwelling units on this lot , it seems perfectly reasonable . We don 't have a lot of information about exactly what he ' s doing . Mr. Frost — Well , he's not changing the footprint . Chairperson Sigel — Right . 6 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 Mr. Frost — There ' re some issues about on the second floor, when you step out of the door, basically , you ' re taking a step into the stairwell . So from a code stand point , that' s not real good . There' s the need to create proper fire separations between the existing house and the newer addition . The way the lines of the house are situated , it gets a little complicated and that's where we worked out the fire safety code . In some situations it' s going to be difficult to get proper fire separation the way the walls are , but there are ways to mitigate that through smoke alarms . I ' m confident that can be resolved . It's a very interesting house , I 've got to say. It' s somewhat of an odd house . Chairperson Sigel — Does each unit have an entrance from the outside ? Mr. Pendall — Yes . Mr. Niefer — Do you have a professional architect assisting you in this? Mr. Pendall — Yes we do . We 've been working with Claudia Brenner. Mr. Krantz — This may not be a particularly pertinent question to ask, but why are no taxes being paid on this property . Mr. Pendall — I ' m sorry? Mr. Frost — What Mr. Krantz may be referring to is we provide a tax assessment form . Mr. Krantz — 2002 Town and County taxes $ 139 and School taxes nothing . Mr. Pendall — That) s not correct . The house is assessed right now at , well I don 't know enough to tell you that , but- this is a one person empire zone . Mr. Frost — That' s definitely off because on the first page the total assessment is $ 125 thousand . Mr. Pendall — Believe me , we pay property taxes . Mr. Krantz — I was wondering if you could tell us of a way we could do that , too . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , any comments on the Environmental Assessment? Mr. Smith — Nothing to add . Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 26 pm . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 27 pm . Mr. Frost — I will just comment that the parcel is well over 15 , 000 square foot in area . These building setbacks are more than adequate . The only deficiency here is just the way it lays on the cul-de-sac . Chairperson Sigel — It seems like this is similar to Tee-Ann ' s situation in which we' re not granting a variance for the reduced frontage . 7 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 Mr. Frost — I didn 't advertise that . Even if at some point , he wanted a variance , since this is a Town Road , that's the difference between his and Tee-Ann ' s . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairperson Sigel — If there are no other questions , would someone like to move the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002=082: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Rolf Pendall. 29 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-34, Residence District R- 15. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Rolf Pendall, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a single-family residence on a non-conforming lot, with the addition of a second dwelling unit, at 29 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 17-3-4, Residence District R- 15. Said parcel has an existing road frontage of 26 feet, whereas 60 feet is required. This motion is based on the Environmental Assessment Form, signed by Rolf Pendall on November 9, 2002 and town staff on December 5, 2002. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002-083: Rolf Pendall, 29 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-4, Residence District R- 15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Andrew Dixon. RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Rolf Pendall, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a single- family residence on a non-conforming lot, with the addition of a second dwelling unit, at 29 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 17-3-4, Residence District R- 15. Said parcel has an existing road frontage of 26 ± feet, whereas 60 feet is required. FINDINGS: 8 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 a . The conditions of Article XIV, Section 77, Subsection 7, Subparagraphs a -h have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . The exiting footprint of the house is not to change; all modification are to be made within its perimeters. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Larry Snyder, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 (6) to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height of 39 + feet (36 foot limitation) at 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3- 13 .27, Residence District R-15 . Larry Snyder, 886 Veteran Hill Road , Horseheads - Good evening . While in the process of building this house , we noticed the grade in this corner of the house dropped considerably so in the process of excavation , we dug deeper —eight feet , to get into virgin earth basically and to provide proper drainage for the perimeter drain on the house . It was an honest mistake on my part , I was assuming the 36 feet height was an average from the front profile of the house . So , in the process of setting footers and pouring foundation walls , we looked around the neighborhood and noticed several other grade level doors coming out of basements so we basically did a field decision to put a grade level door on since it provides better fire egress . You can get in and out of the basement quite easily and I didn 't give it much thought until I had my inspection and she brought to my attention that the total height of the building went from the lowest point , which in this case is in the rear. Chairperson Sigel — We do get requests like this somewhat regularly . It seems reasonable . Mr. Niefer — We regularly grant these , generally speaking , because of the topography all around the take and the hillsides . Mr. Ellsworth — I agree . Both the request and the explanation seem utterly reasonable . Mr. Dixon — Cute house . Mr. Snyder — Thank you . In the future I should apply for one of these as I ' m getting the permit , I would imagine . I 've got other lots in there that have the exact same situation . 9 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 Mr. Frost — Yes . Depending on how you dig , you might not necessarily need the variance . Mr. Snyder — We could have opted not to put the door in and just raised the grid , but in my experience as a builder, if I can get a grade level door out of a basement , I will usually do it because it provides an easy way to get the furnace and utilities in and out . If you do have a fire , you can walk out the basement instead of going upstairs into the house . Chairperson Sigel — That' s definitely a desirable feature . Mr. Frost — There was no door proposed on the original plan and we did note on the building permit when we issued it that if they made any changes , they would have to be approved . Mr. Snyder has been easy to work with and conscientious in following everything so we ' re not very upset by what' s happened here . Chairperson Sigel — Mike , any comments ? Mr. Smith — Nothing , except it appears as a two story from the road . All the other houses in the area are large , two story houses and they appear the same . Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 7 : 33 pm . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 34 pm . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Chairperson Sigel — Would someone like to make a motion on the Environmental Assessment? ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002-084: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Larry Snyder, 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3- 13.27, Residence District R45. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth. RESOLVED, that this Board makes a negative determination of environmental significance in the appeal of Larry Snyder, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 (6) to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height of no more than 39 feet (36 foot limitation) at 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3- 13.27, Residence District R- 15. This motion is based upon the Environmental Assessment Form signed by Larry Snyder on November 25, 2002 and by town staff on December 5,2002. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 10 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002=085 & Larry Snyder, 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56- 3- 13.27, Residence District R- 15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Ronald Krantz RESOLVED, that this Board grants the appeal of Larry Snyder, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 (6) to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height of no more than 39 feet (36 foot limitation) at 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-3- 13.27, Residence District R- 15. FINDINGS: a . The requirements for an area variance have been satisfied. CONDITIONS: a . The house be constructed according to the plans and drawings submitted to this Board as well as the plans submitted to Mr. Frost's office, with the exception of the basement door being added. The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Ellsworth, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon NAYS: None The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. APPEAL : Robert MacLeod , Appellant/Owner, William Chaploney, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non-conforming building/lot, with the extension of an outside wood deck, located at 981 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-30, Residence District R-15 . A variance from Article IV, Section 11 (6) may also be requested to allow an overall building height to exceed 36 ± feet. Said building lot does not conform with the requirements for property dimensions, and the existing building has a north side yard setback of 2 to 5 feet (15 feet required). Robert MacLeod , 224 Eagle Estate Drive , Debary, Florida — We purchased the house in August of 2001 . We ' d like to get approval to extend the existing deck by about 16 by 15 feet on an angled basis so that we enhance the setbacks , we don 't get any closer to the North neighbor than we currently are . 11 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 The purpose is to get a better view of the lake and get away from some of those trees that are on our left hand side that aren 't really ours to deal with . Chairperson Sigel — Andy , I assume that it is your opinion that the extension of the deck would not require an area variance ? Mr. Frost — They' re not getting any closer. The property is clearly non-conforming . Even by the addition , they' re still deficient- it's no more deficient than what's already there , but they' re not decreasing the deficiency. I guess my gut feeling is that it may not be necessary, but that' s maybe a question for our astute attorney sitting here . Chairperson Sigel — It is the case that normally when a variance is granted , it is for a particular piece of construction that's creating the deficiency . You can 't just sort of fill in your entire yard up to that point . Mr. Frost — With the exception that on occasion , and we've done this not too long ago with this Board , somebody changes the property line . Now the building doesn 't change , but the property line does and the property line creates now a deficiency. We've given variances for that , even though there is no building . Chairperson Sigel — True , but even in that case we would have usually specified that the variances are for existing conditions . Mr. MacLeod — We have a C . O . for this property dated 2001 . All those previous conditions existed at that time . Mr. Frost — I ' m not questioning the legality of the existing condition , I 'm just wondering whether, by allowing you to kind of build new and kind of still create the deficiency , I think the special approval authorizes you to do that without the need for a variance . Because in the same regard , your lot width is deficient and there' s nothing you can do about that . Chairperson Sigel — True . Mr. Niefer — Where ) s the part of this proposal , the 36 foot issue , where does that come up ? On the existing building ? The deck or what? Mr. Frost — Since the deck is attached to the house , the Board has always looked at any attached decks as being part of the house , in particular where the deck is more than three feet off the ground 's surface . So , by now stepping down with new construction , theoretically now you are increasing the height of the building because the building is measured by the lowest point of the building to the highest point of the roof . As you terrace down hill with a new deck you are now lowering the lowest level . Mr. Niefer — You ' re measuring to the peak of the house ? 12 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 Mr. Frost — Yes . So now the house is growing even though you are just putting a deck down hill . I lay in bed and I dream about these things . It puts me to sleep . In a sense , if you grant the approval , you ' re kind of creating a height problem , unless you grant a variance for the height . Chairperson Sigel — Do you have any idea what the height of the building would be ? Mr. Frost — No , actually I talked with Mr. MacLeod about that . You were in Florida . Mr. MacLeod — It's a standard two story house with low ceilings . The posts are going to go down 15 feet . Mr. Frost — Without proper elevation sketch , the height' s going to vary. Chairperson Sigel — As I recall , the back of the house , the grade is about even with the first floor. Mr. MacLeod — The grade is , we' re going down floors . Chairperson Sigel — But at the back of the house , not counting the existing deck right now, the back of the house where the grade meets . Is that about even with the floor, on that first floor? Mr. MacLeod — That's actually the basement . Chairperson Sigel — The deck is even with the first floor. Mr. MacLeod — Yes . Chairperson Sigel — You can walk under the deck. Mr. Frost — Besides the picture I passed around , there is a picture with the application . That's the view looking north , going up the lake ? Chairperson Sigel — Presently , the house could even be close to 36? Mr. Frost — Depending on the slope , as he terraces down hill with the deck . Chairperson Sigel — Comments? Questions? Mr. Ellsworth — I ' m surprised we haven 't had something like this before . Mr. Frost — In most of those cases , Harry , we've had , the houses we looked at on the west side of the lake , they were all building . Chairperson Sigel — What 's the rear yard setback? Mr. Frost — 30 foot . From the back of the structure that' s part of the house to the lot line . I think that he ' s got plenty of setback. 13 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. Niefer — So this 36 feet is going to do it? Mr. Frost — I can 't answer that question , I don 't know . Mr. MacLeod — From the top of the house to the bottom of the footer, you ' re well over 36 feet. Chairperson Sigel — I ' m not so sure about the rear yard setback , maybe I ' m not reading this right , from the survey , the distance between two pipes , that' s 41 feet and one pipe is in the middle of the current deck. You ' d subtract something like maybe 25 feet from 41 and you 've got about 16 or 15 foot setback from the rear. Mr. Frost — If you ' re looking on the survey map , you 've got the deck that encroaches the property line where the pipes are shown and then you 've got a deck that' s pretty much next to the house , then this addition is kind of a parallelogram closer to the house . Measuring straight out would be measuring down hili . Chairperson Sigel — Well , my opinion is that it struck me as the deck extension getting awfully close to the water and creating a somewhat imposing deck structure out over what is becoming lower and lower ground on a property that is pretty narrow and already has a lot of deck on it . Personally, I ' m not too inclined toward this application . I feel that creating more deck deep in the lot , close to the water, would infringe even more on the rear yard setback . Mr. MacLeod — Do you realize that if you follow those steps down , there are intermediate levels , and you go on down . I mean there is a ton of stuff down there . Chairperson Sigel — I realize that . Mr. MacLeod — It' s all been approved by the Core of Engineers and everybody else . Chairperson Sigel — My reason is just because you have a lot of deck on a non-conforming lot, doesn 't mean you should have even more deck approved . Mr. Frost —If I may add a couple of things . I was a little uncomfortable when I saw the application and I had several telephone conversations with the owner in Florida . When you mention things were approved by the Core of Engineers , was that work that you did where you had obtained applications ? Mr. MacLeod - No , Lucente did all that . Mr. Frost — Do you have copies of the Core of Engineer' s documentation ? Mr. MacLeod — Yes . Mr. Frost — Normally , the Core of Engineers is going to deal with anything that goes in the high water mark out to the lake , which is really not what the Town is regulating , they' re regulating to the high 14 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 water line . So , while you pose some argument that the Core of Engineers approved that , that has nothing to do with what the Zoning Board ' s action is tonight . Mr. Ellsworth — I know what you ' re saying , but all these decks , they' re sort of like terraces . If they weren 't there , there ' d just be what —mud , gravel ? Mr. Frost — Probably bedrock . Chairperson Sigel — There 's a bank there that did have vegetation . It's been cleared I think in preparation for this deck. Mr. Ellsworth — (comments not audible) Mr. MacLeod — We intentionally angled this thing parallel . Mr. Niefer — What' s the distance from the east end of the deck to the property line at water' s edge ? I don 't see anything specifically on this sketch . What is the deck size? Is one dimension 16 feet or 15 feet? Mr. MacLeod — 15 by 16 . Mr. Niefer — By 16 is the other one? Chairperson Sigel — There 's a "41 " there right next to deck . That I believe is the distance from the pipe found to the pipe at the water's edge . So if that's 41 , you can kind of estimate what fraction of that distance the deck is going to stick out . Mr. MacLeod — So you ' re looking at about 25 feet set back , I guess . Chairperson Sigel — It looks to me , clearly more than half that distance . Mr. Niefer — This is R- 15 ? Isn 't the back lot line 15 feet. Mr. Frost — 30 foot . Mr. Niefer — 30 ? For R- 15 ? Mr. Frost — Yes . Side lots are generally 15 . Mr. Niefer — Oh , 30 , you ' re right . Mr. Frost — You could shorten the deck and not go that much in the easterly direction , but he 's here because the claim is that he wants to get a better view of the lake . So he 's balancing that on the setback problem . Could you make the deck shorter, where you ' re not encroaching on that lot line to the lakeside there? 15 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. MacLeod — How many feet are we talking about? Mr. Frost — Well , again without any scaled map or survey , it sounds like we ' re looking at a 25 foot set back where you need 30 foot . Chairperson Sigel — No , I think it' s 20 at the most from the current drawings — 15 to 20 feet . Mr. Frost — So , you ' re looking at a six foot addition , perhaps , rather than a 16 foot addition . Mr. MacLeod — Somebody doesn 't want us to have this deck extension . Mr. Niefer — How does this setback compare with the other properties along the lake right there . What about the two or three properties to the north and the two or three properties to the south ? Do you have any idea how this setback compares with the other properties along there for decks on houses or the houses themselves? Mr. MacLeod — There's houses along that lake that have decks right on the water. Mr. Niefer — Attached to the house? Mr. MacLeod — No , not attached to the house , but attached to docks that are attached to the house . Mr. Niefer — I ' m talking about decks that are attached to houses . The decks out to the property line at water's edge . Mr. MacLeod — They' re almost all attached by means of either decks or stairwells or transitions or whatever. Mr. Frost —1 think it is true that you ' re normally going to see some bit of stairs going , at some point , down over the edge to the lake . I think you want to be careful though , by way of the variance , there's always a question of setting precedence , but we ' re talking about an individual lot here . What other neighbors may have , depending on the circumstances and when their house was built , if there are appeals that have already been made to the Board . I think you want to be careful about how closely you look at what other people may have and concentrate on this particular parcel . Mr. Niefer — But I hope that my question was obvious . Is what is proposed here and the distance from the deck to the water's edge or the water line inconsistent with what is found north and south ? Chairperson Sigel — The property I think two houses to the south , it appeared when I was there , the whole house was actually considerably closer to the water. I think maybe they have a deck. The house two to the south , do they have a deck in the back? The house is quite a bit closer? Mr. MacLeod — Correct . Chairperson Sigel — They have a small deck , which is probably considerably closer to the water line . 16 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. Frost — But you have to consider when those were built . If they were prior to the Zoning Ordinance . There are a lot of different particulars that go with each parcel . Chairperson Sigel — I ' m not saying that that is a reason to approved it , but close by there is a house that' s closer. Mr. Dixon — We don 't really have a good feel for the dimensions on this . How far off it is on the height and how far off it is on the rear setback . So it would be advisable to table this until we know what those are . Mr. Frost — I wonder if it wouldn 't be fair to the applicant for him to get some better sense of whether that's going to make a difference of how you vote because it' ll probably cost him something to have a surveyor come out there or a technician . Chairperson Sigel — We can at least guesstimate . The setback is going to be at least 15 to 20 feet from the rear, that's what it looks like . For the height , I think we' re less clear. I think what Andy is saying is that we essentially take a straw poll - if we decide that it' s incomplete , take a straw poll and give the applicant an idea of whether that additional information will make a difference . I we all are in favor of it , we might say okay come back with the exact numbers and we could approve it . It' s a little unfair to have them come back with the exact numbers and then no one approve it . Mr. MacLeod — Given the proposal that is in front of you , is there an obligation to come to a vote tonight? Chairperson Sigel — If you want us to , yes . Mr. Frost — If you want to have the meeting adjourned so that you can come back with more information- Mr. MacLeod — No . I ' m saying , if it that you can 't make a determination tonight because there is deficient information ? Is that what we are saying ? Chairperson Sigel — What I ' m trying to determine is whether it would be worth your while to get more information or not . Mr. MacLeod — Is there any possibility . . . I mean you 've got how many guys here ? Whatever it is , this Board votes and says- Chairperson Sigel — There are only five people that vote . Mr. MacLeod — Whoever they are that vote and does it have to be unanimous? Does it have to be a majority? Chairperson Sigel — No , just three . 17 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 Mr. MacLeod — And if three say , " I think the guy's got a reasonable proposal , let' s get on with it" . Chairperson Sigel — Yes . Mr. MacLeod — I ' ll take my chances . If they don 't think that , then I ' ll have the contractor take his lumber back and that's the end of it . Chairperson Sigel — Okay . Mr. Dubow - Are you recommending that they obtain a variance at the same time? Mr. Frost — I think that you ' re supposed to tell us that . Mr. Dubow — I ' m just asking whether you ' re recommending that . There's clearly going to be a rear yard deficiency as a result of this alteration . Mr. Frost — I don 't think that there 's enough information to really get of sense of the mass or the height . Mr. Dixon — That's the problem that I 've got . Mr. Dubow — So , you ' re suggesting that you need more information for this . Mr. Frost — If I was a voting member, I would be uncomfortable passing it . Mr. Dubow - I think the message may be that your interests may be better served if you can provide more information to the Board in respect to both the height issue and the depth of your set back. Mr. MacLeod — We failed the height issue . There ' s no doubt about that . Mr. Frost — I understand , but if they consider a variance for the height , they would want to know whether they should permit 38 foot or 40 foot or 42 foot . There's got to be a little bit more information for them to make a responsible decision here . Mr. MacLeod — There are 20 foot beams that go four foot into the earth . 16 plus two levels of house , plus a roof . Chairperson Sigel — We would need a survey showing what the total height is going to be if we were to grant a height variance . Mr. MacLeod — Just take a vote and let me know. You could have three guys here that say it's reasonable . This is the United States of America . Mr. Krantz — You want us to say that it's okay to be higher than 36 feet and we don 't know how much higher. Is it going to be 66 feet? 18 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. MacLeod — No . Mr. Krantz — Well , how high ? Mr. MacLeod — There' s 20 foot beams going into the earth four feet , 16 feet , that brings you up to the existing deck. Then above that , you 've got two stories of house with about seven or eight foot ceilings and then a peak . 26 feet plus 16 feet . Mr. Niefer — Has a builder looked at this and given you these figures? Mr. MacLeod — Yes . Mr. Niefer — So you have a builder's proposal ? Mr. MacLeod — The information is there . Mr. Frost — I think what he ' s talking about , Jim , is the deck , not the structure of the house , which dictates the height here . Mr. Niefer — I wanted to ascertain how firm these figures were as far as the post to support the deck and the complete height above that to the roof and whether or not they have a contractor or someone who has made a proposal for this project so he has something reasonably specific as far as numbers are concerned . Size of deck, the height of the deck and then the height up to the peak of the roof so that we knew how far above 36 feet we were going . Mr. Macleod — Six. Mr. Frost — What I ' m suggesting is that it is unlikely that the builder has looked at the house relative to the deck that would enable you to have an overall height . Mr. Ellsworth — So you ' re asking for 42 feet from the bottom of the footer to the top of the peak. You see , if this gets approved , we use a dimension . We need that number. We don 't need a whole block of numbers , just one . I ' m not saying that this would pass . We just need to specify something to vote on . Mr. MacLeod — Okay. 42 feet . Chairperson Sigel — 42 feet in height? Mr. MacLeod — Yes , which is six above the 36 . Mr. Dubow — I think that the Board needs to be aware that sort of setting this arbitrary 42 foot figure is going to create an issue as to whether that' s a number that can be enforced by your Building Department . I don 't know how you would do that for the Building Department to be able to issue a certificate of Occupancy at some point , unless Andy were to go out or someone were to go out and 19 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 measure to ensure that that' s no greater than 42 feet before the construction would start . I don 't know what Andy's position would be with respect to that . Mr. Ellsworth — We've done this a lot of times . We 've had numbers up to 52 feet. Mr. Frost — You 've had larger numbers , but you 've had some ability, based on plans to accurately determine them . Mr. Dixon — Doing dimensional drawings , if you ' re a builder, is no big deal . Mr. Dubow — (comments not audible) Mr. Frost — Depending on the quality of the plans . You ' re putting me in an awkward position . Mr. Ellsworth - So we approve it for six feet more or even say seven feet more and if it's not , then it's not in compliance . Mr. Frost — Then we 've issued a building permit conceivably on the request of a certificate of occupancy . It's up to you , I ' m just- Chairperson Ellsworth — It puts more responsibility on the Town to determine the height , as opposed to having the applicant come in with the engineer's drawings indicating that the height is correct . The Town would presumably have to hire someone to check . Mr. MacLeod — We don 't have a problem making an addendum to this thing giving you a more precise height . Mr. Ellsworth — I think what Andy is saying is that (remainder of comments not audible) Mr. Frost — I think as we' re discussing this , the applicant has shown a little bit of anger, perhaps , with the way the process is going . I anticipated this based on the information that we had for this application . We have given the applicant some opportunity to get the idea that we needed better information to take to the Board . Now we ' re debating on magical numbers here that are guesstimates . It's up to you how you want to deal with this , but my sense is that maybe you needed more information to make an objective decision here , which I think we would require from other applicants . You ' re putting me in a position of entertaining giving a certificate of occupancy where we ' re guessing numbers . Chairperson Sigel — I agree that- Mr. MacLeod — Are you going to require a C . O . on this thing when it's done ? Is that the way this world works? Mr. Frost — Yes . Mr. MacLeod — We' ll never get it . 20 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. Frost — Well , depending on how badly you want the deck, my suggestion to you , if I may say , is perhaps , adjourn the meeting , get a little bit better written information , come back to the Board and maybe you ' ll have a better opportunity of getting it passed . If the deck' s not that important to you , than you can , perhaps , ask the Board to make a decision now. But it sounds like there is some dissention among the Board members as to whether we have the proper information for them to be comfortable granting an approval , based on the information they have to support it . Evalyn MacLeod , 224 Eagle Estate Drive , Debary , Florida — What exactly is the information you want us to go back there and get? Chairperson Sigel — What the setbacks would be from the back edge of the deck to the rear property line- Mrs . MacLeod — Can you visualize this property? Chairperson Sigel — I was there today. From where the deck would be , it's getting pretty close to the water. Mr. Frost — This Board is a quasi-judicial body . What they' re doing here has legal implications . For them to be guessing or visualizing something is not the best way to do things when you can document things based on records where you could say "we made the decision because . . . " and then you point to a piece of paper that says this is the information we have . Mrs . MacLeod — I understand that , but I sat here and listened to the others whip right through . Is that because we ' re on the water? Chairperson Sigel — Well , the first case this evening was a deck and that house was non -conforming , but the deck , in that case , did not encroach on any of the setbacks required from the lot lines . The house was non -conforming in a completely unrelated way to the deck . The deck was not too close to either side lot lines or the rear lot line . Mr. Frost — And , in your case , you have a two story house on a significant slope . Chairperson Sigel — And there's a height issue . Mr. Frost — You can 't compare it to the other cases . Mr. Dubow — I think you need to understand that this Board is charged , in a situation like this , to look at this very carefully because what you ' re taking is what already the law considers to be a non - conforming piece of property, that is that there are certain conditions on the property that don 't conform with the Zoning Law , however, because it pre-existed certain of those Zoning Law provisions , it' s approved to continue in it' s current situation . When an application is made to extend those non -conforming criteria , this Board has to carefully look at that to determine whether that is in the best interest of the Town , the best interest of the neighbors , the best interest of the community . It also needs to know , as factually and as accurately as possible , what those deficiencies are . In your 21 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16, 2002 situation , unlike the original ones we 've heard , the deficiencies are tied to set backs as to both side yard and back yard and height , where none of those existed in the other ones . Mrs . MacLeod — I have to question how the existing deck passed when it is the one that is out of ordinance . Mr. Frost — That' s not what the Board is saying . They' re - Mrs . MacLeod — What we' re putting on does not require a variance to the size . Chairperson Sigel — It looks like the current deck might just barely be within the rear yard set back . I can 't tell exactly, but it appears close . I assume the variance must have been granted for the side yard setback. Mr. Frost — Just to add , one of the cases from tonight we have complete blueprints showing all the dimensions of the house , the property and the deck extension . Another case , there was no change to the footprint , it was the interior of the building they wanted . So , you 've got to be aware that the other cases that you 've heard tonight have all had circumstances that are somewhat different than what your case is . Mr. MacLeod — Good Evening . Mr. Frost — Is the Board going to make a decision ? Mr. Dubow — Are you withdrawing your application or would you like this matter adjourned ? Mr. MacLeod - You can make a decision . Chairperson Sigel opened the Public Hearing at 8 : 09 pm . With no persons present to be heard , Chairperson Sigel closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 10 pm . Chairperson Sigel — I will move to deny the appeal of Robert MacLeod , requesting a special approval under Article XII , Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to be permitted to enlarge an existing non -conforming building/lot , with the extension of an outside wood deck , located at 981 Taughannock Boulevard , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 21 -2-30 , Residence District R- 15 for the reason that the premises are not reasonably adapted to the proposed use in that the deck would encroach too far into the rear yard setback of the property . Andrew Dixon — Second . Vote : Kirk Sigel and Andrew Dixon in favor James Niefer and Harry Ellsworth opposed Ronald Krantz — Abstained . Chairperson Sigel — We need something to pass . 22 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. Dubow — That's a vote not to approve . In a vote to approve we need a majority vote . So , those people who want to approve it , then they should move to approve it . Mr. Niefer — It's two and two and we have one abstention . Chairperson Sigel — We've got two for the motion and two against and one abstention . Mr. Krantz — I think I want to change mine to against the motion . Chairperson Sigel — The motion to deny was defeated . Mr. Niefer — So , the question is did they want to withdraw it and come back with more information like we talked about . Chairperson Sigel — Well , they want a vote tonight . Mrs . MacLeod — Yah . Mr. Niefer — Well , I ' m not going to vote for it tonight . If you came in with some more concrete information , specifics , I 'd me more towards your situation . Everyone else comes in with more specifics . Talking , just generally off the top of your head on something , I just can 't — Mr. Dubow — Procedurally, if I can just explain . They' re requesting that this Board take a vote . The motion was made to deny, two people voted for that and two people voted against that and one would not vote to approve it . Mr. Niefer — Oh , I ' ll withdraw my previous vote and vote to support the motion . Mr. Dubow — Okay, I would restate the motion and take a new vote , to confirm if you would , just so we have that on record . Mr. MacLeod — Can we get a copy of this? Can we get something ? Mr. Frost — Absolutely. Chairperson Sigel — Before I do this , for your benefit , I ' ll just state that it appears that there are three members of the Board who might be inclined to vote for your case if you brought in more information . Mrs . MacLeod — We don 't know what you want . Something in writing ? With setbacks ? Is that what you want? Chairperson Sigel — What we need is a survey with exactly what you want to do , how far it's going to be from the various lot lines and what the resulting height of the entire structure is going to be . Mr. Frost — A section view of the construction of the deck . 23 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. MacLeod — We've got an encroachment on the north side . We've got the 36 foot thing . Now, in the ninth inning , you threw in the setback to the lake . I mean , come on . Mr. Frost — The setback to the lake has been there the whole time . Mr. MacLeod — (comments not audible) Someone does not want us to do this and I think maybe he's right , whoever he is or she is . Maybe it's not meant to be . Are they going to vote ? Mr. Frost — Yes . They' re going to make a formal vote now, I guess . Chairperson Sigel — I ' ll remake the motion that I just made . ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2002-086: Robert MacLeod, 981 Taughannock Blvd, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 =2-3, Residence District R- 15. MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by James Niefer. RESOLVED, that this Board denies the appeal of Robert MacLeod, Appellant/Owner, William Chaploney, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article Xll, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non-conforming building/lot, with the extension of an outside wood deck, located at 981 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 21 -2-30, Residence District R- 15. A variance from Article I V, Section 11 (6) may also be requested to allow an overall building height to exceed 36 + feet. Said building lot does not conform with the requirements for property dimensions, and the existing building has a north side yard setback of 2 to 5 feet ( 15 feet required). FINDINGS: a . The premises are not reasonably adapted to the proposed use in that the deck would encroach too far into the rear yard setback of the property. CONDITIONS: NONE The vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Niefer, Dixon, NAYS: Ellsworth The MOTION was declared to be carried. 24 APPROVED MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 16 , 2002 Mr. Frost — A couple of things . That's the first time in all my years sitting here that we 've ever had that kind of problem . I foresaw it , to be quite honest . Some of the problem here , I think there was some dissention among the Board would have not been necessary if there had been better information provided to you guys . Secondly, I did check on Tee-Ann Hunter' s . In 1956 there was a permit issued for the addition of the apartment in that garage space and there does seem to be , in 1980 , a variance for the side yard setback. I think one of the things that I was eluding to , is even the actions of the Board back during that time may have been deficient . Sometimes you are relying on those past actions , sometimes the findings of the Board in the earlier years past may have not covered all the bases . Chairperson Sigel adjourned the December 16 , 2002 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 8 : 17 p . m . P Kirk Sigel , Chair B� Lori Waring , Deputy T vn Clerk 25 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 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, December 16, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Tee-Ann Hunter, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an outside wood deck on a non-conforming building/lot located at 107 Hillcrest Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26-4- 14, Residence District R- 15 . Said parcel is non-conforming since it does not front on a Town, County, or State highway, with said . building being located 19 feet from the front property line, whereas a 25 foot building setback is required. A variance from Article IV, Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance, may also be requested. APPEAL of Rolf Pendall, Appellant, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to enlarge a single-family residence on a non-conforming lot, with the addition of a second dwelling unit, at 29 Renwick Heights Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 17-3-4, Residence District R45. Said parcel has an existing road frontage of 26 ± feet, whereas 60 feet is required. APPEAL of Larry Snyder, requesting a variance from the requirements of Article IV, Section 11 (6) to be permitted to construct a single-family residence with a building height of 39 ± feet (36 foot limitation) at 5 John Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56-343 .27, Residence District R- 15 . APPEAL of Robert MacLeod, Appellant/Owner, William Chaploney, Agent, requesting a special approval under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to enlarge an existing non-conforming building/lot, with the extension of an outside wood deck, located at 981 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 21 -2-30, Residence District R- 15 . A variance from Article IV, Section 11 (6) may also be requested to allow an overall building height to exceed 36 ± feet. Said building lot does not conform with the requirements for property dimensions, and the existing building has a north side yard setback of 2 to 5 feet ( 15 feet required). 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 : December 5 , 2002 Published : December 9, 2002 TOWN OF 1THACA 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, December 16, 2002, commencing at 7 : 00 P.M ., as per attached, Location of sign board used for posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioea Street. Date of posting: December 6, 2002 Date of publication: December 9, 2002 a Dani L. Holford, Building and Zoning epartment Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of December 2002. Vy Notary Public CARRIE WHITMORE Notary Public, State of New York No . 01 WH6052877 Tioga County Commission Expires December 26.11 1