Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1979-02-27owI2-7.,0-]ai TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 27, 1979 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Tuesday, February 27, 1979, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at 7:30 p.m-. PRESENT: Chairman Peter K. Francese, Edward W. King, Edward N. Austen, Jack D. Hewett, Joan G. Reuning, Lawrence P. Fabbroni (Town Engineer and Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: Evan N. Monkemeyer, Herbert N. Monkemeyer, E. L. Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer, Louis Hsu, Teresa Hsu, Mrs. Elsie Sheldrake, Mrs. Montgomery May, John Perialas, John Littlefield, Joel Talmadge (WTKO News), Chairman Francese declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40 Pam* .,APPEAL OF EVAN N. MONKEMEYER, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-FAMILY HOME WITH THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT MORE THAN 50o OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND GREATER THAN 50 FEET FRONT YARD WITH GARAGE IN FRONT YARD AT 1060 DANBY ROAD (118 WEST. KING ROAD), PARCEL NO, 6-39-1-15, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 2; ARTICLE III, SECTION 6; AND ARTICLE III, SECTION 7, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:41 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 16, 1979 and February 22, 1979, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property in question and upon Evan N. Monkemeyer, as party to the action, on February 16, 1979. Noting that the property in question is in an R-9 Residential District, Mr. Francese read from the Appeal Form as submitted by Mr. Monkemeyer, dated January 13, 1979, as follows: "...Both buyer and neighbors prefer a 1 (one) story building w/two families side by side rather than two stories. The buyer's preference is for a 1 -story building constructed side by side on a slab. Also, the neighbors desire a single -story building to continue their views to the North and West. In addition, rock levels in the area are close to the surface and this would make a basement excavation difficult and expensive. And, finally, from an aesthetic standpoint, the site lends itself to a long narrow building rather than 'a high, wide one, because of the .80' v. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 27, 1979 The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals met in regular session on Tuesday, February 27, 1979, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at 7:30 p.m-. PRESENT: Chairman Peter K. Francese, Edward W. King, Edward N. Austen, Jack D. Hewett, Joan G. Reuning, Lawrence P. Fabbroni (Town Engineer and Building Inspector), Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary). ALSO PRESENT: Evan N. Monkemeyer, Herbert N. Monkemeyer, E. L. Rose Gostanian Monkemeyer, Louis Hsu, Teresa Hsu, Mrs. Elsie Sheldrake, Mrs. Montgomery May, John Perialas, John Littlefield, Joel Talmadge (WTKO News), Chairman Francese declared the meeting duly opened at 7:40 Pam* .,APPEAL OF EVAN N. MONKEMEYER, APPELLANT, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-FAMILY HOME WITH THE SECOND DWELLING UNIT MORE THAN 50o OF THE FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND GREATER THAN 50 FEET FRONT YARD WITH GARAGE IN FRONT YARD AT 1060 DANBY ROAD (118 WEST. KING ROAD), PARCEL NO, 6-39-1-15, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE III, SECTION 41 PARAGRAPH 2; ARTICLE III, SECTION 6; AND ARTICLE III, SECTION 7, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:41 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 16, 1979 and February 22, 1979, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property in question and upon Evan N. Monkemeyer, as party to the action, on February 16, 1979. Noting that the property in question is in an R-9 Residential District, Mr. Francese read from the Appeal Form as submitted by Mr. Monkemeyer, dated January 13, 1979, as follows: "...Both buyer and neighbors prefer a 1 (one) story building w/two families side by side rather than two stories. The buyer's preference is for a 1 -story building constructed side by side on a slab. Also, the neighbors desire a single -story building to continue their views to the North and West. In addition, rock levels in the area are close to the surface and this would make a basement excavation difficult and expensive. And, finally, from an aesthetic standpoint, the site lends itself to a long narrow building rather than 'a high, wide one, because of the .80' Zoning Board of Appeals 2 February 27, 1979 frontage dimension of the lot and other setback requirements - placing limits on the size of the building." Mr. Monkemeyer appeared before the Board and distributed copies of the survey of the property known as 1060 Danby Road, Parcel No. 6-39-1-15, as prepared by Clarence W. Brashear Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated January 22, 1979, and showing the new lot therefrom (118 West King Road) outlined in red. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the existing parcel is about one acre in size and square footage. He stated that he is selling the lower half to create a property on West King Road (118) to Emily Gostanian and will be building a home for her. He stated that he has divided the site directly over the top of the sewer line, and, because of the slope and terrain of the site, he has had to plan to erect the house to the east end of the property with a 30 -foot setback off the proposed rear lot line and 20 -foot side yards. Mr. Monkemeyer pointed out that a carport is shown on the plans but will not be a part of the construction. He stated that the carport should be ignored on the plans before the Board. Mr. Francese noted that the Appeal, as published, indicates a garage proposed to be located in the front yard. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that at the time he spoke with Mr. Bonnell, he (Monkemeyer) had informed him that, the garage would not be constructed, adding that Mr. Bonnell must have missed that. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that a single -storey structure is more suitable to the location than a two-storey structure, pointing out the rocky terrain and the fact that to the east and to the south there are neighbors who have views of the Lake to the east and west. He stated that they would like to have these views maintained. Mr. Monkemeyer noted that the site itself has, along the north property line, a number of very mature trees. Mr. Monkemeyer noted again that the proposed house is to be one -storied, adding, with a drop of 18". He stated that he had planned building side-by-side with a party wall, and, for energy conservation reasons, he had planned a common vestibule. Mr. Monkemeyer described the structure in detail. Mr. Fabbroni inquired as to where the entryways into the dwelling are. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that they are on the south side of the building. Mr. Francese asked if there were any other entrances or exits. Mr. Monkemeyer replied that there will be sliding glass doors in the living room. Mr. King stated that, once more, the Board has before it a plot plan which does not indicate where the buildings are adjacent to the property under discussion. He pointed out that the Board does not know how far away the Hsu property is to the south. Mr. King pointed out that the Board had passed a resolution some time ago requiring applicants to indicate where adjacent buildings are. Zoning Board of Appeals 3 February 27, 1979 Mr. Francese noted that the Survey shows a shed on the Hsu property, a corner of which is over the boundary. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the shed has been discussed by Mr. Hsu and him and that he (Monkemeyer) has no problem with it, nor does Mr. Hsu. Both Mr. Monkemeyer and Mr. Hsu informed the Board that it is between 25' and 30' from the back of Mr. Hsu's house to the boundary of the new lot. Mr: Monkemeyer stated that he had received a permit from the State of New York for a curb cut on West King Road. He stated that there is a drainage ditch, primarily on his side, and his proposal here is to gain a little extra land on the site and to build a catch basin and extend out, adding that it is now 24" and he would propose a 30" pipe. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he had also spoken with a neighbor, Mr. Lewis Hamilton, 123 West King Road, who has runoff problems, adding that they discussed a sluiceway. Mr. Francese, the Board, and Mr. Monkemeyer discussed the inside setup of the proposed structure. Chairman Francese stated that he would like to review the points of this particular application, as follows: 1. The ordinance sets forth the "50%" rule; in this case both dwelling units are essentially the same size. Mr. Monkemeyer pointed out that the main unit contains 1,248 sq. ft., and the other unit contains 992 sq. ft. 2. Chairman Francese asked Mr. Fabbroni what the reference to "greater than 50 feet front yard" in the Notice means. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out Article III, Section 7, which sets forth the yard regulations for R-9 and which states that "...the front yard depth, set -back, shall not be less than 25 feet nor need it be greater than 50 feet from the street line..." Mr. Fabbroni asked for the Board to interpret this. Messrs. Francese and King stated that they saw no problem with this part of the statute in re the Appeal under discussion. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the reason for the setback is for sewer flow. Mr. Fabbroni commented that he had just wanted to hear it from Mr. Monkemeyer, 3. Chairman Francese noted that Mr. Monkemeyer is not going to build the carport, therefore, the only violation would be the 50% rule. Mr. King stated that the side yards are adequate. Mr. Fabbroni agreed, noting that in R-9 the side yard requirement is 10 feet. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he believed that under the ordinance, in R-9, this building could be built stacked with equal -sized units, if the apartment were in the basement. Mr. Francese cited Article III, Section 4, paragraph 2, of the ordinance, said paragraph reading as follows: "A two family dwelling, provided that the second dwelling unit Zoning Board of Appeals n r, February 27, 1979 shall not exceed 50% of the floor area excluding the basement of the primary dwelling unit except where the second dwelling unit is constructed entirely within the basement area, it may exceed 50%," Mr. Francese pointed out that Mr. Monkemeyer has stated that the proposed structure ,is to be built on a slab; there is no basement. Mr. King asked Mr. Monkemeyer what his reason was for asking for variance. Mr. Monkemeyer replied that it was a response to his neighbor's to the south request that his views be maintained and also those of his father and Rose Gostanian, and, also because of the rock. He stated that the site terrain lends itself to this type of construction since a basement would building wants to live in the proposed require excavation into solid rock. Chairman Francese asked if Ms. 4. Chairman Francese noted that Bolton Point water and City sewer is available. Mr. Monkemeyer commented that his step -sister for whom he is building wants to live in the proposed house or lease it out. Chairman Francese asked if Ms. Gostanian understands the occupancy requirements of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that there was no intention of filling the structure with students. Mr. Francese discussed with Mr. Monkemeyer the exterior siding contemplated. Mr. Francese asked if anyone had any questions. There were none forthcoming. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Mr. Monkemeyer had presented a pretty complete set of plans, adding, however, that anything the Board decides here tonight would have to be subject to his review of the plans. Mr. Fabbroni asked Mr. Monkemeyer if there were any way that the primary entry to the house could be from the north side instead of to the south, noting that the Hsu house looks to be no more than 40 to 50 feet away. Mr. Monkemeyer commented that from an energy conservation standpoint you want to orient your bedrooms and entrances away from the prevailing winds and, also, you want to take advantage of the sun's rays. He stated also, from the way the house is laid out, the bedroom areas seem to be the most quiet and the living areas, being to the north, would be more likely to be used for recreation. He commented that, with an occupancy of two families, at most the problem would be people walking back and forth, adding, also, the site tends to be somewhat lower in elevation than the Hsu property. Mr. Hsu stated to the Board that he and Mrs. Hsu have the property at 114 King Road West immediately south of the appellant's property. He stated that they and Mr. Monkemeyer have talked about this new dwelling and they have some degree of understanding, and, they appreciate Mr. Monkemeyer's ® understanding, nevertheless, the fact is that they are going to lose their privacy. He stated that they lived in Collegetown for three years and in the City also, so they moved out for the quiet Zoning Board of Appeals 5 February 27, 1979 and peace. He stated that they have enjoyed the site for five years. He stated that they have good neighbors and they love the neighborhood which is quiet and peaceful. He stated that with the prospect of new neighbors, he did not know what would take place. Mr. Hsu noted again that they are losing their privacy. He commented that, although a one -storey house is planned, they could not see through the windows. He stated that they would like to ask Mr. Monkemeyer to make a fence west of the shed, along the border, so that at least they have some degree of privacy in the summer for a barbeque or for a breeze. Mr. Hsu stated that his request was for a fence at the property limit. Mr. Hsu stated that he would also like to ask about the use of the building. He stated that it is proposed that the building will be used for single family occupancy and that is very good. Mr. Hsu stated that they would like the Board to make it a specific stipulation that the structure contain two single families. Chairman Francese pointed out to Mr. Hsu that each of the dwellings may be rented to a family plus one unrelated person, or, to one family in one unit and two unrelated persons in the other unit. He noted that at the most the structure may house no more than three unrelated persons. Mr. Hsu stated that he would like to speak about the front door, noting that it is very close to their windows -- just about 40' to 451, and they could really see through the windows. Mr. Monkemeyer suggested that this is a property owners' problem and he and Mr. Hsu could discuss this later. Chairman Francese commented that he would remind Mr. Hsu that a structure could be built two stories high without appearing before the Board of Appeals at all. Mr. Hsu stated that they are trying to be good neighbors and so is Mr. Monkemeyer, however, he would like to request a fence. Mr. Hsu asked Mr. Monkemeyer where he proposed the parking to be since he is not going to have a garage. Mr. Monkemeyer responded that, as it is drawn right now, he planned that cars will park either in front of the building, to the west end of the building, between West King Road and the building, or along the south boundary, Mr. Hsu's north boundary. The parking described on the plan was noted. Chairman Francese stated that the Board will certainly take Mr. Hsu's request under advisement and discuss it. Mr. Francese noted that the views have been taken into consideration by Mr. Monkemeyer, Mr. King asked if there were not some prohibition about parking in a front yard. Mr. Francese commented that in R-9 he did not find it so. Mr. Monkemeyer pointed out that he has allowed for parking for four cars. Chairman Francese cited Article XIII, Section 69, as follows: "...No automobile parking Zoning Board of Appeals 6 February 27, 1979 area shall be included in any front yard, except for a lot with a so single dwelling, housing not more than 2 families." Mr. Herbert N. Monkemeyer stated from the floor that he and his wife are on the other side from Mr. Hsu and they do not anticipate any problems with views or parking. Mr. Hsu wondered, with the proposed lot being flat, should the parking be facing north. Chairman Francese stated that, if there were no objection, he would propose a possible condition that Mr. Monkemeyer make efforts to minimize the impact of this proposal on his neighbor, Mr. Hsu, Chairman Francese asked if there were any further comments. Mr. King stated that he thought the request for the variance reasonable enough to preserve the view since the appellant is proposing a one -storey structure. The following action took place: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Mr. Evan N. Monkemeyer's proposal for a two-family dwelling where each unit is approximately equal in size is not in gross violation of the zoning ordinance, it being that Mr. Monkemeyer could have proposed to construct these units exactly the same size if one were beneath the other, rather than side-by-side. 2. The proposed units have no basement, hence further additions of dwelling space would be impossible. 3. Mr. Monkemeyer indicates that the general presence of rock in this area could increase his costs substantially if he had to dig down to put in a basement. 4. Mr. Monkemeyer has paid a considerable amount of due to the views of his neighbors by proposing to build a one -storey dwelling, which is approximately 10 feet, rather than a two-storey dwelling. 5. The garage or carport which was proposed to be in the front yard has been eliminated. 6. Side yards and lot size are more than adequate for an R-9 District. 7. The dwelling is proposed to be more than 50 feet from the road line of King Road West which is certainly within the spirit and letter of the Zoning Ordinance. Is8. There is public water and sewer available. Zoning Board of Appeals 7 February 27, 1979 ® 9. Mr. Monkemeyer indicates that he will be providing off-street parking for four automobiles immediately to the west of the proposed two-family dwelling, and the cars will be pointed toward the house, with a turn -around to the north. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Edward Austen: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact in the matter of the Appeal of Evan N. Monkemeyer, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant an area variance from the requirements of Article III, Section 4, paragraph 2, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a two-family dwelling wherein the second dwelling unit is more than 500 of the floor area of the primary dwelling unit, at 1060 Danby Road (118 West King Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-39-1-15, as proposed by Evan N. Monkemeyer, subject to the following conditions: 1. that Mr. Monkemeyer make all reasonable efforts to preserve the privacy of his neighbor, Mr. Hsu, to the south. 2* that, although the plans appear to be complete, the building meet all requirements of the New York State Building ® Construction Codes. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, King, Austen, Hewett, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Evan N. Monkemeyer Appeal duly closed at 8:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF ELSIE AND RAYMOND SHELDRAKE, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO BUILD AN OFFICE AND GREENHOUSE IN EXCESS OF TOTAL LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS AT 806 ELMIRA ROAD, PARCEL NO. 6-33-1-6, 7.1, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 20, 22, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:38 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 16, 1979 and February 22, 1979, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of the property in question and upon Zoning Board of Appeals 8 February 27, 1979 Elsie and Raymond Sheldrake, as parties to the action, on February 16, 1979. Mrs. Sheldrake appeared before the Board. Chairman Francese read aloud the Notice of Appeal as published and as noted above. Noting that the subject property is in an R-30 Residential Zone, Chairman Francese read aloud from the Appeal Form as signed and submitted by Mrs. Elsie Sheldrake. and dated January 31, 1979, as follows: "...Having been denied permission to build an office and greenhouse for research at 806 Elmira Road, Ithaca, New York...in violation of Section(s) 20, 22, of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance...PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES and/or UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP as follows: R. Sheldrake has retired from Cornell and needs an office and greenhouse at home to continue his research. Members of the family will be helping in the greenhouse. Our neighbor, Mrs. Ruth McMillan, does not object to our operations." Chairman Francese noted the drawing attached to the Appeal Form depicting nine (9) greenhouses on the Sheldrake property and the proposed tenth one with office. Mr. Francese noted that the Board members had each received copies of these documents in the mail with their Agenda. Mrs. Sheldrake stated that the proposed tenth structure has a concrete foundation and wooden frame. She stated that the other nine structures are not all greenhouses - some have no sides. Chairman Francese noted that the new greenhouse contains 3,796 sq.ft. and the office contains 648 sq.ft. Mrs. Sheldrake stated that the building is about 150 feet long and maybe 26 feet wide, adding that it is 119 feet from the nearest lot line (McMillan). She stated that the parcel contains 6.93 acres. Chairman Francese noted again that this is an R-30 Residential District. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is an R-30 District but the adjacent McMillan Farm is still farmed. Mr. Fabbroni stated that in the process of researching this property and Mrs. Sheldrake asking for this variance, staff found that the lot coverage is well over the percentage requirement under the ordinance. He noted that the nine structures have been in place for some time and contain around 21,000 sq.ft., and, referring to the drawing, one is 25 feet from the nearest lot line, another 52 feet, not to mention the house, garage and two large barns. Mr. Fabbroni asked the Board to consider the question - when does temporary become permanent? Chairman Francese asked if these greenhouses were assessed as temporary. Mrs. Sheldrake said yes. Mrs. Sheldrake stated that some of them have plastic over wood frames and a lot are set on top of the ground. She said that they have to replace the plastic every two years. Zoning Board of Appeals 9 February 27, 1979 ® Mr. Fabbroni stated that, from our point of view, the tenth greenhouse with office under discussion does not pose a problem from where it is located, but, if everyone else started constructing greehouses, it would. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the intent and lot coverage is pertinent here. Mr. Fabbroni stated that this greenhouse and office has not presented a problem and probably will not present a problem for fifty years. Mr. Fabbroni.stated that, from the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, he would look at it as a structure. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he was very concerned about a precedent. Chairman Francese Chairman Francese stated stated that that was a that it seemed to him that good they point. are all structures with this one far Chairman Francese asked Mrs. swimming pool under one of stated that there was. less temporary Sheldrake if these structures. than there Mrs. the others. were not a Sheldrake Mrs. Sheldrake presented the following letter to the Board: "February 27, 1979 Sirs: I have no objection to the Sheldrakes use, for their green houses and research building, on their property, adjacent to my farm at 812 Elmira Rd. Ruth Rice McMillan" Chairman Francese summed up what the Board had before them, as follows: (1) The Sheldrakes have almost seven acres, 6.93 acres, of land. (2) The proposed building is over 100 feet from the nearest lot line. (3) No one came to object. (4) A letter from Mrs. McMillan.' (5) The proposed building does not occupy any part of the- required herequired rear yard. (6) The other greenhouses, most of them, are temporary structures, but structures nonetheless. (7) This use is consistent with'not only the present use of this land as agriculture but also the use of the adjoining property, McMillan, is agricultural. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mr. Jack Hewett: RESOLVED, that the Town of. Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant permission to Elsie and Raymond Sheldrake, 806 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. is6-33-1-6, 7.1, to build a greenhouse and office thereby exceeding the ten per cent (10%) lot coverage rule. f. Zoning Board of Appeals 10 February 27, 1979 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, King, Austen, Hewett, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Sheldrake Appeal duly closed at 8:56 p.m. APPEAL OF JOHN AND DORIS PERIALAS, APPELLANTS, FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENYING PERMISSION TO CONVERT A LEGAL NON -CONFORMING FOUR (4) DWELLING UNIT BUILDING TO THREE (3) DWELLING UNITS AND A MONTESSORI SCHOOL AT 142 HONNESS LANE, PARCEL NO. 6-60-1-16, ITHACA, N.Y. PERMISSION IS DENIED UNDER ARTICLE XI, SECTIONS 54 AND 55; ARTICLE IV, SECTION 11, PARAGRAPH 4; ARTICLE IV, SECTION 12, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 61 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:57 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 16, 1979 and February 22, 1979, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice ® upon the various neighbors of the property in question and upon John and Doris Perialas, as parties to the action, on February 16, 1979. Mr. John Perialas and Mr. John Littlefield were present to speak to the matter. Chairman Francese read aloud the Notice of Public Hearing as published and as noted above. Chairman Francese read from the Appeal Form as submitted and signed by John Perialas, dated February 1, 1979, as follows: "...A Montessori School would not only help the community but would also create a job for a qualified teacher. It would also eliminate from 6-8 full time tenants that now live in the house." Chairman Francese how the approval sought would eliminate 6-8 full-time tenants that now live in the house. Mr. Perialas stated that the plan is to eliminate one four-bedroom rental unit and have it occupied by his daughter and son-in-law and also one apartment in the basement. Mr. Perialas presented a plan for the Board to review and indicated where the structure is located. Chairman Francese stated that call with regard to this request concerned about fire protection. respect to doors. he had received a telephone from someone who was very A discussion followed with Chairman Francese asked when the proposed school would be in session. Mr. Perialas described the schedule, noting that the Vt Zoning Board of Appeals 11 February 27, 1979 school is proposed to run from 8:30 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. with a nap time for the children. Mrs. Eleanor May, 1360 Slaterville floor and asked how many children are Road, spoke anticipated to from the attend the proposed school. Mr. Perialas indicated that 15 children be attending the school. Mr. Perialas stated that the would be owner -occupied with the owner living directly would structure above the school which will be in apartments would also be the basement, adding that the two other on the same level as the homeowner. Chairman Francese asked how many teachers would be involved. Mr. Perialas stated that there would be a maximum of two besides his daughter. Mr. Perialas apologized that his daughter, Valerie, was not able to be present and stated that she was about to have a baby. Chairman Francese made note of the fact that with 15 students there would be at least two teachers on duty. Mrs. May stated that she was in the building five years ago and she would consider it a fire trap. Mr. Perialas agreed but pointed out that there have been many changes since then. Chairman Francese asked Mr. Perialas if a. license from the State was needed. Mr. Perialas stated that it was not. Mr. Fabbroni pointed out that the building will have to meet the code requirements for a nursery school which may, perhaps, have higher fire protection requirements. Mr. Perialas stated that he went through this with Mr. Bonnell who indicated that he saw no major problems, however, he (Bonnell) did make recommendations. Mrs. May wondered about regulations for bathrooms, etc. Mr. Perialas stated that there were regulations as to facilities. Mr. Perialas commented that the building under discussion is the red one closest to Pine Tree Road, Chairman Francese noted that the proposed school consists of four rooms plus a bath. Mr. Perialas, utilizing the plan presented, spoke of his discussions with Mr. Bonnell as to the electric heating system. He stated that Mr. Bonnell said that one particular area containing the heating system would have to be partitioned off and there would have to be at least three exits. Mr. Perialas described the "child care room", also used for sleeping, and having two exits. He stated that it would be in this room that language, math, practical life, and sensorial teaching would take place. Mr. King asked what the foundation construction was. Mr. Perialas stated that it was cinder block construction. Mr. Perialas stated that whatever the regulations are, they will have to comply with them. Mr. Hewett noted that the Board, at its previous informal discussion of this proposal, had discussed a turn -around for Zoning Board of Appeals 12 February 27, 1979 letting the children off. Chairman Francese stated that there is room presently for nine cars, adding that the plan the Board has before them shows that there is a turn -around so that the children coming in would be entirely off Honness Lane in a driveway. Mrs. May commented that the other barracks building there is away from the traffic area. Chairman Francese noted that the plans indicate that the playground area will be fenced. Mr. Fabbroni inquired as to how many people lived in the house when Mr. Perialas bought it. Mr. Perialas stated that, as he recalled, there were two to four in there when they bought it, adding that it was a mess. Mr. Perialas stated that, prior to that, there was a minimum of ten occupants. Mrs. May stated that she would ask that the appearance could be improved -- at least some paint would help -- and, perhaps, some landscaping. Chairman Francese stated that he did not notice on the plan any kitchen and wondered if the children bring their own lunch. Mr. Perialas stated that there is to be a kitchen area in the "practical life" room. The following action took place: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. A Montessori School would have no greater impact on the neighborhood than an apartment house with students. 2. School only operates in the daytime. 3. Multiple entrances and exits will be provided. 4. No one appeared in opposition to the proposal, one person appeared with questions regarding appearances. 5. A turn -around will be provided with an entrance and an exit, as well as ample off-street parking. MOTION by Mr. Peter Francese, seconded by Mrs. Joan Reuning: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals adopt and hereby does adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that said Board of Appeals grant and hereby does grant permission to John and Doris Perialas to convert a legal, non -conforming, four -dwelling unit building located at 142 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-60-1-16, to three dwelling units and a Montessori School, • Zoning Board of Appeals 13 February 27, 1979 IS subject to compliance with New York State Building Code requirements regarding nursery schools. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Francese, King, Austen, Hewett, Reuning. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairman Francese declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Perialas Appeal duly closed at 9:22 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Chairman Francese declared the February 27, 1979 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals duly adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals. Peter K. Francese, Chairman